# Roger Montgomery Fund



## MaZed

Hi Everyone,

Has anyone, or is anyone part of the Montgomery Fund?

Would u recommend it?

MaZed


----------



## robusta

*Re: Rodger Montgomery Fund*

Just one comment, investing in managed funds with good recent returns is probably the best way to under perform in the future.


----------



## coolcup

MaZed said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Has anyone, or is anyone part of the Montgomery Fund?
> 
> Would u recommend it?
> 
> MaZed




Hi there. I am an investor and am very happy with their performance to date. I listen to a lot of what Montgomery says in general and I find he is articulate, rational and very upfront with his views rather than hiding behind a lot of the usual generalised statements most investment houses and fund managers use.


----------



## joku

Montgomery has some great insight but most of the best is rehashed. He is offering a high risk / high reward fund option, the risk is hard to judge because a lot of it rests on his ability to invest far superior than average to prove successful in the longer term. Historically (prior to these funds) he has not executed so great in the long term. He has had long periods of out-performance but made major mistakes. He's shifted from his sound advice at critical times and along with some major losses also got out of some train wrecks just in time but far later than he should have based on that advice. This is true for pretty much any investor but there is really very little room for fault in concentrated portfolios. He is fairly good, better than most, but maybe still shooting too high. History says he hasn't quite been up to it in the past when in comes to following in the footsteps of great investors he is trying to imitate. Maybe he will prove to be now but I still doubt it - only time will tell. Just make sure you do your homework and never confuse his long term ability to sell himself with his long term ability to invest - his success and your success is not entirely entwined.


----------



## McLovin

joku said:


> Just make sure you do your homework and never confuse his long term ability to sell himself with his long term ability to invest - his success and your success is not entirely entwined.




Great advice. He's a world class salesman.


----------



## coolcup

McLovin said:


> Great advice. He's a world class salesman.




agree with this!!!


----------



## TikoMike

I love his psychic reads on MCE and JBH. They guy is just that good....apparently. 

For someone who apparently follows Buffett religiously where Buffett values truth, honesty and when people can admit when they go wrong when they do go wrong, Roger Montgomery is apparently never wrong (even when evaluating speculative mining stocks). Got to love how he disallows Youtube comments on all his videos too. There's a tell-tale sign he's a dodgy prick.


----------



## Pager

He seems to reinvent himself every few years, I can remember a few years ago he did seminars called the opening bell, then he started selling index futures system called AGI (Australian Global Investor), sounded very grand but really only traded the Hang Seng and Nikkei with a pretty basic system that had a major flaw in it that trading real time exposed, over time it may have made money but not much and the drawdown in-between would have been huge, also what I heard he had so many people signed up and trading the system that slippage particularly on the Hang Seng was huge at times but as some one who trades the Hang Seng slippage on this market is the norm and sometimes brutal, be interested to know if anyone still trades this system but I would be very surprised ?.


He then started selling some software called Sherpa and you had to subscribe to special data not sure how good it was but wasn’t around very long, then he moved on to setting up a listed equity fund based on Warren Buffet type value trading but Australian stocks that did ok until caught in some massive falls in a few company’s but rather than get out the fund hung on to them as they went into free fall, he then resigned as MD, the fund did recover and is still listed (CAM) what involvement if any he still has im not sure.

There’s also been another software offering and a subscription service, maybe other things as well, not sure if any are still going ?, now he’s starting another fund by the sounds of things, not sure if this is listed or not ?.

Chatted with him a couple of times and seems a decent bloke, not going to say he’s a spruker just after money but agree with others he’s basically a very good salesmen, my only criticism is that when the going gets tough with anything he’s involved with he seems to jump ship and move onto something else, but maybe there are other reasons as for all the sudden changes or things he’s involved with after all this is how he makes a living so maybe he just goes with the next project once one is exhausted, all the same it doest give me confidence personally to invest money with him.

Just my 2 cents worth though


----------



## Tightwad

i had a look at it recently, but I'm leaning more towards topping up my index etf.  Any gains above the index in a managed fund are eaten into with a higher management and outperformance fee.


