FundAlarm - Highlights & Commentary Archive

Highlights and Commentary

By Roy Weitz

(Originally posted September 1, 2003) [Archive Table of Contents]

July was a bad month for almost every bond fund, but the absolute worst of the category was FBR Total Return Bond.....How bad is bad?.....The FBR fund lost a jaw-dropping 19%+ for the month, while the average taxable bond fund lost about 2.5%.....Clearly, something unusual is going on at FBR Total Return Bond, but good luck figuring out what it is.....We do know that the FBR fund invests in U.S. Government securities, and we also know (from the prospectus) that the fund is allowed to "purchase and sell futures contracts and options on future contracts in seeking to increase the total return of the Fund or to protect the fund from adverse interest rates".....The best guess is that something went wrong with the fund's futures/options strategy, but the fund's subadvisor seems unable or unwilling to explain exactly what happened.....An even bigger question is whether investors were properly informed of this fund's potential for astonishing volatility.....A representative of FBR acknowledges that "there are risks in the fund's use of futures and options," but he claims those risks "are fully disclosed to investors in the prospectus"*.....We plan to contact FBR, to see if there's a portion of this fund's prospectus that's written in invisible ink....Meanwhile, in the visible part of the prospectus, here's the entire discussion of risk as it relates to futures:

"Utilization of futures transactions by the Fund involves several risks. First, it is possible that there will not be a perfect price correlation between a futures contract and its underlying security. Second, it is possible that a lack of liquidity for futures contracts could exist in the secondary market, resulting in an inability to close a futures position prior to its maturity date. Third, the purchase of a futures contract involves the risk that the Fund could lose more than the original margin deposit required to initiate a futures transaction."

If this qualifies as adequate disclosure that a U.S. Government bond fund can drop 19%+ in one month, then I'm a class action lawyer.
"How 'Worst' Bond Fund Did It," Karen Damato, The Wall Street Journal, August 12, 2003

Speaking of class action lawyers: Back in late 2001, when FBR Total Return Bond (above) was still Rushmore U.S. Government Bond Portfolio, shareholders voted to approve a change in the fund's investment policy, which allowed the fund's managers to begin using futures and options strategies.....According to a letter from the Chairman of the fund's Board of Directors, which was sent to shareholders before their vote, the new investment strategy "would benefit the Fund without materially changing [its] risk profile".....Guess what, guys: You were WRONG!

If you buy a fund with an obscenely high expense ratio, should you still be allowed to sue the fund company for overcharging you?.....Some would say "no," since expense ratios are disclosed in the prospectus, and most fund shareholders can read.....But shareholder Lionel Amron is having none of this disclosure stuff.....Amron is suing the folks who run Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Index, claiming that they are "grossly overcompensated" by the fees they earn from this fund.....Amron is clearly correct -- just look at the 1.50% expense ratio for the "B" shares of this index fund -- but that still doesn't explain why he couldn't figure out these folks were money-suckers before he invested.....In any event, Amron's lawsuit does raise one interesting issue: He claims that more than 71% of the brokerage commissions of Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Index fund were used as soft-dollar payments to purchase third-party "research" [what are soft dollar payments?].....Inasmuch as an index fund has no conceivable need for "research," and assuming that Amron's allegation is true, the managers of this fund were almost certainly enriching themselves at the expense of their shareholders.....Whatever the court decides in Amron's case, this seems like an area where the SEC could rule quickly and easily.....The SEC should prohibit index funds from spending soft dollars, period.
"Investor Suit Piles On Top Of Morgan Stanley Woes," Stan Wilson, iinews.com, August 18, 2003; "Fair or Foul?" (Barron's "Fund of Information" column), Erin E. Arvedlund, August 11, 2003

Only one of these famous Arnolds is associated with index-funds:

Stang

Schwarzenegger

You'd think it would be the mild-mannered Arnold on the left, but it's actually the action-hero-wannabe-governor on the right.....Through his investment banking contacts, Schwarzenegger acquired a 5% ownership interest in Dimensional Fund Advisors back in 1996.....DFA isn't well-known in the retail fund market, but it's an important source of index funds for fee-only financial advisors.....DFA is also run by some major financial brainiacs, including a Nobel laureate or two (hint: Schwarzenegger isn't one of them).....It's not clear if Schwarzenegger also owns DFA funds, but that wouldn't be surprising.....According to the CEO of Dimensional Fund Advisors, Ahhnold is a value kind of guy, and DFA funds would fit perfectly with his staid investment temperament.
"Fund of Information" column, Erin E. Arvedlund, Barron's, August 25, 2003

Here are some facts:

The Fidelity Destiny funds come with a 50% front-end load;
There's an outfit called First Command that sells these funds in large numbers;
There are many less expensive ways to invest in mutual funds.

