Posted inIndustry viewsHead To Head

HEAD-TO-HEAD: Fidelity vs JO Hambro

Fund Selector Asia compares the Fidelity Asian Special Situations Fund and the J O Hambro Capital Management Asia ex-Japan Fund.

Manager review

Mukherjee started managing this fund in 2012, so his track record is still too short to draw any meaningful conclusions. But in traditional Fidelity style, Mukherjee’s resources are vast and he can tap into the large Asia Pacific team of 55 analysts (with an average tenure of four to eight years of experience).

Mehta works closely with Cho-Yu Kooi, a senior portfolio manager, also based in Singapore. They have worked together for more than ten years. Although a lean outfit, both of the managers are supported by Gaurav Sharma, who has eight years of research experience. Like Mukherjee, Mehta has access to the wider team of JOHCM.

Management fees


The Fidelity fund levies management fees of 1.95%, while the J O Hambro fund charges management fees of up to 1.74%.

Laidlaw said that the Fidelity funds charges are closer to the median of the sector. “One can make an argument that given their scale, they could do better for investors,” Laidlaw noted.

J O Hambro charges a performance fee on top of a base fee which Laidlaw said is a fair charge given the fund’s active hands-on approach.


He added that the difference in investment focus is largely because of the investor groups the funds are targeting.

Taken in today’s context, where many Chinese equities are under pressure due to political intervention, it is perhaps inevitable that the Fidelity fund is posting a weaker performance.

“Looking at Morningstar’s ratings for both strategies, Fidelity is Neutral whereas JOHCM is Bronze. That shows we have greater conviction in JOHCM’s strategy,” Laidlaw concludes. 

Part of the Mark Allen Group.