By David Snowball

Dear friends,

In a college with more trees than students, autumn is stunning. Around the campus pond and along wooded paths, trees begin to erupt in glorious color. At first the change is slow, more teasing than apparent. But then we always have a glorious reign of color … followed by a glorious rain of leaves. It’s more apparent then than ever why Augustana was recognized as having one of America’s 25 most beautiful campuses.

Every morning, teaching schedule permitting, I park my car near Old Main then conspire to find the longest possible route into the building. Instead of the simple one block walk east, I head west, uphill and through the residential neighborhoods or south, behind the natural sciences building and up a wooded hillside. I generally walk unencumbered by technology, purpose or companions. 

Kicking the leaves is not optional.

I listen to the crunching of acorns underfoot and to the anxious scouring of black squirrels. I look at the architecture of the houses, some well more than a century old but still sound and beautiful. I breathe, sniffing for the hint of a hardwood fire. And I left my mind wander where it wants to, too.  Why are some houses enduringly beautiful, while others are painful before they’re even complete?  How might more volatile weather reshape the landscape? Are my students even curious about anything? Would dipping their phones in epoxy make a difference? Maybe investors don’t want to know what their managers actually do? Where would we be if folks actually did spend less? Heck, most of them have already been forced to. I wonder if folks whose incomes and wealth are rapidly rising even think about the implications of stagnation for the rest of us? Why aren’t there any good donut shops anymore?  (Nuts.)

You might think of my walks as a luxury or a harmless indulgence by a middle-aged academic. You’d be wrong. Very wrong.

The world has conspired to heap so many demands upon our attention than we can barely focus long enough to button our shirts. Our attention is fragmented, our time is lost (go on, try to remember what you actually did Friday) and our thinking extends no further than the next interruption. It makes us sloppy, unhappy and unimaginative.

Have you ever thought about including those characteristics in a job description: “We’re hoping to find sloppy, unhappy and unimaginative individuals to take us to the next level!  If you have the potential to become so distracted by minutiae and incessant interruption that you can’t even remember any other way, we have the position for you.”

Go take a walk, dear friends. Go take a dozen. Take them with someone who makes you want to hold a hand rather than a tablet. The leaves beckon and you’ll be better for it. 

On the discreet charm of a stock light portfolio

All the signs point to stocks. The best time of the year to buy stocks is right after Halloween. The best time in the four year presidential cycle to be in stocks is just after the midterm elections. Bonds are poised for a bear market. Markets are steadying. Stocks are plowing ahead; the Total Stock Market Index posted gains of 9.8% through the first 10 months of 2014.

And yet, I’m not plowing into stocks. That’s not a tactical allocation decision, it’s strategic. My non-retirement portfolio, everything outside the 403(b), is always the same: 50% equity, 50% income. Equity is 50% here, 50% there, as well as 50% large and 50% small. Income tends to be the same: 50% short duration/cash-like substances, 50% riskier assets, 50% domestic, 50% international. It is, as a strategy, designed to plod steadily.

My asset allocation has some similarities to Morningstar’s “conservative retirement saver” portfolio, which they gear “toward still-working individuals who expect to retire in 2020 or thereabouts.”  Both portfolios are about 50% in equities and both have a medium term time horizon of around 7-10 years.  On whole, though, I appear to be both more aggressive and more conservative than Morningstar’s model.  I’ve got a lot more exposure to international and, particularly, emerging markets stocks (through Seafarer, Grandeur Peak and Matthews) and bonds (through Matthews and Price) than they do.  I favor managers who have the freedom to move opportunistically between asset classes (FPA Crescent is the show piece, but managers at eight of my 10 funds have more than one asset class at their disposal).  At the same time, I’ve got a lot more exposure to short-term and cash-management strategies (through Price and two fine RiverPark funds).  My funds are cheaper than average (I’m not cheap, I’m rationally cost-conscious) though pricier than Morningstar’s, which reflects their preference for large (no, I didn’t called them “bloated”) funds.

You might benefit from thinking about whether a more diversified stock-light portfolio might help you better balance your personal goals (sleeping well) with your financial ones (eating well). There’s good evidence to guide us.

T. Rowe Price is one of my favorite fund companies, in part because they treat their investors with unusual respect. Price’s publications depart from the normal marketing fluff and generally provide useful, occasionally fascinating, information.

I found two Price studies, in 2004 and again in 2010, particularly provocative. Price constructed a series of portfolios representing different levels of stock exposure and looked at how the various portfolios would have played out over the past 50-60 years.

The original study looked at portfolios with 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% stocks. The update dropped the 20% portfolio and looked at 0, 40, 60, 80, and 100%. Price updated their research for us and allowed us to release it here.

Performance of Various Portfolio Strategies
December 31, 1949 to December 31, 2013
	S&P 500 USD	80 Stocks 20 Bonds 0 Short	60 Stocks 30 Bonds 10 Short	40 Stocks 40 Bonds 20 Short	20 Stocks 50 Bonds 30 Short
Return for Best Year	52.6	41.3	30.5	22.5	22.0
Return for Worst Year	-37.0	-28.7	-20.4	-11.5	-1.9
Average Annual Nominal Return	11.3	10.5	9.3	8.1	6.8
Number of Down Years	14	14	12	11	4
Average Loss (in Down Years)	-12.5	-8.8	-6.4	-3.0	-0.9
Annualized Standard Deviation	17.6	14.0	10.5	7.3	4.8
Average Annual Real (Inflation-Adjusted) Return	7.7	6.8	5.7	4.5	3.2

T. Rowe Price, October 30 2014. Used with permission.

Over the last 65 years, periods which included devastating bear markets for both stocks and bonds, a stock-light portfolio returned 6.8% annually. That translates to receiving about 60% of the returns of an all-equity portfolio with about 25% of the volatility. Going from 20% stocks to 100% increases the chance of having a losing year by 350%, increases the average loss in down years by 1400% and nearly quadruples volatility.

On face, that’s not a compelling case for a huge slug of equities. The findings of behavioral finance research nibbles away at the return advantage of a stock-heavy portfolio by demonstrating that, on average, we’re not capable of holding assets which are so volatile. We run at the wrong time and hide too long. Morningstar’s “Mind the Gap 2014” research suggests that equity investors lose about 166 basis points a year to their ill-timed decisions. Over the past 15 years, S&P 500 investors have lost nearly 200 basis points a year.

Here’s the argument: you might be better with slow and steady, even if that means saving a bit more or expecting a bit less. For visual learners, here’s a picture of what the result might look like:

The blue line represents the performance, since January 2000, of T. Rowe Price Spectrum Income (RPSIX) which holds 80% or so in a broadly diversified income portfolio and 20% or so in dividend-paying stocks. The orange line is Vanguard 500 Index (VFINX). I’m happy to admit that maxing-out the graph, charting the funds for 25 years rather than 14, gives a major advantage to the 500 Index. But, as we’re already noted, investors don’t act based on a 25 year horizon.

I know what you’re going to say: (1) we need stocks for the long-run and (2) the bear is about to maul the bond world. Both are true, in a limited sort of way.

First, the mantra “stocks for the long-term” doesn’t say “how much stock” nor does it argue for stocks at any particular juncture; that is, it doesn’t justify stocks now. I’m profoundly sympathetic to the absolute value investors’ argument that you’re actually being paid very poorly for the risks you’re taking. GMO’s latest asset class projections have the broad US market with negative real returns over the next seven years.

Second, a bear market in bonds doesn’t look like a bear market in stocks. A bear market in stocks looks like 25 or 35 or 45% down. Bonds, not so much. A bear market in bonds is generally triggered by rising interest rates. When rates rise, two things happen: the market value of existing low-rate bonds falls while the payouts available from newly issued bonds rises.