Unfortunately, when you publish these facts in a national magazine, the above-mentioned First Command goes ballistic, and tries to trash the integrity, intelligence, and professionalism of the writer.....What's all the fuss about?.....Steven Goldberg is the writer, and his article -- "All Loaded Up" -- appeared in the September 2003 issue of Kiplinger's magazine.....Goldberg's article is a fairly mild expose of First Command, which is probably the world's biggest seller of mutual funds with huge front-end loads, also called "systematic" or "contractual" plan funds (companies other than Fidelity offer such funds, including AIM, Franklin Templeton and Pioneer).....The story gets a bit more complicated, and a lot more emotional, because First Command (formerly USPA) targets and sells these contractual funds almost exclusively to members of the U.S. armed forces......Goldberg's article suggests that First Command oversells these funds to unsophisticated military personnel, it points out that the 50% front-end load creates a deep financial hole for investors, and it suggests that an automatic-purchase program (via bank draft) would be a simple and sensible alternative to these monster-load funds.....Here's part of First Command's response to Goldberg's article, from a lengthy rebuttal that now appears on the company's Web site:

Mr. Goldberg is biased against First Command-recommended systematic mutual funds as a tool for helping military families achieve their long-term financial goals.
Mr. Goldberg has a history of being accused of unfairly and inaccurately attacking legitimate businesses in print.
Mr. Goldberg does not understand systematic investing and its role in helping professional military families achieve their long-term financial goals.

If you read First Command's entire response, you understand the real reason why their skivvies are in such a bunch: First Command spent a lot of time with Goldberg spinning its story, and Goldberg didn't write the article that First Command wanted.....First Command wanted Goldberg to think like a company salesperson (50% front-end load creates commitment, commitment creates discipline, discipline leads to financial goals), while Goldberg insisted on thinking for himself.....Here are the facts the way we see them: First Command is a money machine that has appointed itself the financial savior of America's military families.....First Command may be squeaky-clean with the regulators, but the very nature of its business (commission sales) prevents the company from telling its customers the whole story, which is this: Using no-load funds, there are sensible, disciplined, ways for military personnel to get exactly the same results as First Command, at a tiny fraction of the cost (even funds with traditional loads would be better than what First Command is selling).....If you're a company that really cares about our men and women in the armed forces, you tell them the whole investment story, and not just the part that earns you a 50% sales commission.....First Command doesn't tell our military personnel about no-load funds and automatic payment plans (or, presumably, the military's own Thrift Savings Plan) because First Command has no economic interest in doing so.....There's nothing inherently wrong with what First Command is doing, but it's also nothing to be proud of.....In fact, if it were us, we'd be downright ashamed.....Ultimately, First Command is defending a fat pile of cash, and Steven Goldberg isn't.....If you were in the military, who would you trust?

No good deed goes unpunished by the IRS: Last month, we reported the following item:

Starting later this year, E*Trade plans to rebate half of the 12b-1 and "shareholder service agreement" fees that it collects from mutual funds.....(For example, XYZ Fund Company might pay E*Trade 0.40% for distribution of its funds and administration of its client accounts, and E*Trade would rebate half of that fee, or 0.20%, to shareholders who hold XYZ Funds through E*Trade. On a $100,000 account, the rebate would amount to $200)

Well, according to one FundAlarm reader, maybe not.....The problem with E*Trade's proposal is that the IRS could view the rebate as a preferential dividend, and any fund that makes a preferential dividend (i.e., treats shareholders of the same class differently) could lose its tax status as a mutual fund (i.e., the ultimate mutual fund tax disaster).....According to our reader, who holds an executive position in the fund industry, it doesn't even matter that the rebate is coming from E*Trade, rather than the fund itself, since funds are not permitted to take actions through third parties that funds are prohibited from taking directly.....Basically, it comes down to this: If XYZ Fund Company knows that E*Trade is going to rebate 12b-1 and other fees to shareholders of XYZ funds, then the XYZ funds could be charged with making a preferential dividend.....Our sharp-eyed reader says this is a murky area of the tax law but, given the financial stakes involved, E*Trade will probably try for a blanket ruling from the IRS allowing these rebates, and each participating fund may want to get its own ruling.....Either way, the E*Trade rebates seem far from being a done deal.