----------



## Bottom Feeder

MaZed said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Has anyone, or is anyone part of the Montgomery Fund?
> 
> Would u recommend it?
> 
> MaZed




Back in about March 2009, Roger sold his Clime Investment shares that he obtained at the expense of Clime Capital Shareholders at the bottom of the market.  Its all on the ASX substantial shareholder/director notices. Roger then resigned/was kicked off the board at around the end of June 2009.  When Roger formed CAM, he made this big deal about giving away 10% of the profits from his management contract (that he sold for those Clime Investment shares) to poor little African orphans.  I bet no profits have been forwarded since those shares were issued. 

At his 'Woodstock for Capitalist' meeting when he ran Clime, Roger said houses were too expensive and he would rent.  If you listen to his Nov 2013 ASX youtube video, he states he has lost money being emotional about properties.  If he actually followed his own advice, he wouldn't have lost anything.  I can only deduce that his wife is the one that really pulls the financial strings and his actions at the bottom of the market in 2009 indicate he is a choker.  

Roger speaks well and should be a teacher.  But they say those that can't do - teach.


----------



## Lateinvestor

Responses in the thread are a bit old (dated 2013) and wanted to get a more recent feedback. Has any one been part of Montgomery fund and got burned or made some growth?


----------



## Lateinvestor

Responses in the thread are a bit old (dated 2013) and wanted to get a more recent feedback. Has any one been part of Montgomery fund and got burned or made some growth?


----------



## coolcup

I am still an investor and have continued to top up with additional funds. The reasons for my investment are:

1. He focuses on the smaller / mid cap end of the market which is an area of the market I do not have the time to research but also want exposure to
2. He has outperformed in good and bad periods since inception (albeit the fund has only been around for a few years)
3. He explains his investment decisions in a way I understand and at the individual stock level, so I have a fairly real time sense of whether his methodology is changing or if I disagree with any of his assessments
4. He can hold a high level of cash so doesn't need to be fully invested all the time

He also doesn't avoid large caps when he perceives they are undervalued, it is just rare that he sees value in the top 50 stocks and that is an area which I can cover off myself.


----------



## minwa

coolcup said:


> I am still an investor and have continued to top up with additional funds. The reasons for my investment are:
> 
> 1. He focuses on the smaller / mid cap end of the market which is an area of the market I do not have the time to research but also want exposure to
> 2. He has outperformed in good and bad periods since inception (albeit the fund has only been around for a few years)
> 3. He explains his investment decisions in a way I understand and at the individual stock level, so I have a fairly real time sense of whether his methodology is changing or if I disagree with any of his assessments
> 4. He can hold a high level of cash so doesn't need to be fully invested all the time
> 
> He also doesn't avoid large caps when he perceives they are undervalued, it is just rare that he sees value in the top 50 stocks and that is an area which I can cover off myself.




Looks like he's consistently outperformed the ASX index for a few years. The site dosn't disclose whether that's net of ees though. What are his management and/or performance fees ?


----------



## coolcup

minwa said:


> Looks like he's consistently outperformed the ASX index for a few years. The site dosn't disclose whether that's net of ees though. What are his management and/or performance fees ?




You can get all the info you need from his PDS

http://fundhost.com.au/investor/tmf


----------



## minwa

coolcup said:


> You can get all the info you need from his PDS
> 
> http://fundhost.com.au/investor/tmf




Thanks, while I have no interest in investing good see an Australian index alternative that has solid performance and fair fees.


----------



## OmegaTrader

my two cents:

A very smooth operator.

How does he shave his face so closely....

Seriously

google clime asset management. 

CAM, Monty was manager

I think he left around/ just after the GFC after his fund got destroyed.







Just looking at the chart right now incidentally.

If you include this in his performance the returns don't look as great.

The new fund started after GFC crash and has done well so far....

Time will tell when the next crash comes....


----------



## Darc Knight

OmegaTrader said:


> my two cents:
> 
> A very smooth operator.
> 
> How does he shave his face so closely....
> 
> Seriously
> 
> google clime asset management.
> 
> CAM, Monty was manager
> 
> I think he left around/ just after the GFC after his fund got destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69287
> 
> 
> Just looking at the chart right now incidentally.
> 
> If you include this in his performance the returns don't look as great.
> 
> The new fund started after GFC crash and has done well so far....
> 
> Time will tell when the next crash comes....




