Fund research
A fund should earn its place in a portfolio.
South African investors can choose from an enormous and often confusing fund universe. Different fund classes, fee structures, wrappers, mandates and performance histories can make simple comparisons misleading.
ClearGauge does not begin by asking which fund has recently performed best.
We ask whether the evidence is strong enough, what happened when conditions became difficult, what the fund actually owns, and what role it would perform alongside everything else in the portfolio.
Starting universe
Nearly 2,000
South African fund and fund-class records.
Structure → evidence → behaviour → downside → portfolio role
Deeper monitoring
Just over 100
Funds warranting deeper monitoring and research.
This is a research universe, not a recommended-fund list. Source: ClearGauge internal fund-universe analysis based on ASISA fund data as at 30 June 2026. The deeper-monitoring universe was frozen on 29 August 2026. The research universe changes over time.
The research journey
From a broad universe to deeper research
Research prioritisation, not a ranking from “bad” funds to “good” funds.
01 · Starting point
Nearly 2,000
Fund and fund-class records create the broad starting point.
02
Structure
Remove duplication, inappropriate implementations and structural noise.
03
Evidence
Is there enough reliable history to make a meaningful assessment?
04
Behaviour
How has the fund performed across different starting points and environments?
05
Downside
What happened when conditions became difficult?
06
Consistency
Was the outcome repeatable, or unusually dependent on one favourable period?
07
Deep research
What drives the strategy, and what does the fund actually own?
08
Portfolio role
What would this fund add that the portfolio does not already have?
09 · Deeper monitoring
Just over 100
Funds currently warranting deeper monitoring and research.
The best-performing fund and the best fund for a portfolio are not necessarily the same thing.
Recent returns tell us what happened. They do not, by themselves, tell us:
- how repeatable the outcome was;
- how much risk was required;
- how severe the setbacks were;
- whether the strategy changed;
- whether another fund already provides similar exposure;
- whether the fund actually solves a portfolio need.
Illustrative example
Would you call these the same investment experience?
So we look at the path.
Rolling returns
Repeated investment periods with different starting dates, not one convenient start and end date.
Downside
How the fund behaved when conditions became difficult.
Maximum drawdown
The largest fall from a previous investment peak.
Risk-adjusted outcomes
Return considered in relation to the risk or variability required to achieve it.
Illustrative example only. Not based on an actual fund and not a forecast of future investment returns.
Five questions before deeper research
01
Is there enough evidence?
A short history can be useful without being conclusive. We consider whether there is enough reliable evidence to support quantitative comparison.
02
Were returns strong enough to deserve attention?
Return matters. We simply refuse to treat it as the only thing that matters.
03
What happened on the downside?
How deep were losses, and how efficiently was risk converted into return?
04
Was the outcome consistent?
Rolling periods reveal whether an attractive result survived different starting points rather than one favourable measurement period.
05
Is the comparison appropriate?
An income fund, balanced fund and equity fund have different jobs. They should be judged accordingly.
Quantitative evidence decides where we look harder. It does not decide what a client should own.
Inclusion in the deeper-monitoring universe does not mean every fund has completed the full quantitative or qualitative process. Research progresses only where sufficient reliable evidence is available.
And then we try to prove the numbers wrong.
Attractive historical statistics are a reason to investigate further, not a reason to stop asking questions.
Strong-looking historical statistics can still conceal:
- a manager change;
- a strategy change;
- a concentrated position that happened to work;
- rapid asset growth;
- portfolio drift;
- an inefficient fund class;
- hidden overlap with other funds;
- a changing opportunity set.
The numbers earn a fund deeper attention. They do not earn it a place in a portfolio.
Fund X-ray
What sits behind the return?
People
Who actually makes the investment decisions?
Philosophy
Why should the strategy work over time?
Process
How are ideas selected, sized and sold?
Portfolio
What does the fund actually own?
Concentration
Which decisions can dominate the outcome?
Fund class & costs
Are we assessing an appropriate and efficient implementation? Different fund classes may have different fee or implementation arrangements even where they relate to the same underlying strategy.
Capacity
Can the strategy continue to operate effectively as assets grow?
Stability
Is this still the fund we originally researched?
Role
What job would the fund perform in a portfolio?
Illustrative example
Five funds do not necessarily mean five sources of diversification.
Different fund names can hide very similar portfolios.
Where sufficient holdings information is available, ClearGauge considers overlap, concentration and underlying exposures when assessing how funds work together.
A good fund can still be the wrong fund.
Good fund. Wrong role.
A long-term equity strategy being used for short-term liquidity.
Good fund. Duplicate exposure.
Another portfolio already provides substantially the same exposure.
Good fund. Wrong implementation.
An inefficient fund class or implementation.
Good fund. Too much complexity.
Another line item is added without meaningful diversification.
Fund research does not end with “Would we consider this fund?”
It ends with “Why would it belong here?”
How a fund earns its place
It survives structural screening.
There is enough evidence to judge it.
Its outcomes stand up across different periods.
The downside is understood.
The investment process makes sense.
The portfolio matches the stated philosophy.
Costs and fund class are appropriate.
It solves a genuine portfolio problem.
Only then does implementation become relevant.
And a fund can lose its place.
Selection is not permanent. Our research framework calls for reassessment when:
- key investment people change;
- the process changes;
- the portfolio drifts materially;
- risk behaviour changes;
- costs become less competitive;
- capacity changes;
- a better implementation of the same role becomes available;
- the original reason for considering or using the fund no longer holds.
Research is not a once-off selection exercise. It is an ongoing test of the original investment case.
What you will not find here
NO
“Top 10 funds” list
NO
Five-star badges
NO
Winner based simply on recent performance
NO
Popularity treated as suitability
NO
A fund considered without its portfolio context
Research should reduce the temptation to chase what has already happened.
What would we ask about your existing funds?
Why do you own this fund?
Does it still serve its intended purpose?
What would make you reconsider it?
How much overlap exists with your other funds?
What did you actually experience during difficult markets?
Are you paying for complexity that adds little?
If those answers are unclear, the portfolio may deserve a second opinion.
Looking specifically at a direct share portfolio? Share Portfolio Guidance
This page describes a research process. It does not provide personalised financial advice.
Our research principles
Evidence before opinion.
We want sufficient evidence before treating an outcome as meaningful.
The path matters.
Downside and consistency matter as well as the final return.
Compare like with like.
Funds are assessed according to the role they are intended to perform.
Portfolio context, then ongoing review.
A fund is considered for a purpose, and the reasons for using it must remain intact.
About this research
This page describes ClearGauge’s fund-research process. It does not constitute a recommendation of any particular fund or personalised financial advice.
Research informs our advice, but any client-specific recommendation is made after considering the client’s objectives, circumstances, risk and existing portfolio. The changing research universe should not be interpreted as an approved or recommended-fund list.
Know what you own. Know why you own it.
Whether we are assessing a single fund or an entire portfolio, the objective is the same: understand what each investment is supposed to do, whether it has earned that role and whether the pieces still work together.