More trouble for the E*Trade rebate proposal? In addition to problems with the IRS, the E*Trade 12b-1 rebate proposal (above) could incur the wrath of the SEC.....In a March 2003 No-Action Letter, the SEC questioned whether a fund's board of directors could properly approve a 12b-1 plan, knowing in advance that a portion of the plan fees were going to be rebated to individuals who purchased fund shares.....The SEC reasoning makes sense: A board is supposed to approve a 12b-1 plan only if the board concludes that the plan will benefit its fund and all of its shareholders.....If a fund pays expenses under a 12b-1 plan, knowing that part of the money will go right back into the pockets of shareholders, it's difficult to see how anyone benefits other than the recipient of the rebate.
Letter from the SEC's Division of Market Regulation to Edward Mahaffy (March 6, 2003)

When you wipe out 60% of your customers' wealth in three years, you tend not be in great demand:

[From the Thurlow Funds Web site, August 28, 2003:]

Most mutual fund losers go on losing with impunity, so there's some satisfaction when one of the biggest losers of all is finally brought to justice by the marketplace.....We missed this event when it originally happened (late last year), but there's no time limit on good news, so here goes:

Michael Murphy has finally quit the fund business!
For those of you who were fortunate enough not to know Murphy, he was a self-appointed technology stock guru who ran a couple of dismal tech funds, as well as a dismal biotech fund.....Murphy also published a biotech newsletter, which cost $2,295 per year (yes, that's two thousand two hundred ninety five dollars).....Murphy's obnoxious e-mail promotions for his newsletter (with teasers like the "8 little-known biotech firms that are going to...become the richest companies on the planet") cluttered thousands of in-boxes, and his unsubstantiated boasts (for example, that his trades generated "a 70% profit in just over 4 months") made hundreds of people wonder, "How can he get away with this crap?".....We suspect that Murphy will eventually attempt a comeback, in one form or other, and the financial press will suck up to him exactly as before....For the record, then, here are the final performance numbers for Murphy's funds, during the entire period that he was in charge (December 1, 1996 through November 27, 2002):

Michael Murphy fund (All "Monterey Murphy")	Cumulative return
New World Core Tech	-52.3%
New World Technology	-81.2%
Average tech fund	+5.4%

New World Biotech	-31.5%
Average health/biotech fund	+62.6%

Source: business2.com

The Federal Reserve is run by seven governors and, theoretically, there's no one in America who should be more tuned-in to the financial world than these folks.....So, what do the personal investment portfolios of Greenspan and his Financial Titans look like?.....According to public financial disclosure reports, the Federal Reserve governors make investing about as interesting as a Gray Davis campaign speech.....Chairman Alan Greenspan holds 96 percent of his wealth in U.S. Treasury bills, although his wife (NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell) does own 11 individual stocks and four Dreyfus mutual funds.....As for the other governors:

Vice Chairman Roger Ferguson and his wife own more than 30 mutual funds, mostly from Smith Barney and Vanguard, which suggests that he believes in a balanced economic policy (i.e., one lousy fund family balanced by one decent family);
Edward Gramlich, a former academic, has most of his money tied up with TIAA-CREF, and Merrill Equity Income Fund is one of his few standalone investments;
Susan Bies and her husband own 16 mutual funds including Harbor International, Vanguard 500 Index, Pimco High Yield, and Davis New York Venture;
Donald Kohn, who has worked at the Fed for his entire career, has the smallest portfolio.....His larger fund holdings include ING Growth & Income and T. Rowe Price Growth Stock.

"Fed chiefs keep investments simple," Russ Wiles, arizonarepublic.com, August 3, 2003

PRESS RELEASE

September 1, 2003 09:38

LOS ANGELES, Ca., Sept. 1 / -- The man who originated the idea of charging 12b-1 fees for closed mutual funds has announced the formation of a new consulting service, Screwem Partners, which will assist businesses in developing new ways to rip off American consumers.