The folks at Legg Mason looked at 90 years of bond market returns and graphed them against changes in interest rates. The results were published in Rate-Driven Bond Bear Markets (2013) and they look like this:

The vertical axis is you, gaining or losing money. The horizontal axis measures rising or falling rates. In the 41 years in which rates have risen, the bond index fell on only nine occasions (the lower right quandrant). In 34 other years, rising rates were accompanied by positive returns, fed by the income payouts of the newly-issued bonds. And even when bonds fall, they typically lose 2-3%. Only 1994 registered a hefty 9% loss.

Price’s research makes things even a bit more positive. They argue that simply using a monolithic measure (intermediate Treasuries, the BarCap aggregate or whatever) underestimates the potential of diversifying within fixed income. Their most recent work suggests that a globally diversified portfolio, even without resort to intricate derivative strategies or illiquid investments, might boost the annual returns of a 60/40 portfolio. A diversified 60/40 portfolio, they find, would have beaten a vanilla one by 130 basis points or so this century. (See “Diversification’s Long-Term Benefits,” 2013.)

This is not an argument against owning stocks or stock funds. Goodness, some of my best friends (the poor dears) own them or manage them. The argument is simpler: fix the roof when it’s not raining. Think now about what’s in your long-term best interest rather than waiting for a sickened panic to make the decision for you. One of the peculiar signs of my portfolio’s success is this: I have no earthly idea of how it’s doing this year.  While I do read my managers’ letters eagerly and even talk with them on occasion, I neither know nor care about the performance over the course of a few months of a portfolio designed to serve me over the course of many years. 

And as you think about your portfolio’s shape for the year ahead or reflect on Charles’ and Ed’s essays below, you might find the Price data useful. The original 2004 and 2010 studies are available at the T. Rowe Price website.

Mediocrity and frustration

I’ve been fully invested in the market for the past 14 years with little to show for it, except frustration and proclamations of even more frustration ahead. During this time, basically since start of 21st century, my portfolio has returned only 3.9% per year, substantially below historical return of the last century, which includes among many other things The Great Depression.

I’ve suffered two monster drawdowns, each halving my balance. I’ve spent 65 months looking at monthly statements showing retractions of at least 20%. And, each time I seem to climb-out, I’m greeted with headlines telling me the next big drop is just around the corner (e.g., “How to Prepare for the Coming Bear Market,” and “Are You Prepared for a Stock Selloff ?“)

I have one Nobel Prize winner telling me the market is still overpriced, seeming every chance he gets. And another telling me that there is nothing I can do about it…that no amount of research will help me improve my portfolio’s performance.

Welcome to US stock market investing in the new century…in the new millennium.

The chart below depicts S&P 500 total return, which includes reinvested dividends, since December 1968, basically during the past 46 years. It uses month-ending returns, so intra-day and intra-month fluctuations are not reflected, as was done in a similar chart presented in Ten Market Cycles. The less frequent perspective discounts, for example, bear sightings from bear markets.

The period holds five market cycles, the last still in progress, each cycle comprising a bear and bull market, defined as a 20% move opposite preceding peak or trough, respectively. The last two cycles account for the mediocre annualized returns of 3.9%, across 14-years, or more precisely 169 months through September 2014.

Journalist hyperbole about how “share prices have almost tripled since the March 2009 low” refers to the performance of the current bull market, which indeed accounts for a great 21.9% annualized return over the past 67 months. Somehow this performance gets decoupled from the preceding -51% return of the financial crisis bear. Cycle 4 holds a similar story, only investors had to suffer 40 months of protracted 20% declines during the tech bubble bear before finally eking out a 2% annualized return across its 7-year full cycle.

Despite advances reflected in the current bull run, 14-year annualized returns (plotted against the secondary axis on the chart above) are among the lowest they been for the S&P 500 since September 1944, when returns reflected impacts of The Great Depression and World War II.

Makes you wonder why anybody invests in the stock market.

I suspect all one needs to do is see the significant potential for upside, as witnessed in Cycles 2-3. Our current bull pales in comparison to the truly remarkable advances of the two bull runs of 1970-80s and 1990s. An investment of $10,000 in October 1974, the trough of 1973-74, resulted in a balance of $610,017 by August 2000 – a 6000% return, or 17.2% for nearly 26 years, which includes the brief bear of 1987 and its coincident Black Monday.

Here’s a summary of results presented in the above graph, showing the dramatic differences between the two great bull markets at the end of the last century with the first two of the new century, so far:

But how many funds were around to take advantage 40 years ago? Answer: Not many. Here’s a count of today’s funds that also existed at the start of the last five bull markets:

Makes you wonder whether the current mediocrity is simply due to too many people and perhaps too much money chasing too few good ideas?

The long-term annualized absolute return for the S&P 500 is 10%, dating back to January 1926 through September 2014, about 89 years (using database derived from Goyal and Shiller websites). But the position held currently by many value oriented investors, money-managers, and CAPE Crusaders is that we will have to suffer mediocre returns for the foreseeable future…at some level to make-up for excessive valuations at the end of the last century. Paying it seems for sins of our fathers.

Of course, high valuation isn’t the only concern expressed about the US stock market. Others believe that the economy will face significant headwinds, making it hard to repeat higher market returns of years past. Rob Arnott describes the “3-D Hurricane Force Headwind” caused by waves of Deficit spending, which artificially props-up GDP, higher than published Debt, and aging Demographics.

Expectations for US stocks for the next ten years is very low, as depicted in the new risk and return tool on Research Affiliates’ website (thanks to Meb Faber for heads-up here). Forecast for large US equities? Just 0.7% total return per year. And small caps? Zero.

Good grief.

What about bonds?

Plotted also on the first chart presented above is 10-year average T-Bill interest rate. While it has trended down since the early 1980’s, if there is a correlation between it and stock performance, it is not obvious. What is obvious is that since interest rates peaked in 1981, US aggregate bonds have been hands-down superior to US stocks for healthy, stable, risk-adjusted returns, as summarized below:

Sure, stocks still triumphed on absolute return, but who would not take 8.7% annually with such low volatility? Based on comparisons of absolute return and Ulcer Index, bonds returned more than 70% of the gain with just 10% of the pain.

With underlining factors like 33 years of declining interest rates, it is no wonder that bond funds proliferated during this period and perhaps why some conservative allocation funds, like the MFO Great Owl and Morningstar Gold Metal Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX), performed so well. But will they be as attractive the next 33 years, or when interest rates rise?

As Morningstar’s Kevin McDevitt points out in his assessment of VWINX, “the fund lagged its average peer…from July 1, 1970, through July 1, 1980, a period of generally rising interest rates.” That said, it still captured 85% of the S&P500 return over that period and 76% during the Cycle 2 bull market from October 1974 through August 1987.

Of course, predicting interest rates will rise and interest rates actually rising are two different animals, as evidenced in bond returns YTD. In fact, our colleague Ed Studzinski recently pointed out the long term bonds have done exceptionally well this year (e.g., Vanguard Extended Duration Treasury ETF up 26.3% through September). Who would have figured?

I’m reminded of the pop quiz Greg Ip presents in his opening chapter of “Little Book of Economics”: The year is 1990. Which of the following countries has the brighter future…Japan or US? In 1990, many economists and investors picked Japan. Accurately predicting macroeconomics it seems is very hard to do. Some say it is simply not possible.

Similarly, the difficulty mutual funds have to consistently achieve top-quintile performance, either across fixed time periods or market cycles, or using absolute or risk-adjusted measures, is well documented (e.g., The Persistence Scorecard – June 2014, Persistence is a Killer, In Search of Persistence, and Ten Market Cycles). It does not happen. Due to the many underlying technical and psychological variables of the market place, if not the shear randomness of events.

In his great book “The Most Important Thing,” Howard Marks describes the skillful defensive investor as someone who does not lose much when the market goes down, but gains a fair amount when the market goes up. But this too appears very hard to do consistently.

Vanguard’s Convertible Securities Fund (VCVSX), sub-advised by OakTree Capital Management, appears to exhibit this quality to some degree, typically capturing 70-100% of upside with 70-80% of downside across the last three market cycles.

