Making Every Stock Count Value Investor Insight
“Unappreciated companies always have a story about how things will get better. Mariko Gordon has proven adept at picking the stories with happy endings.” (complete article)
As Stock Losses Loom, Don’t Throw a ‘Hail Mary’ The Wall Street Journal
“Daruma Asset Management, Inc., a New York firm that invests in small companies, counts 1,240 U.S. stocks that have revenue, trade on an exchange, have a market value of less than $2 billion and were up for the month of January.” (complete article)
Behavioral Finance Helps Fund Managers Spot Losers Wall Street & Technology
“There is a lot of value to be had from taking a systematic look at what drove your performance.” (complete article)
The World’s 99 Greatest Investors Book By Magnus Angenfelt “Gordon is a small-cap equity investor who leans towards value. In contrast to most small-cap investors, who mitigate potentially erratic returns by diversifying and holding many positions, Gordon runs a concentrated portfolio of no more than 35 and no less than 25 small-cap holdings.” (99 investors book excerpt)
Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Many factors affect performance, including changes in market conditions and interest rates, as well as other economic, political and financial developments. You should not assume that investment decisions we make in the future will be profitable or will equal the investment performance of the past.
The portfolio is actively managed, so holdings, sector weightings and other portfolio characteristics may have changed since the date shown. They should not be considered recommendations to buy or sell any security or of a particular allocation. You should not presume that any holding or allocation shown has been or will be profitable. The information in the Small-Cap and SMid-Cap commentaries supplements the related Composite Presentations available on our website (click here for the Equity Composite Presentation: Small-Cap, here for the Equity Composite Presentation: SMid-Cap).
The information in each commentary is current as of the date of the commentary, and may have changed by the time you read this. Daruma has obtained some of the information in this presentation from third-party sources we believe to be accurate. However, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of such information.
Statements in any commentary that were not historical facts at the date of that commentary reflect our opinions, beliefs or expectations as of that date. Subsequent events will have, or may yet impact whether they prove to be correct.
Charts included in any commentary are included to demonstrate certain information or conclusions. You should not make any investment decision relying only on these charts.
The appropriate comparison benchmark for the Small-Cap Equity strategy is the Russell 2000. The Russell 2000 includes approximately 2000 of the smallest U.S. common stocks based on a combination of their market cap and current membership in the Russell 3000. The Russell 2000 Value Index includes those Russell 2000 Index companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower forecasted growth values, while the Russell 2000 Growth Index includes those with higher price-to-value ratios and higher forecasted growth values.
The appropriate comparison benchmark for the SMid-Cap Equity strategy is the Russell 2500. The Russell 2500 includes approximately 2500 of the smallest U.S. common stocks based on a combination of their market cap and current membership in the Russell 3000. The Russell 2500 Value Index includes those Russell 2500 Index companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower forecasted growth values, while the Russell 2500 Growth Index includes those with higher-price-to-value ratios and higher forecasted growth values.
The Small-Cap and SMid-Cap Equity strategies are concentrated strategies that are not managed to a benchmark, so there are material differences in characteristics, such as the number of holdings and sector and industry weightings. In addition, benchmark performance does not include any fees or expenses. Because of these differences, benchmarks should not be considered a completely accurate comparison.