Context

GV does not show fees when exploring funds or programs unless you click into each one.

Therefore with the present state of the platform, it is difficult to compare programs and funds directly on the basis of fees.

Compiling the data is tedious and time consuming. Regardless, a fee schedule has been constructed of all programs levels 3-7 and all funds, as a temporary solution while we await improvements to the platform interface and reporting functionality. This is accurate only as of April 2019. Fees and program names can change.

See link for spreadsheet.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=53918504972126954117

Efforts by others to improve the situation or continue with the work begun with this spreadsheet are very welcome.

Some observations:

Every program is more expensive than any fund.

The average program total fee (entry plus success fee) is 22.88%.

The average fund total fee (entry plus exit fee) is 2.24%

12 out of 42 programs earned profit in the last 30 days against their chosen base currency.

73 out of 74 funds earned profit in the last 30 days against USD (all fund profits are calculated in USD regardless of the currency used to invest into the fund)

Only 5 out of 42 programs have reduced their overall program stop-out limit to mitigate downside risk.

Conclusions

Speaking generally - Simply put, the platform needs several more months before it can be said that it is beginning to mature. Until then, GV remains largely an experiment which has been taken up by an enthusiastic few. The platform does show great promise, and those managers who establish themselves in this difficult phase will be greatly rewarded with investor recognition and trust.

Investors using the platform at this stage are likely themselves to be amateur traders and enthusiasts. Therefore at this time, the perception of value within GV appears to be weighted more towards managers rather than investors. This perception must shift back toward investors if GV is to find success; not in the sense of investor protection necessarily, but certainly in the sense of investor control. Education therefore ought to be a priority for the platform since it co-ordinates with the notion of blockchain-backed wealth management trust which gives control and power back to the investor, and reduces the information asymmetry between manager and investor.

Regarding fees specifically - If GV is to be successful in being the key platform that serves the 'long tail' of the private wealth management market, then fees in particular need to enter into a phase of price discovery and competition. There is no readily available rationale for determining what 'fair value' is. Fee price discovery and competition has been hindered thus far by the lack of immediate transparency due to issues with the platform design. The development team's history of responding to user feedback and consistent demonstration of commitment and integrity give confidence that issues like these will be resolved in due time.

Other key factors to platform success within GV's control include:

the ease by which investors can diversify across risk profiles, asset classes, and timeframes

the development and proving of skilled managers across risk profiles, asset classes, and timeframes

Thanks for reading.

JL

This blog is not financial advice. This is an independent blog. Please do your own research. You are responsible for your own investment decisions. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Genesis Vision or its affiliates.