Since bull markets tend to last much longer than bear markets and produce returns well above the average, capturing a “fair amount” does not need to be that high. Examining funds that have been around for at least 1.5 cycles (since October 2002, oldest share class only), the following delivered 50% or more total return during bull markets, while limiting drawdowns to 50% during bear markets, each relative to S&P 500. Given the 3500 funds evaluated, the final list is pretty short.

VWINX is the oldest, along with Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture Fund (LBNDX) . Both achieved this result across the last four full cycles. As a check against performance missing the 50% threshold during out-of-cycle or partial-cycle periods, all funds on this list achieved the same result over their lifetimes.

For moderately conservative investors, these funds have not been mediocre or frustrating at all, quite the contrary. For those with an appetite for higher returns and possess the attendant temperament and investing horizon, here is a link to similar funds with higher thresholds: MFO Pain-To-Gain Funds.

We can only hope to have it so good going forward.

---

 

I fear that Charles and I may have driven poor Ed over the edge.  After decades of outstanding work as an investment professional, this month he’s been driven to ask …

Investing – Why?

By Edward Studzinski

“The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true.  It is the chief occupation of mankind.”

          H.L. Mencken

I will apologize in advance, for this may end up sounding like the anti-mutual fund essay. Why do people invest, and specifically, why do they invest in mutual funds?  The short answer is to make money. The longer answer is hopefully more complex and covers a multitude of rationales. Some invest for retirement to maintain a standard of living when one is no longer working full-time, expecting to achieve returns through diversified portfolios and professional management above and beyond what they could achieve by investing on their own. Others invest to meet a specific goal along the path of life – purchase a home, pay for college for the children, be able to retire early. Rarely does one hear that the goal of mutual fund investing is to become wealthy. In fact, I can’t think of any time I have ever had anyone tell me they were investing in mutual funds to become rich. Indeed if you want to become wealthy, your goal should be to manage a mutual fund rather than invest in one. 

How has most of the great wealth been created in this country? It has been created by people who started and built businesses, and poured themselves (and their assets) into a single-minded effort to make those businesses succeed, in many instances beyond anyone’s wildest expectations. And at some point, the wealth created became solidified as it were by either selling the business (as the great philanthropist Irving Harris did with his firm, Toni Home Permanents) or taking it public (think Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos with Microsoft and Amazon). And if one goes further back in time, the example of John D. Rockefeller with the various Standard Oil companies would loom large (and now of course, we have reunited two of those companies, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey aka Exxon and Standard Oil Company of New York aka Mobil as Exxon-Mobil, but I digress).

So, this begs the question, can one become wealthy by investing in a professionally-managed portfolio of securities, aka a mutual fund? The answer is – it depends. If one wants above-average returns and wealth creation, one usually has to concentrate one’s investments. In the mutual fund world you do this by investing in a concentrated or non-diversified fund. The conflict comes when the non-diversified fund grows beyond a certain size of assets under management and number of investments.  It then morphs from an opportunistic investment pool into a large or mega cap investment pool. The other problem arises with the unlimited duration of a mutual fund. Daily fund pricing and daily fund flows and redemptions do have a cost. For those looking for a real life example (I suspect I know the answer but I will defer to Charles to provide the numbers in next month’s MFO), contrast the performance over time of the closed-end fund, Source Capital (SOR) run by one of the best value investment firms, First Pacific Advisors with the performance over time of the mutual funds run by the same firm, some with the same portfolio managers and strategy. 

The point of this is that having a fixed capital structure lessens the number of issues with which an investment manager has to deal (focus on the investment, not what to do with new money or what to sell to meet redemptions). If you want a different real life example, take a look at the long-term performance of one of the best investment managers to come out of Harris Associates, whom most of you have never heard of, Peter B. Foreman, and his partnership Hesperus Partners, Ltd.

Now the point of this is not to say that you cannot make money by investing in a mutual fund or a pool of mutual funds. Rather, as you introduce more variables such as asset in-flows, out-flows, pools of analysts dedicated to an entire fund group rather than one investment product, and compensation incentives or disincentives, it becomes harder to generate consistent outperformance. And if you are an individual investor who keeps increasing the number of mutual funds that he or she has invested in (think Noah and the Ark School of Personal Investment), it becomes even more difficult

A few weeks ago it struck me that in the early 1980’s, when I figured out that I was a part of the sub-species of investor called value investor (not “value-oriented investor” which is a term invented by securities lawyers for securities lawyers), I made my first investment in Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett’s company. That was a relatively easy decision to make back then. I recently asked my friend Greg Jackson if he could think of a handful of investments, stocks like Berkshire (which has in effect been a closed-end investment portfolio) that today one could invest in that were one-decision investments. Both of us are still thinking about the answer to that question. 

Has something changed in the world in investing in the last fifteen or twenty years? Yes, it is a different world, in terms of information flows, in terms of types of investments, in terms of derivatives, in terms of a variety of things. What it also is is a different world in terms of time horizons and patience.  There is a tremendous amount of slippage that can eat into investment returns today in terms of trading costs and taxes (even at capital gains rates). And as a professional investment manager you have lots of white noise to deal with – consultants, peer pressure both internal and external, and the overwhelming flow of information that streams by every second on the internet. Even sitting in Omaha, the net of modern communications still drops over everything. 

So, how does one improve the odds of superior long-term performance? One has to be prepared to step back and stand apart. And that is increasingly a difficult proposition. But the hardest thing to do as an investment manager, or in dealing with one’s own personal portfolio, is to sometimes just do nothing. And yes, Pascal the French philosopher was right when he said that most of men’s follies come from not being able to sit quietly in one room. Even more does that lesson apply to one’s investment portfolio. More in this vein at some future date, but those are the things that I am musing about now.

---

“ … if you want to become wealthy, your goal should be to manage a mutual fund rather than invest in one.”  It’s actually fairer to say, “manage a large firm’s mutual fund” since many of the managers of smaller, independent funds are actually paying for the privilege of investing your money: their personal wealth underwrites some of the fund’s operations while they wait for performance to draw enough assets to cross the financial sustainability threshold.  One remarkably successful manager of a small fund joked that “you and I are both running non-profits.  The difference is that I hadn’t intended to.”

In the Courts: Top Developments in Fund Industry Litigation

Fundfox, launched in 2012, is the mutual fund industry’s only litigation intelligence service, delivering exclusive litigation information and real-time case documents neatly organized and filtered as never before.

“We built Fundfox from the ground up for mutual fund insiders,” says attorney-founder David M. Smith. “Directors and advisory personnel now have easier and more affordable access to industry-specific litigation intelligence than even most law firms had before.”

The core offering is a database of case information and primary court documents for hundreds of industry cases filed in federal courts from 2005 through the present. A Premium Subscription also includes robust database searching—by fund family, subject matter, claim, and more.

Settlement

• Fidelity settled a six-year old whistleblower case that had been green-lighted by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. (Zang v. Fid. Mgmt. & Research Co.)

Briefs

• American Century defendants filed their opening appellate brief (under seal) in a derivate action regarding the Ultra Fund’s investments in gambling-related securities. Defendants include independent directors. (Seidl v. Am. Century Cos.)
• Fidelity filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated ERISA class action that challenges Fidelity’s practices with respect to “redemption float” (i.e., the cash held to pay checks sent to 401(k) plan participants who have withdrawn funds from their 401(k) accounts). (In re Fid. ERISA Float Litig.)
• First Eagle filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss fee litigation regarding two international equity funds: “Plaintiffs have not identified a single case in which a court allowed a § 36(b) claim to proceed based solely on a comparison of the adviser’s fee to a single, unknown fee that the adviser receives for providing sub-advisory services to another client.” (Lynn M. Kennis Trust v. First Eagle Inv. Mgmt., LLC.)

