I have noticed that most newly established 'boutique' funds managers are using existing and long established funds that pre-date their appointment. That is, put simply, the fund has been in existence for sometimes over 10 years, yet the new "boutique" manager (with a completely different strategy) has only had the reigns for a year or two... or less.
When using performance comparison sites it gives the false impression the fund (and its investment strategy) has been in place for a very long time, when in fact the fund (in reality) is in its infancy. I would like to think this is more of a problem with the comparison sites, like Morningstar, than the fund manager creating the false impression of having a long history and performance record. However, the cynic in me is thinking that this is a deliberate ploy to avoid the public's hesitation to invest in a fund with no history.
Maybe I am completely wrong... I have just found it increasingly difficult to compare products when you think something has a strong performance record for over 5-10 years, only to find out in reality it has only been in existence for 6 months.
Question is... do you think its fair to maintain the funds original inception date when a new manager with a completely different investment strategy takes over? I would think it would be a lot fairer (transparent) to re-set the date. This way investors wouldn't be blind to the fact when comparing products and better still not have to look for the tiny wording with a * on the funds performance charts.