"The opportunities for new rip-offs are unlimited," according to Will Screwem. "You just have to be creative. When I first came up with the idea of charging a 12b-1 fee in a closed mutual fund, everyone thought I was crazy. Now, it's an accepted part of the mutual fund business."

Although the 12b-1 fee was originally intended to cover a fund's marketing and distribution costs, and closed funds have no marketing and distribution costs, 232 closed stock and balanced funds continue to charge a 12b-1 fee. "At first," says Mr. Screwem, "nobody at the fund companies thought they could get away with charging a fee for doing nothing. But when I showed them how easy it was, I became an industry legend."

Mr. Screwem's new consulting service will attempt to leverage the 12b-1 model, and apply it to other industries. "For example, take real estate," says Mr. Screwem. "Under the current system, a broker sells a house, receives his or her commission, and that's the end of it. I'm going to convince brokers that they should send an annual bill to every seller, based on .25% of the value of the house, and call it a 'service fee.' Of course it sounds ridiculous. The broker has already been paid for the sale, and the broker doesn't do a damn thing to earn the additional service fee. But that's the beauty of it! Remember, the same approach works for the mutual fund industry, and it's worth $8 billion a year in 12b-1 fees."

Of the 232 closed funds that continue to charge a 12b-1 fee (that part of Screwem's press release is true), 53 come from the Idex family.....INVESCO has 23 closed funds that continue to extract 12b-1 fees and ING has 19,followed by Dreyfus (16) and General Electric Investment Corporation (12) ("We bring big fees to life") .....You can find the complete list of leeches at standardandpoors.com.*
* On the left side of the Standard & Poor's home page, scroll down to Funds/News & Analysis and click. In the "Fund News" section click on "More," then click on the "XLS" version of "Closed Funds Charging 12b-1 Fees"

OK, we were wrong: A couple of months ago, we suggested that Fidelity's very public support for the recent tax cut bill was an inappropriate venture into partisan Republican politics.....Since then, Fidelity has clarified its official position, which is basically that ending double taxation of dividends will help all of its customers, whatever their political persuasion.....Last month, Boston-based Fidelity traveled even further down the bipartisan road, when the firm announced that it would lease about 10,000 feet of excess office space to the Democratic National Committee, in preparation for the Democratic national convention in 2004.....FundAlarm apologizes for suggesting that Fidelity favors Republicans, and we'll even overlook the following lease provision, which seems just a bit unfair to the Democrats:

3. Rent. Tenant [Democratic Party] shall pay landlord [Fidelity] the sum of $16,740 per month for rent of the Premises. In addition to this sum, Tenant shall pay, on a monthly basis, separate fees for certain amenities and enhancements to the Premises, as follows:
- Access to building elevators: $910
- View out windows: $1,320
- Breathable air: $1,390
- Protection from weevils and locusts: $1,440

Briefly noted:

Tom Laming, one-third of a successful management team at the Buffalo Funds, is leaving to start his own firm.....Unlike most recent departing managers, Laming says that his new firm will not focus exclusively on hedge funds, and Laming's firm will apparently run some small-cap/mid-cap mutual funds.....According to John Kornitzer, who's head of the company that runs the Buffalo funds, "Tom Laming was the heart and soul of our firm. Now that he's gone, I plan to start drinking heavily".....Nah, he didn't really say that.....Here's the actual quote from Kornitzer, which is just as absurd: "It's a three-man team running the funds. So when you lose one, it's no big deal. We're not going to miss a beat".....More discussion at our page of Recent Manager Changes.
"Buffalo Funds manager roams away from the company," reuters.com, August 21, 2002
If you follow the Brazos funds, you might have been impressed that three of firm's first four offerings -- Brazos Small Cap (1997), Micro Cap (1998) and Multi Cap (1999) -- each performed so well out of the starting gate.....You might even have invested some of your money in these funds, based on their first-year performance.....Well, guess what?.....About half of the first-year performance for each of these funds was essentially unrepeatable, because it was attributable to initial public offerings (IPOs) -- a fact which the Brazos managers never got around to disclosing in any of their official SEC filings (you know, those unimportant little documents, like prospectuses and annual reports).....The SEC recently told Brazos never to do this kind of thing again, and the feds slapped Brazos with a $200,000 fine.....The way we look at it, that's a pretty reasonable price to pay for quickly building a reputation in the fund business......And, yes, we're sure no such thought ever occurred to the folks at Brazos, or to anyone else who's about to launch a fund and reads about this ridiculously light fine.
In the Matter of John McStay Investment Counsel L.P., Investment Advisers Act of 1940 Release No. 2153 (July 31, 2003)
Wait, it gets worse: The SEC has just started enforcement proceedings against the folks who run the Nevis fund, and the alleged offense is essentially the same as the one that Brazos (above) got nailed for, only more flagrant.....According the SEC, "by pumping IPOs into the Nevis Fund, [Nevis management] achieved exceptional cumulative returns," as follows:
- As of May 31, 1999: +90.1%
- As of September 30, 1999: +154.6%
- As of December 31, 1999: +286.5%
Without the first-day gains on its IPO shares, the returns of the Nevis funds would have been considerably -- almost laughably -- lower:
- As of May 31, 1999: -5.0%
- As of September 30, 1999: -3.6%
- As of December 31, 1999: +41.0%
The SEC also contends that Nevis fund management "misrepresented the reasons for the [fund's] performance claiming, among other things, that the Fund's returns were attributable to their long-term investment strategy. [Management] failed to disclose that the Nevis Fund's performance was primarily attributable to IPO investments, and instead stated that the Fund has invested in only 'a couple IPOs.'"
SEC Administrative Proceeding No. 3-11201 (July 31, 2003)