Amended Complaints

• Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the excessive-fee litigation regarding five SEI funds, adding a new claim regarding the level of transfer agent fees. (Curd v. SEI Invs. Mgmt. Corp.)
• ERISA class-action plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that TIAA-CREF failed to honor customer requests to pay out funds in a timely fashion. (Cummings v. TIAA-CREF.)

Answer

Having lost its motion to dismiss, Principal filed an answer in excessive-fee litigation regarding six of its LifeTime Funds. (Am. Chems. & Equip., Inc. 401(k) Ret. Plan v. Principal.

For a complete list of developments last month, and for information and court documents in any case, log in at www.fundfox.com and navigate to Fundfox Insider.

The Alt Perspective:  Commentary and News from DailyAlts.

PREPARE FOR VOLATILITY

The markets delivered investors both tricks and treats in October. Underlying the modestly positive top-line U.S. equity and bond market returns for the month was a 64% rise, and subsequent decline, in the CBOE Volatility Index, otherwise known as VIX. This dramatic rise in the VIX coincided with a sharp, mid-month decline in equity markets. But with Halloween looming, the market goblins wanted to deliver some treats, and in fact did so as they pushed the VIX down to end the month 12.3% lower than it started. In turn, the equity markets rallied to close the month at all-time highs on Halloween day.

But as volatility creeps back into the markets, opportunities arise. Investment strategies that rely on different segments of the market behaving differently, such as managed futures and global macro, can thrive as global central bank policies diverge. And indeed they have. The top three managed futures funds have returned an average of 14.7% year-to-date through Oct. 31, according to data from Morningstar.

Other strategies that rely heavily on greater dispersion of returns, such as equity market neutral strategies, are also doing well this year. Whereas managed futures and global macro strategies take advantage of diverging prices at a macro level (U.S equities vs. Japanese equities, or Australian dollar vs. the Euro), market neutral funds take advantage of differences in individual stock price performance. And many of these funds have done just that this year. Through October 31, the three best performing equity market neutral funds have an average return of 11.9% year-to-date, according to data from Morningstar.

All three of these strategies generate returns by investing both long and short, generally in equal amounts, and maintain low levels of net exposure to individual markets. As a result, they can be used to effectively diversify portfolios away from stocks and bonds. And as volatility picks up, these funds have a greater opportunity to add value.  

NEW FUND LAUNCHES IN OCTOBER

As of this writing, seven new alternative funds have been launched in October, and like last month when four new funds launched on the last day of the month, we expect to add a few more to the October count. Five of the new funds are packaged as mutual funds, and two are ETFs, while five are multi-strategy funds, one is long/short, one is managed futures and one is market neutral. Two notable launches that dovetail on the discussion above are as follows:

• ProShares Managed Futures Strategy Fund (FUTS) – This is a low cost, systematic managed futures fund that invests across multiple asset classes.
• AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund (QMNIX) – This is a pure equity market neutral fund that will target a beta of 0 relative to the US equity markets.

NEW FUNDS REGISTERED IN OCTOBER

October saw 13 new alternative funds register with the S.E.C. covering a wide swath of strategies including multi-strategy, long/short equity, arbitrage, global macro and managed futures. Two notable funds are:

• Balter Discretionary Global Macro Fund – This is the second mutual fund from Balter Liquid Alternatives and will provide investors with exposure to Willowbridge Associates, a discretionary global macro manager that was formed in 1988.
• PIMCO Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund – This fund will be sub-advised by Research Affiliates and will invest in a range of alternative mutual funds and ETFs managed and offered by PIMCO.

OTHER NOTABLE NEWS

• The SEC rejected two proposals for non-transparent ETFs (exchange traded funds that don’t have to disclose their holdings on a daily basis). This is a setback for this new product structure that may ultimately bring more alternative strategies to the ETF marketplace.
• Education continues to be a hot topic among advisors and other investors looking to use alternative mutual funds and ETFs. The two most viewed articles on DailyAlts in October had to do with investor education and related research articles: AllianceBernstein Provides Thought Leadership on Liquid Alts and Neuberger Berman Calls Alts ‘The New Traditionals’.
• The S.E.C. continues to examine liquid alternative funds, and potentially has an issue with some fund disclosures. Norm Champ, the S.E.C. director leading the investigations, spoke recently at an industry event and noted that there appears to be some discrepancies between what funds are permitted to do per their prospectuses, and what is actually being done in the funds. Interestingly, he noted that prospectuses sometimes disclose more strategies than are actually being used in the funds.

Have a joyful Thanksgiving, and feel free to stop by DailyAlts.com for more updates on the liquid alternatives market.

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds. Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds. “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve.

FPA Paramount (FPRAX): Paramount has just completed Year One under its new global, absolute value discipline.  If it weren’t for those danged emerging markets (non) consumers and anti-corruption drives, the short term results would likely have been as bright as the long-term promise.

Launch Alert: US Quantitative Value (QVAL)

My colleague Charles Boccadoro has been in conversation with Wesley Gray and the folks at Alpha Architect.  While ETFs are not our traditional interest, the rise of actively managed ETFs and the recently thwarted prospect for non-transparent, actively managed ETFs, substantially blurs the line between them and open-end mutual funds.  When we encounter particularly intriguing active ETF options, we’re predisposed to share them with you. Based on the investing approach detailed in his highly praised 2013 book Quantitative Value, this fund qualifies. Wesley Gray launched the U.S. Quantitative Value ETF (QVAL) on 22 October 2014.

Dr. Gray gave an excellent talk at the recent Morningstar conference with a somewhat self-effacing title borrowed from Warren Buffet: Beware of Geeks Bearing Formulas. His background includes serving as a US Marine Corps intelligence officer and completing both an MBA and a PhD from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. He appears well prepared to understand and ultimately exploit financial opportunities created by behavioral biases and inefficiencies in the market.

The fund employs a Benjamin Graham value philosophy, which Dr. Gray has been studying since his 12th birthday, when his late grandmother gave him a copy of The Intelligent Investor. In quant-fashion, the fund attempts to implement the value strategy in systematic fashion to help protect against behavioral errors. Behaviors, for example, that led to the worst investor returns for the past decade’s best performing fund – CGM Focus Fund (2000-09). “We are each our own worst enemy,” Dr. Gray writes.

The fund uses academically-based and empirically-validated approaches to identify quality and price. In this way, Dr. Gray has actually challenged a similar strategy, called “The Magic Formula,” made popular by Joel Greenblatt’s book The Little Book That Beats the Market. The issue appears to be that The Magic Formula systematically forces investors to pay too high for quality. Dr. Gray argues that price is actually a bigger determinant of ultimate return than quality.

QVAL currently holds 40 stocks so we classify it as a concentrated portfolio, though not technically non-diversified. Its expense ratio is 0.79%, substantially less than the former Formula Investing funds (now replaced by even more expensive Gotham funds). The fund has quickly collected $8M in AUM. An international version (IVAL) is pending. We plan to do an in-depth profile of QVAL soon.

Alpha Shares maintains separate sites for its Alpha Shares advisory business and its Value Shares active ETFs.  Folks trying to understand the evidence behind the strategy would be well-advised to start with the QVAL factsheet, which provides the five cent tour of the strategy, then look at the research in-depth on the “Our Ideas” tab on the advisor’s homepage

Funds in Registration

The intrepid David Welsch, spelunker in the SEC database, tracked down 23 new no-load, retail funds in registration this month. In general, these funds will be available for purchase at the very end of December.  Advisors really want to have a fund live by December 30^th or reporting services won’t credit it with “year to date” results for all of 2015. A number of the prospectuses are incredibly incomplete (not listing, for example, a fund manager, minimums, expenses or strategies) which suggests that they’re panicked about having something on file.

