I truly this comment. It is a bit more advance (sorry for the others, nothing personal) then the calssic “passive vs active”.
I’m with you that there would be many other strategies 130/30 that could beat the market and eventually even the fund itself. On top, if you do backanalysis I’m sure will get to an optimum portfolio allocation (within the given strategy 130/30 on the SPI companies) with much higher return.
On the other hand, what it is also true is the fact that my reference is not the best performing theoretical oprtfolio mentioned above, but it is the SPI.
In this regards, I really like the fee structure: 1% basic fee (I know it is crazy, but bear with it for a second) and 15% performance fee. This one is the only fund I could find in which the fund manager is having a true (economical) interest in making the fund overperform the benchmark
Again guys: i’m not paid by CS or working for them, but I’m simply trying to find alternatives to the common strategy on ETF
BTW 1: I know that there are many CS or other banck employees reading this forum; it would be definitely good to get feedback from a professional
BTW2: I still would like to understand why it took me so much effot/time to have CS people allowing me to go for this option. This makes me thinking they have no interest in selling a good product but they deinitely would like to sell crapy funds that have never beaten the market since their inception. Even not for a single year, not 15 years on a raw in average…