Some interesting comments there Omega. His fund is one of the funds I'm looking at parking my money until I decide what to do other than I.F.s

I'm guessing his book isn't really worth it. Why would you give the competition a leg up.


----------



## Klogg

Darc Knight said:


> Some interesting comments there Omega. His fund is one of the funds I'm looking at parking my money until I decide what to do other than I.F.s
> 
> I'm guessing his book isn't really worth it. Why would you give the competition a leg up.




I'm not a financial adviser, so I can't tell you where to put your money. But I can suggest you look at the following:
- DMX Asset Management (but look into the application/redemption mechanism)
- EGP Capital
- Bronte Capital (only if you can qualify as a significant investor)


----------



## Darc Knight

Klogg said:


> I'm not a financial adviser, so I can't tell you where to put your money. But I can suggest you look at the following:
> - DMX Asset Management (but look into the application/redemption mechanism)
> - EGP Capital
> - Bronte Capital (only if you can qualify as a significant investor)




Cheers. Just had a brief look. They all look and sound the same. Bronte Cap is closed to new Investors.
I thought going with Montgomery might be a safer bet as he has a reputation to protect, but after reading some of the comments in this thread


----------



## Klogg

Darc Knight said:


> Cheers. Just had a brief look. They all look and sound the same. Bronte Cap is closed to new Investors.
> I thought going with Montgomery might be a safer bet as he has a reputation to protect, but after reading some of the comments in this thread




EGP Capital has some very interesting fees. The fund manager takes a 0.2% fee (or there abouts) to cover their fundhost costs. Then, the only fee they take is 25% of their outperformance of the benchmark (ASX200).

So if they don't beat the benchmark, you pay nothing until they recover that amount and then some.

Not to mention the fund manager has all of his wealth (other than his house) inside the fund.


----------



## luutzu

Klogg said:


> EGP Capital has some very interesting fees. The fund manager takes a 0.2% fee (or there abouts) to cover their fundhost costs. Then, the only fee they take is 25% of their outperformance of the benchmark (ASX200).
> 
> So if they don't beat the benchmark, you pay nothing until they recover that amount and then some.
> 
> Not to mention the fund manager has all of his wealth (other than his house) inside the fund.




So it's "lose I don't make a loss; win I take 25% above and beyond"?

I'd be more impressed if the fund manager charges nothing if the fund under perform.


----------



## Klogg

luutzu said:


> So it's "lose I don't make a loss; win I take 25% above and beyond"?
> 
> I'd be more impressed if the fund manager charges nothing if the fund under perform.




The fund manager has all of his wealth (other than his house), in the fund. I think that's a great incentive not to lose money...


----------



## luutzu

Klogg said:


> The fund manager has all of his wealth (other than his house), in the fund. I think that's a great incentive not to lose money...




Nobody wants to lose money. That dislike alone never stopped money from being lost. 

So this fund is slightly better than the industry's norm of heads I win, tail you lose. But it's nothing exceptional. I mean the guy still get his wages and all the expenses paid no matter how he perform. 

It's a smart deal we all wish we could make. But it doesn't really stand up to being recommended as awesome because he's not being paid if he under perform.

He is being paid, just no bonuses. And most idiots could easily beat the market anyway.


----------



## InsvestoBoy

luutzu said:


> And most idiots could easily beat the market anyway.




go on then...


----------



## luutzu

InsvestoBoy said:


> go on then...




Maybe I already have.

Sure it's spare change and all, but if you think that doing well on small fund is easy while doing well with larger fund is hard... you've been reading someone else's press release.


----------



## InsvestoBoy

luutzu said:


> Maybe I already have.
> 
> Sure it's spare change and all, but if you think that doing well on small fund is easy while doing well with larger fund is hard... you've been reading someone else's press release.




Oh we can just say whatever we like?

Right then yeah, even though my portfolio is all in market tracking ETFs and LICs, I have also beat the market.


----------



## luutzu

InsvestoBoy said:


> Oh we can just say whatever we like?
> 
> Right then yeah, even though my portfolio is all in market tracking ETFs and LICs, I have also beat the market.