Highlights among the registrants:

• Arbitrage Tactical Equity Fund will inexplicably do complicated things in pursuit of capital appreciation. Given that all of the Arbitrage funds could be described in the same way, and all of them are in the solid-to-excellent range, that’s apparently not a bad thing. 
• Greenhouse MicroCap Discovery Fund will pursue long-term capital appreciation by investing in 50-100 microcaps “run by disciplined management teams possessing clear strategies for growth that … trade at a discount to intrinsic value.” The fund intrigues me because Joseph Milano is one of its two managers. Milano managed T. Rowe Price New America Growth Fund (PRWAX) quite successfully from 2002-2013. PRWAX is a large growth fund but a manager’s disciplines often seem transferable across size ranges.
• Intrepid International Fund will seek long-term capital appreciation by investing in foreign stocks but it is, by prospectus, bound to invest only 40% of its portfolio overseas. Curious. The Intrepid funds are all built around absolute value disciplines: if the case for risky assets isn’t compelling, they won’t buy them.  That’s led to some pretty strong records across full market cycles, and pretty disappointing ones if you look only at little slices of time.  One of the managers of Intrepid Income was handle the reins here.

Manager Changes

This month saw 67 manager changes including the departures of several high profile professionals, including Abhay Deshpande of the First Eagle Funds.

Updates

PIMCO has been punted from management of Forward Investment Grade Fixed-Income Fund (AITIX) and Principal Global Multi-Strategy Fund (PMSAX). I’m afraid that the folks at the erstwhile “happiest place on earth” must be a bit shell-shocked. Since Mr. Gross stomped off, they’ve lost contracts – involving either the Total Return Fund or all of their services – with the state retirement systems in New Hampshire and Florida, the teachers’ retirement system in Arkansas, Ford Motor’s 401(k), Advanced Series Trust, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Alabama’s and California’s 529 College Savings accounts, Russell Investments, British wealth manager St. James Place, Schwab’s Target Date funds and a slug of city retirement plans. Consultant DiMeo Schneider & Associates, whose clients have about a billion in PIMCO Total Return, has issued “a universal sell recommendation” on PIMCO and Schwab reportedly is saying something comparable to its private clients.

Three short reactions:

The folks firing PIMCO are irresponsible.  The time to dump PIMCO would have been during the period that Gross was publicly unraveling. Leaving after you replace the erratic titan with a solid, professional team suggests either they weren’t being diligent or they’re grabbing for headlines or both.

PIMCO crisis management appears inept. “We are PIMCO (dot com)!” Really? I don’t tweet but enormous numbers of folks do and PIMCO’s Twitter feed is lame. One measure of impact is retweeting and only three of the past 20 tweets have been retweeted 10 or more times. There appears to be no coherent focus or intensity, just clutter and business-as-usual as the wobble gets worse.

Financial writers should be ashamed. In the months leading up to Gross’s departure, I found just three or four people willing to state the obvious. Now many stories, if not virtually every story, about PIMCO being sacked pontificates about the corrosive effect of months of increasingly erratic behavior. Where we these folks when their readers needed them? Oh right, hiding behind “the need to maintain access.”

By the way, the actual Pontiff seems to be doing a remarkably good job of pontificating. He seems an interesting guy. It will be curious to see whether his efforts are more than just a passing ripple on a pond, since the Vatican specializes in enduring, absorbing then forgetting reformist popes.

Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities (GPGOX) and Grandeur Peak International Opportunities (GPIOX) have now changed their designation from “non-diversified” to “diversified” portfolios. Given that they hold more than 200 stocks each, that seems justified.

Briefly Noted . . .

Kent Gasaway has resigned as president of the Buffalo Funds, though he’ll continue to co-manage Buffalo Small Cap Fund (BUFSX) and the Buffalo Mid Cap Fund (BUFMX).

At about the same time, Abhay Deshpande has resigned as manager of the First Eagle Global (SGENX), Overseas (SGOVX) and US Value (FEVAX) funds. It’s curious that his departure, described as “amicable,” has drawn essentially no notice given his distinguished record and former partnership with Jean-Marie Eveillard.

Chou America makes it definite. According to their most recent SEC filing, the unexplained changes that might happen on December 6 now definitely will happen on December 6:

Robeco Boston Partners Long/Short Research Fund (BPRRX) is closed to new investors, which is neither news (it happened in spring) nor striking (Robeco has a long record of shuttering funds). What is striking is their willingness to announce the trigger that will lead them to reopen the fund:

Robeco reserves the right to reopen the Fund to new investments from time to time at its discretion, should the assets of the Fund decline by more than 5% from the date of the last closing of the Fund. In addition, if Robeco reopens the Fund, Robeco has discretion to close the Fund thereafter should the assets of the Fund increase by more than 5% from the date of the last reopening of the Fund.

Portfolio 21 Global Equity Fund (PORTX) “is excited to announce” that it’s likely to be merge with Trillium Asset Management and that its president, John Streur, has resigned.

Wasatch Funds announced the election of Kristin Fletcher to their board of trustees. I love it when funds have small, highly qualified boards. Ms. Fletcher surely qualifies, with over 35 years in the industry including a stint as the Chairman and CEO of ABN AMRO, and time at First Interstate Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Export-Import Bank of the U.S., and Wells Fargo Bank.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Aristotle International Equity (ARSFX) and Aristotle/Saul Global Opportunities Fund (ARSOX) have reduced their initial purchase minimum from $25,000 to $2,500 and their subsequent investment minimum to $100. Both funds have been cellar-dwellers over their short lives; presumably rich folks have enough wretched opportunities in hedge funds and so weren’t drawn here.

Effective November 1, Forward trimmed five basis points of the management fee for the various classes of Forward Emerging Markets Fund (PGERX). The fund is tiny, mediocre and running at a loss of .68%, so this is a marketing move rather than an adjustment to the economies of scale.

The trustees for O’Shaughnessy Enhanced Dividend (OFDAX/OFDCX) and O’Shaughnessy Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund (OFMAX) voted to eliminate the fund’s “A” and “C” share classes and transitioning those investors into the lower-cost Institutional share class. Neither makes a compelling case for itself.

On October 9, 2014, the Board of Trustees of Philadelphia Investment Partners New Generation Fund (PIPGX) voted to remove the fund’s sales charge. The fund has earned just under 5% per year for the past three years, handily trailing its long-short peer group.

Break out the bubbly! PSP Multi-Manager Fund (CEFFX/CEFIX) has slashed its expenses – exclusive of a long list of exceptions – from 3.0% to 2.64%. The fund inherits its predecessor Congressional Effect Fund’s dismal record, so don’t hold bad long-term returns against the current team. They’ve only been on-board since late August 2014. If you’d like, you’re more than welcome to hold a 2.64% e.r. against them instead.

Hartford Total Return Bond Fund (HABDX) has dropped its management fee by 12 basis points. I’m not certain that the reduction is related to the departure of the $200 Million Man, manager Bill Gross, but the timing is striking.

As of October 1, 2014, the investment advisory fee paid to Charles Schwab for the Laudus Mondrian International Equity Fund (LIEQX) was dropped by 10 basis points to 0.75%.

Each of the Litman Gregory Masters Fund’s Investor Class shares is eliminating its redemption fee.

PIMCO Emerging Markets Bond Fund (PAEMX) has dropped its management charge by 5 basis points to 50 basis points.

Similarly, RBC Global Asset Management will see its fees reduced by 10 basis points for the RBC BlueBay Emerging Market Corporate Bond Fund (RECAX) and by 5 basis points for the RBC BlueBay Emerging Market Select Bond Fund (RESAX), RBC BlueBay Global High Yield Bond Fund (RHYAX) and RBC BlueBay Global Convertible Bond Fund.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

The American Beacon International Equity Index Fund (AIIIX) will close to new investors on December 31, 2014. Uhhh … why? It’s an index fund tracking the largest international index.

