La diferencia entre ambos fondos, que comparten muchas posiciones, por cierto, puede verse en sus párrafos de cierre del último comentario mensual.
El Europe, calidad pura (capacidad de fijación de precios, moat, baja deuda) por encima de todo:
Not only do quality companies have pricing power, but they also tend to run more
conservative balance sheets. In an environment of rising interest rates, we believe low leverage and strong cash generation will help stand these companies apart.
El Opportunities, calidad sí, pero a ver si la pillo a buen precio, de ahí el nombre.
In this scenario, we continue to be vigilant on valuation, as always, taking profits in companies where the valuation appears rich and reinvesting in more attractively valued opportunities, while maintaining a high threshold in terms of quality. Importantly, even in this potential environment, our overarching focus rests on creating a portfolio whose quality characteristics and dynamic double-digit earnings remain intact.
En realidad esto es value bien entendido, ¿no? Espera, que responden ellos:
In the end, we think the Value vs Growth debate is misleading. Apart from anything else, there is the question of what constitutes "value" and what constitutes "growth": not everyone has the same definition. For our part, we think the best value is actually to be found in durable growth companies.
Yo llevo el Europe en mi cartera conservadora y en ella riesgo que sea evitable se evita. Las trampas de valor son un riesgo que puedo evitar, por ello llevo el Europe y no el Opportunities.
Ambos fondos son excelentes. Si se va más a largo plazo el Opportunities posiblemente sea la opción más razonable.
cc @rickirr