Your portfolio is your business. Other smart money's stashing other people's cash into indices is their business. 

But sure, people will just hand their cash over to some guy in a suit in a big building to play with and pay them no matter how the performance went. 

Might as well head down to AMP for a few financial advise session. Or throw the money into Circular Quay.

A cursory look at the Fund Management industry show it is a joke. This kind of business model will not last too much longer.


----------



## Klogg

luutzu said:


> Nobody wants to lose money. That dislike alone never stopped money from being lost.
> 
> So this fund is slightly better than the industry's norm of heads I win, tail you lose. But it's nothing exceptional. I mean the guy still get his wages and all the expenses paid no matter how he perform.
> 
> It's a smart deal we all wish we could make. But it doesn't really stand up to being recommended as awesome because he's not being paid if he under perform.
> 
> He is being paid, just no bonuses. And most idiots could easily beat the market anyway.




But he's not being paid. The 0.2% is only for Fundhost costs. 
The fund is at 50m or so, so the fee right now is 100k. Given these ARE the costs, he takes nothing.

As for "most idiots could easily beat the market anyway", that's clearly wrong. 
http://www.aei.org/publication/more...ime-95-of-financial-professionals-cant-do-it/

(Look at the table, 15 year outperformance of benchmark. The % of funds that don't beat the benchmark varies, but it ranges from 83-96% that FAIL to outperform).


----------



## luutzu

Klogg said:


> But he's not being paid. The 0.2% is only for Fundhost costs.
> The fund is at 50m or so, so the fee right now is 100k. Given these ARE the costs, he takes nothing.
> 
> As for "most idiots could easily beat the market anyway", that's clearly wrong.
> http://www.aei.org/publication/more...ime-95-of-financial-professionals-cant-do-it/
> 
> (Look at the table, 15 year outperformance of benchmark. The % of funds that don't beat the benchmark varies, but it ranges from 83-96% that FAIL to outperform).




$100K is not nothing. He still get his cost covered. What happen when the fund under management goes to $500M or more? That's a pretty standard size nowadays isn't it?

Just because "95% of the professional" can't beat the market doesn't mean the common "idiot" can't. 

An average, ordinary investor does not have the same  incentive structure as a professional. That and they do not follow the idiotic concept of selling out on a crash but loading up on a rise. 

Imagine you've done all the smart professional stuff. Based on all that smart analysis you buy a stock. Then suddenly it got cheaper... what should you do?

Most of the "pros" incentive is to sell and not buy. One, it look really stupid to own a down stock while others are getting bonuses by jumping on the rising ones. Looking stupid gets you fired. That and it's not so stupid when everyone else is doing it too.

For the average "investor"... if it goes down all they have to do is not tell the missus.


----------



## InsvestoBoy

luutzu said:


> That and they do not follow the idiotic concept of selling out on a crash but loading up on a rise.




All the evidence indicates that they absolutely do.


----------



## Klogg

luutzu said:


> $100K is not nothing. He still get his cost covered. What happen when the fund under management goes to $500M or more? That's a pretty standard size nowadays isn't it?




1) He's hard closing the fund at $100m
2) The $100k only covers fundhost, an actual expense. There's no wage without performance.

If you don't think this is impressive, please feel free to open a fund that pays investors when a paper loss is made.


----------



## luutzu

InsvestoBoy said:


> All the evidence indicates that they absolutely do.




Share traders don't call themselves "professional" smart money master of the universe. They just trade in and out of stock to make a buck, not pretending to be some sort of genius who ought to be pay if they do poorly, pay bonuses and extra fees when luck goes their way.

If you look at how frequent individual stock that disappoint crashes by 20% to 45%... it's getting more frequent. That's not a sign of the market knowing what it's doing.


----------



## luutzu

Klogg said:


> 1) He's hard closing the fund at $100m
> 2) The $100k only covers fundhost, an actual expense. There's no wage without performance.
> 
> If you don't think this is impressive, please feel free to open a fund that pays investors when a paper loss is made.




Paying investor on paper losses is not the same as not having your operating costs covered when you make losses.

But aren't we arguing over what's impressive about a fund manager? Shouldn't the measure, at the end of the day, their performance on funds under management as well as their pay scale?

How's his fund going?


----------