Effective December 1, 2014, American Century One Choice 2015 Portfolio (ARFAX) will be closed to new investors. One presumes that the fund is in the process of liquidating as it reaches its target date, which its assets transferring to a retirement income fund.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Just before Christmas, the AllianzGI Wellness Fund (RAGHX) will change its name to the AllianzGI Health Sciences Fund and it will begin investing in, well, health sciences-related companies. Currently it also invests in “wellness companies,” those promoting a healthy lifestyle. Not to dismiss the change, but pretty much all of the top 25 holdings are health-sciences companies already and Morningstar places 98% of its holdings in the healthcare field.

Effective January 15, 2015, Calvert High Yield Bond Fund (CYBAX) will shift its principal investment strategy from investing in bonds with intermediate durations to those “with varying durations,” with the note that “duration and maturity will be managed tactically.” At the same time Calvert Global Alternative Energy Fund (CGAEX) will be renamed Calvert Global Energy Solutions Fund, presumably because “alternative energy” is “so Obama.” I’ll note in passing that I really like the clarity of Calvert’s filings; they make it ridiculously easy to understand exactly what they do now and what they’ll be doing in the future. Thanks for that.

Effective December 30, 2014, CMG Managed High Yield Fund (CHYOX) will be renamed CMG Tactical Bond Fund. It appears as if the fund’s adviser decided to change its name and principal strategy within two weeks of its initial launch. They had filed to launch this fund in April 2013, appeared to have delayed for nearly 20 months, launched it and then immediately questioned the decision. Why am I not finding this reassuring?

Equinox EquityHedge U.S. Strategy Fund is chucking its “let’s hire lots of star sub-advisers” strategy in favor of investing in derivatives and ETFs on their own. Following the change, the investment advisory fee drops from 1.95% to 0.95% but “the Board also approved a decrease in the fee waiver and expense reimbursement arrangements with the Adviser to correspond with the decreased advisory fee.” The new system caps “A” share expenses at 1.45% except for a long list of uncapped items which might push the total substantially higher.

First Pacific Low Volatility Fund (LOVIX) has been renamed Lee Financial Tactical Fund. Headquartered in Honolulu. I feel a field trip coming on.

On October 1, Forward announced plans to reposition Forward Global Dividend Fund (FFLRX) as Forward Foreign Equity Fund on December 1. The new investment strategy statement is unremarkable, except for the absence of the word “dividend” anywhere in it. Two weeks later Forward filed an indefinite suspension of the change, so FFLRX lives on but conceivably on borrowed time.

Goldman Sachs Municipal Income Fund becomes Goldman Sachs Strategic Municipal Income Fund in December. The strategy in question involves permitting investments in high yield munis and in a 2-8 year duration band.

Effective December 17, Janus’s INTECH subsidiary will be “applying a managed volatility approach” to four of INTECH’s funds, at which point their names will change:

Current Name	New Name
INTECH Global Dividend Fund	INTECH Global Income Managed Volatility Fund
INTECH International Fund	INTECH International Managed Volatility Fund
INTECH U.S. Growth Fund	INTECH U.S. Managed Volatility Fund II
INTECH U.S. Value Fund	INTECH U.S. Managed Volatility Fund

 

Laudus Mondrian Institutional Emerging Markets (LIEMX) and Laudus Mondrian Institutional International Equity (LIIEX) funds are pursuing one of those changes that make sense primarily to the fund’s accountants and lawyers. Instead of being the Institutional EM Fund, it will become the Institutional share class Laudus Mondrian Emerging Markets (LEMIX). Likewise with International Equity.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Aberdeen Global Select Opportunities Fund (BJGQX) is going to merge into the Aberdeen Global Equity Fund (GLLAX) following what the adviser refers to as “the completion of certain conditions” a/k/a approval by shareholders. Neither fund is particularly good and they have overlapping management teams, but Select is microscopic and pretty much doomed.

Boston Advisors Broad Allocation Strategy Fund (BABAX) will be liquidated come December 18, 2014. It’s a small, overpriced fund-of-funds that’s managed to lag in both up markets and down markets over its short life.

HNP Growth and Preservation Fund (HNPKX) is slated for liquidation in mid-November. It was a reasonably conservative managed futures fund that was hampered by modest returns and high expenses. We wrote a short profile of it a while ago.

iShares isn’t exactly cleaning house, but they did bump off 18 ETFs in late October. The descendants include their entire Target Date lineup plus a couple real estate, emerging market sector and financial ETFs. The full list is:

• iShares Global Nuclear Energy ETF (NUCL)
• iShares Industrial/Office Real Estate Capped ETF (FNIO)
• iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Financials ETF (EMFN)
• iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Materials ETF (EMMT)
• iShares MSCI Far East Financials ETF (FEFN)
• iShares NYSE 100 ETF (NY)
• iShares NYSE Composite ETF (NYC)
• iShares Retail Real Estate Capped ETF (RTL)
• iShares Target Date Retirement Income ETF (TGR)
• iShares Target Date 2010 ETF (TZD)
• iShares Target Date 2015 ETF (TZE)
• iShares Target Date 2020 ETF (TZG)
• iShares Target Date 2025 ETF (TZI)
• iShares Target Date 2030 ETF (TZL)
• iShares Target Date 2035 ETF (TZO)
• iShares Target Date 2040 ETF (TZV)
• iShares Target Date 2045 ETF (TZW)
• iShares Target Date 2050 ETF (TZY)

Lifetime Achievement Fund (LFTAX) “has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations.” The orderly dissolution of the fund will take until March 31, 2015.

Effective October 13, 2014, the Nationwide Enhanced Income Fund and the Nationwide Short Duration Bond Fund were reorganized into the Nationwide HighMark Short Term Bond Fund (NWJSX).

QS LEGG MASON TARGET RETIREMENT 2015,

Speaking of mass liquidations, Legg Mason decided to bump off its entirely target-date lineup, except for Target Retirement 2015 (LMFAX), effective mid-November.

• QS Legg Mason Target Retirement 2020,
• QS Legg Mason Target Retirement 2025,
• QS Legg Mason Target Retirement 2030,
• QS Legg Mason Target Retirement 2035,
• QS Legg Mason Target Retirement 2040,
• QS Legg Mason Target Retirement 2045,
• QS Legg Mason Target Retirement 2050
• QS Legg Mason Target Retirement Fund.

Robeco Boston Partners International Equity Fund merged into John Hancock Disciplined Value International Fund (JDIBX) on September 26, 2014.

Symons Small Cap Institutional Fund (SSMIX) has decided to liquidate, done in by “the Fund’s small asset size and the increasing regulatory and operating costs borne by the adviser.” Trailing 98-99% of its peers over the past 1, 3 and 5 year periods probably didn’t help its case.

Effective immediately, the USFS Funds Limited Duration Government Fund (USLDX) is closed to new purchases, its manager has left and all references to him in the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI have been “deleted in their entirety.” Given that the fund is small and sad, and the adviser’s website doesn’t even admit it exists, I’m thinking the “closed to new investors and the manager’s out the door” might be a prelude to a watery grave.

The Japan Fund (SJPNX) just became The Former Japan Fund as it ended a long and rambling career by being absorbed into the Matthews Japan Fund (MJFOX, as in Michael J. Fox). The Japan Fund, launched in the late 1980s as Scudder Japan, was one of the first funds to target Japan – at just about the time Japan’s market peaked.

Effective October 20, 2014, three Virtus Insight money market funds (Government Money Market, Money Market and Tax-Exempt Money Market) were liquidated.

Bon Voya-age: Voya Global Natural Resources Fund (LEXMX – another of the old Lexington funds, along with our long-time favorite Lexington Corporate Leaders LEXCX) is merging in Voya International Value Equity (NAWGX). LEXMX has led its peers in four of the past five years but seems not to have drawn enough assets to satisfy the adviser’s needs. In the interim, International Value will be rechristened Voya Global Value Advantage.

 

In Closing . . .

One of our greatest challenges each month is balancing the needs and interests of our regular readers with those of the folks who are encountering us for the first time. Of the 25,000 folks who’ve read the Observer in the past 30 days, 40% ~ say, 10,000 ~ were first-time visitors. That latter group might reasonably be wondering things like “who on earth are these people?” and “where are the ads?” The following is for them and for anyone who’s still wondering “what’s up here?”