Back in December 2001, just after the September 11 attacks, FundAlarm made a prediction:

"...you can bet that...gimmick funds will soon be torn from the headlines.....A "War on Terrorism Fund" is probably a bit crass, even for the fund industry, but a "New Realties Fund" (investing in defense contractors, security firms, selected biotech and pharmaceutical companies) is almost a sure thing."

On July 31, Rudy Giuliani and Bear Stearns announced the formation of a private equity fund to "pursue private equity investment opportunities in the security and public safety sectors".....It's not a mutual fund, but you just know one is coming, especially since Giuliani himself has broken the sleaze barrier.

For several months now, brokers have been in hot water for failing to give customers the proper breakpoint discounts on sales of front-loaded mutual funds [what's a breakpoint?].....Last month, we reported on a whitewashing breakpoint commission that made several recommendations to get the fund industry off the hook, and this month the NASD gets into the act.....The NASD has ordered brokers to immediately begin reviewing fund sales records, and to start issuing refunds (plus 2.5 percent interest) for all missed breakpoint discounts since January 1, 2001 (and what about earlier?).....The NASD action is welcome, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking these are selfless government regulators out to protect a fleeced public.....This is an industry group engaged in damage control.....Reading between the lines, the NASD seems to have discovered that breakpoint rip-offs were much more widespread than previously suspected, and the NASD is taking action now to avoid further bad publicity.....If you have any reason to suspect that you were denied a breakpoint discount, we suggest that you take the initiative and contact your broker as soon as possible.....At the very least, that should put you at the top of the refund list.
See the wall? Now read the handwriting: The NASD has put two new mutual fund disclosure rules up for public comment: The first rule would require brokers to disclose whether they receive cash payments from a fund company in exchange for providing shelf space for that company's funds, or for putting its funds on a "preferred" selling list.....The second rule would require brokers to disclose whether its employees receive financial incentives for selling one fund over another (exactly the kind of incentive that has recently gotten Morgan Stanley in trouble -- see below).....These proposed disclosure rules, long overdue, would almost certainly limit the spread of such backroom payments, and perhaps even eliminate them.....A positive development for investors, if the rules are enacted in current form.
For some time now, Fidelity has managed the General Motors 401(k) plan ($16 billion and counting), and last month Fidelity picked up a huge contract to administer the health care and pension benefits for GM's 1.2 million employees.....Please tell us again how Fidelity fund managers are totally objective when voting their General Motors proxies.
George Mairs promised the directors of Mairs & Powers Growth that he would relinquish his portfolio duties when he was 75.....Mairs is a man of his word, but he also seems to like his job.....Mairs plans to officially call it quits next June, 364 days into his 75th year, and one day shy of his 76th birthday.
"Famed stock-picker Mairs will hear the closing bell at 75," Neal St. Anthony, startribune.com, August 23, 2003
Bald-faced liar update: By now, it's clear that Morgan Stanley offices in Massachusetts carried out sales contests that were intended to promote Morgan Stanley (and certain other "partner") funds over non-affiliated funds.....Last month, we reported that Morgan Stanley appeared to lie to Massachusetts authorities who were investigating these contests.....This month, Morgan Stanley faces legal action over its apparent lie, and it also faces legal action over the contest itself.....Morgan Stanley's own internal compliance manual says that sales incentive programs are permissible if they reward employees for total fund sales "including both proprietary [in-house] and non-proprietary" investments.....The sales contests in question clearly violated this rule and, what's worse, the Morgan Stanley executives in charge of the sales contest clearly had guilty knowledge.....How else could you interpret this instruction from the Morgan Stanley exec who spearheaded the contest (caps in the original): "Please DO NOT put anything in writing via e-mail or fax" about the contest....."Walk your team members through this information VERBALLY."