Who is the Observer?

The Mutual Fund Observer operates as a public service, a place for individuals to interact, grow, learn and gain confidence. It is a free, independent, non-commercial site, financially supported by folks who value its services. We write for intellectually curious, serious investors – managers, advisers, and individuals – who need to get beyond marketing fluff and computer-generated recommendations.

We have about 25,000 readers, 95% of whom are resident in the US.

The Observer is published by David Snowball, a Professor of Communication Studies and former Director of Debate at Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois. While I might be the “face” of the Observer, I’m also only one piece of it. The strength of the Observer is the strength of the people it has drawn. There is a community of folks, fantastically successful in their own rights, who provide us with an incredibly powerful advantage. Some (Charles and Edward, as preeminent examples) write for us, some write to us (mostly in private emails) and some (David Smith at Fundfox and Brian Haskin at DailyAlts) share their words and expertise with us. They all share a common passion: to teach and hence to learn. Their presence, and yours, makes this infinitely more than Snowball 24/7.

What’s our mission?

We’ll begin with the obvious: about 80% of all mutual funds could shut their doors today and not be missed.  If I had to describe them, I’d use words like

• Large
• Unimaginative
• Undistinguished
• Asset sponges

They thrive by never being bad enough to dump and so, year after year, their numbers swell. By one estimate, 30% of all mutual fund money is invested in closet index funds – nominally active funds whose strategy and portfolio is barely distinguishable from an index. One of Russel Kinnel’s sharper lines of late was, “New funds tend to be mediocre because fund companies make them that way” (“New Funds Generate More Excitement Than Results,” 10/16/14). Add “larger” in front of “fund companies” and I’d nod happily. The situation is worse in ETF-land where the disappearance of 90% of offerings would likely improve the performance of 99% of investor portfolios.

Sadly those are the funds that win analyst coverage and investor attention.  The structure of the investment company industry is such that the funds you should consider most seriously are the ones about which you hear the least: small, nimble, independent entities with skilled managers who – in many cases – have left major firms in disgust at the realization that the corporation’s needs were going to trump their investors’ needs. Where the mantra at large companies is “let’s not do anything weird,” the mantra at smaller firms seems to be “let’s do the right thing for our investors.”

That’s who we write about, convinced that there are opportunities there that you really should recognize and consider with all seriousness.

How can you best use it?

Give yourself time and go beyond the obvious.

We tend to publish longer pieces that most sites and many of those essays assume that you’re smart, interested and thoughtful. We don’t do fluff though we celebrate quirky. The essays that Charles posts tend to be incredibly data-rich. Ed’s essays tend to be driven by a sharply trained, deeply inquisitive mind and decades of experience; he understands more about what’s going on just under the surface or behind closed doors than most of us could ever aspire to. They bear re-reading.

We have a lot of resources not immediately evident in the monthly update you’ve just read. I’ll highlight four and suggest you click around a bit on the top menu bar.

1. We share content from, and link to, people who impress us. David Smith and FundFox do an exceptional job of following and organizing the industry’s legal travails; it strikes me as an indispensable tool for trustees, reporters and folks whose names are followed by the letters J and D.  Brian Haskin and the folks are DailyAlts are dedicated to comprehensive tracking of the industry’s fastest growing, most complex corner.  Both offer resources well beyond our capacity and strike us as really worth following.
2. We offer tools that do cool things. Want detailed, current, credible risk measures for any fund? Risk Profile Search. A searchable list of every fund whose risk-adjusted returns beat its peers in every trailing period?  Great Owls.  A quick way to generate lists of candidates for a portfolio?  Miraculous Multi-Search.  Every manager change at an equity, balanced or alts fund over the past three years.  Got it.  Chip’s Manager Changes master list. Most of them are under the Search Tools tab, but the Navigator – which links you directly to any specified fund’s page on a dozen credible news and rating sites – is a Resource. 
3. We have profiles of over 100 funds, generally small, new and distinctive. Charles’s downloadable dashboard gives you quick access to updated risk and return information on each. There are archived audio interviews with the managers of some of the most intriguing of them. We present the active share calculations for every fund we profile and host one of the web’s largest collections of current active share data.
4. We have searchable editorial and analytic content back to our inception. Curious about everything we’ve reported on Seafarer Growth & Income (SFGIX) since its inception?  It’s there.  Our discussion of the fall o’ Fidelity funds? 

Quite independent of which (fiercely independent of which, I dare say) is the Observer’s mutual fund discussion board, which has had 1600 users and 65,000 posts.

We also answer our mail.

How do we pay for it?

Because the folks most in need of a quiet corner and reasonable people are those least able to pay a subscription, we’ve never charged one. When readers wish to support the Observer, they have four pretty simple, entirely voluntary channels:

1. They can use our Amazon.com link for their online shopping. On average, Amazon rebates to us an amount equivalent to about 7% of your purchase. Hint! Hint! There are holidays coming. If you’re one of those people who participate in “holiday shopping”, use this link. It costs you nothing. There really are no strings attached.
2. They can contribute directly through PayPal.
3. They can become de facto subscribers through an automatic monthly contribution through PayPal.
4. They can send a check. Or cash. Heck, we’d take fruitcakes and would delight in good chocolates.

All of that is laid out on our Support Us page.

Our goal each month is not to be great. It’s to be a bit better than we were last month. Frankly, the more you help – with ideas, encouragement, criticism and support – the likelier that is to occur.

Speaking of de facto subscribers, the number has doubled in the last month. Thanks Greg, Deb appreciates the company!  Charles is developing a remarkably sophisticated fund search function; in thanks and in hopes of getting feedback, we’ve extended access to our subscribers. If our recent rate of subscriber growth (i.e., doubling monthly) keeps up, we’ll crack 8200 in a year and I think we’d hit 16,777,216 by the end of the following year. Charles, the energetic one among us, has promised to greet each of you at the door.

I’m sure by now that you’ve set your clocks back.  But what about your other fall chores?  Change the batteries in your smoke detectors.  If you don’t have spare batteries on hand, leave a big Post-It note on the door to the garage so you remember to buy some.  If your detector predates the Obama administration, it’s time for a change.  And when was the last time you called your mom, changed your furnace filters or unwrapped that mysterious aluminum foil clad nodule in the freezer?  Time to get to it, friends!

For December, we’ll profile three new funds and think with you about the results of our latest research project focusing on the extent to which fund trustees are willing to entrust their own money to the funds they oversee.  We’ve completed reviews of 80 of our target 100 funds and, so far, 515 trustees might have a bit of explaining to do. 

Also coming in December, our pilot episode of the soon-to-be-hit reality TV show: So you think you can be an equity fund manager!  It’ll be hosted by some cheeky chick from Poughkeepsie who sports a faux British accent.

It looks so easy.  And so profitable.  Our British confreres boiled the attraction down in a single three minute video.

Wealth Management Parody from SCM on Vimeo. Thanks to Ted, one of the discussion board’s senior members, for bringing it to our attention.

In December we’ll look at Motif, a service mentioned to us by actual fund managers who are intrigued by it and which would let you run your own mutual fund (or six), in real time with real money.

Your money.

See you then!

 

By David Snowball

Dear friends,

If it weren’t for everything else I’ve read in the news this week (a “blood feud” between DoubleLine and Morningstar? Blood feud? Really? “Pa! Grab your shotgun. Ah dun seen one a them filthy Mansuetos down by the crik!”), the silliest story of the week would be the transformation of candidate’s mutual fund portfolios into attack fodder. And not even attacks for the right reasons!

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Terri Lynn Land attacked her opponent for owning shares of the French firm Total SA. Three weeks later Democrat Gary Peters struck back after discovering that Land (the wretch!) owned “C” shares of Well Fargo Absolute Return (WARCX)and WARCX in turn owns GMO Benchmark-Free Allocation which owns five other GMO funds, one of which has 3% of its portfolio invested in Total SA stock. “She got her hand caught in the cookie jar,” quoth the Democrat.