"Morgan Stanley to Face Charges over Contest," Tom Lauricella, The Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2003
Hypocrisy recap: It was almost exactly four years ago that the folks who run Vanguard made John Bogle walk the gangplank.....If you want proof that the Bogle spirit is fading fast, then consider this: Gus Sauter, Vanguard's chief investment officer, was recently quoted talking about Vanguard's "distribution channels," a phrase that might have gotten his mouth washed out with soap under the earlier regime.....The occasion for Sauter's quote was the introduction of a slew of Vanguard sector funds, a large-cap index fund to (confusingly) rival Vanguard's 500 Index fund, and exchange-traded classes of each new fund ("VIPERs") that will allow Vanguard to cater to day-traders and market timers.....Vanguard also announced new VIPER shares for nine existing funds.....There's nothing inherently improper about offering a diverse product line, but Vanguard has always been a fund company that didn't offer everything it could, simply because Vanguard believed that some types of products weren't in the best interest of its customers.....That attitude is gone, and Vanguard now seems the same as every other fund company that's interested in growth for the sake of growth.....As we've noted before, this attitude is especially curious, since Vanguard is owned by its shareholders, and Vanguard has an obligation to pursue growth only to the extent that its shareholders clearly benefit.....Vanguard has recently done a lousy job at explaining its reasons for growth, and the current round of product bloat is no exception.....Vanguard continues to maintain that product growth helps create economies of scale, which helps cut costs, but that claim is impossible to evaluate.....An equally plausible explanation for Vanguard's aggressive growth is the firm's executive bonus plan, which we discussed here last January.....Vanguard still refuses to tell its owners (i.e., fund shareholders) how this plan is structured, and exactly how the bonus plan rewards asset growth.....Over the past few months, there have been reliable reports that CEO John Brennan has instituted extremely aggressive goals for increasing bonus payouts, yet Brennan flatly refuses to discuss any details of the plan, let alone his goals for it.....Vanguard's refusal to explain its bonus plan is indefensible, and a mockery of the firm's ownership structure.....You have to wonder what Vanguard is hiding.
"Vanguard Group Sails Into Individual Sector Funds," Christopher Oster, The Wall Street Journal, August 19, 2003; "Vanguard plans groundbreaking funds," Jonathan Burton, CBS.MarketWatch.com., August 1, 2003
If anyone out there knows William J. Schneider, of Dayton, Ohio, we'd like you to do us a favor.....Mr. Schneider is director of 92 Nuveen fixed-income funds, and we have a hunch -- just a hunch -- that he wouldn't even be able to name all the funds that he's legally responsible for overseeing, let alone pay attention to all of their activities.....So here's what we'd like you to do: Get Mr. Schneider off in a quiet corner, and ask him to name the funds that list him as director, without looking at any notes or calling any lifelines.....If he can come up with all 92, please give him our hearty congratulations, and offer him a free subscription to FundAlarm.
Source: boardmember.com
ScrewING up: ING Investments LLC is offering to repurchase shares of ING Senior Income Fund A that were purchased by the public between June 30 and July 16.....Seems that someone at ING lost track of the number of Class A shares that had been registered with the SEC, and unexpected demand caused the firm to inadvertently sell some unregistered shares.
"ING Invest Offers To Buy Back Income Fund Class A Shares," Donna Hemans, Dow Jones Newswires, August 12, 2003
Fidelity has launched the Advisor New Insights Fund, which is intended to be a multi-cap, multi-style vehicle for veteran manager Will Danoff.....We've heard that Danoff is also in line to lead another new Fidelity offering, the "Manager Won't Be Here In Twelve Months" fund.