Land’s total profit from WARCX was between $200-1000. Total SA represented 4% of a fund that was itself 14% of another fund. Hmmm … maybe 0.5% of her perhaps $200 windfall was Total SA so, yup, the issue came down to $1 worth of cookie.

Of course, it wasn’t about the money. It was about the principle. As politics so often are.

Also in Michigan Democrat Mark Schauer attacked the Republican governor’s tax break which benefited companies “even if they send jobs overseas.” The Republican struck back after discovering that Schauer owned shares of Growth Fund of America (AGTHX) which “has a portfolio of companies that make goods overseas, such as Apple.” Here in the Quad Cities, the Democrat candidate for Congress has been attacked for her investment in Janus Overseas (JAOSX), whose 7% holding in Li and Fung Enterprises raised Republican hackles. Congressional candidate Martha Robertson was attacked for owning stock in the treacherous, border-jumping, tax-inverting Burger King – which turns out to be held in the portfolio of a mutual fund she bought 36 years ago. Minnesota senator Al Franken was found to own Lazard, the parent company of a somehow objectionable company, via shares in a socially responsible mutual fund.

Yup. That sure would have been the craziest story of the month except for …

Notes on The Greatest (ill-timed mutual fund manager transition) Story Ever Told

Bill Gross arriving at Janus

Making sense of Mr. Gross’s departure from PIMCO is the very epitome of an “above my pay grade and outside my circle of competence” story. I don’t know why he left. I don’t know whether PIMCO has a toxic environment or, if so, whether he was the source or the firewall. And I certainly don’t know who, among the many partisans furiously spinning their stories, is even vaguely close to speaking the truth.

Here are, however, seven things that I do believe to be true.

If your adviser has recommended moving out of PIMCO funds, you should fire him. If your endowment consultant has advised moving out of PIMCO funds, fire them. If your newsletter editor has rushed out a special bulletin urging you to run, cancel your subscription, demand a refund and send the money to us. (We’ll buy chocolate.) If your spouse is planning on selling PIMCO shares, fir … distract him with pie and that adorable story about a firefighter giving oxygen to baby hamsters. (Also switch him to decaf and consider changing the password on your brokerage account.)

At base, Mr. Gross made some contribution to his core fund’s long-term outperformance, which is in the range of 100-200 basis points/year. In the long term, say over the course of decades, that’s huge. For the immediate future, it’s utterly trivial and irrelevant.

Note to PIMCO (from academe): Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! On behalf of all of us who teach Crisis Communications, Strategic Comm, Media Relations or Public Relations, thanks. Your handling of the story has been manna and will be the source of case studies for years.

For those of you without the time to take a crisis communications course, let me share the five word version of it: Get ahead of the story. Play it, don’t let it play you. Mr. Gross’s departure was absolutely predictable, even if the precise timing wasn’t. The probability of his unhappy departure was exceedingly high, even if the precise trigger was unknown. The firm’s strategists have either known it, or had a responsibility to know it, for the past six months. You could have been planning positive takes. You could have been helping journalists, long in advance, imagine positive frames for the story.

As is, you appeared to be somewhere between scrambling and flailing. About the most positive coverage you could generate was a whiny headline, “Bill Gross relied on us,” and a former employee’s human interest assessment, “El-Erian: PIMCO’s new CIO is one of the most considerate and decent people I know.”

We’d been living off BP’s mishandling of the Gulf oil disaster for years, but it was endless and getting stale. Roger Goodell has certainly offered himself up (latest: he’s got bodyguards and they assault photographers) but it’s great to have a Menu of Misses and Messes to work with.

Note (1) to Janus: You don’t have a Global Unconstrained Bond Fund. Or didn’t at the point that you announced that Mr. Gross was running it:

You might blame the “Global” slip-up on your IT team. It turns out that it’s not just the low-level gnomes. Janus president Richard Weil also invoked the non-existent Global Unconstrained Fund:

Morningstar echoed the confusion:

I called a Janus phone rep, who affirmed that of course they had a Global Unconstrained Fund, followed by a bunch of tapping, a “that’s odd,” an “uh-oh” and a “I’ll have to refer this up the line.” Two hours later Janus filed the name change announcement with the SEC.

Dudes: you were at the top of the news cycle. Everyone was looking. This was just chance to prove to everyone that you were relevant. Why deflect the story with careless goofs? You could have filed a two sentence SEC notice, with no mention of Mr. Gross, the week before. You didn’t. Why, too, does the fund have an eight page summary prospectus with five pages of text, two pages labeled “Intentionally Blank” and another page also blank (even blanker than the two preceding pages with writing on them), but apparently unintentionally so?

Note (2) to Janus: That’s the best picture of Mr. Gross that you could find? Really? Uhhh … that’s not a fund manager. That’s the Grinch.

Note to the ETF zealots, dancing around a bonfire and attempting to howl like wolves: Stop it, you’re embarrassing.

If you actually believed the credo that you so piously pronounce, there’d be about three ETFs in existence, each with a trillion in assets. They’d be overseen by a nonprofit corporation (hi, Jack!) which would charge one basis point. All the rest of you would be off somewhere, hawking nutraceuticals and testosterone supplements for a living. We’ll get to you later.

Note to pundits tossing around 12 figure guesstimates about PIMCO outflows: Stop it, you’re not helping anyone. I know you want to get headlines and build your personal brand. That’s fine, go date a Kardashian. There are a bunch of them available and apparently their standards are pretty … uhhh, flexible. Making up scary pronouncements with blue sky numbers (“we anticipate as much as $400 billion in outflows…”) does nothing more than encourage people to act poorly.

Note to our readers and other PIMCO investors: this is likely the best news you’ve had in a year. PIMCO has been twisting itself in knots over this issue. It’s been a daily distraction and a source of incredible tension and anxiety for dozens upon dozens of management and investment professionals. The situation had been steadily worsening. And now it’s done.

We don’t much cover PIMCO funds. Like the American Funds, they’re way too big to be healthy or interesting. That said, PIMCO has launched innovative and successful new funds over the past five years. Their collective Morningstar performance ratings (4.4 stars for the average domestic equity fund, 3.8 stars for taxable bond funds, 3.6 for international stocks and 1.9 for muni bonds) are well above average.

There is, I suspect, a real prospect of very healthy outcomes for PIMCO and their investors from all this. I suspect that a lot of people may start to look forward to coming to work again. That it will be a lot easier to attract and retain talent. And that a lot of folks will hear the call to step up and take up the slack. You might want to give them to chance to do just that.

Ever wonder what Mr. Gross did when he wasn’t prognosticating?

When I explained to Chip, overseer of our manager changes data, that Mr. Gross was moving on and that his departure affected a six page, single-spaced list of funds (accounting for all of the share classes and versions), she threatened to go all Air France on us and institute a work stoppage. Shuddering, I promised to share the master list of Gross changes with you in the cover essay.  The manager changes page will reflect just some of the higher-profile funds in his portfolio.

Here’s a partial list, courtesy of Morningstar, of the funds he was responsible for:

• PIMCO Total Return, the quarter trillion dollar beast he was famous for

And the other 34:

• MassMutual Select PIMCO Total Return
• PIMCO Emerging Markets Fundamental IndexPLUS Absolute Return Strategy
• JHFunds2 Total Return
• Target Total Return Bond
• AMG Managers Total Return Bond
• PIMCO GIS Total Return Bond
• PIMCO Worldwide Fundamental Advantage Absolute Return Strategy, the fund with the highest buzzwords-to-content ratio of any.
• Transamerica Total Return
• 37 iterations of PIMCO GIS Unconstrained Bond
• Consulting Group Core Fixed-Income
• Harbor Unconstrained Bond
• PIMCO Unconstrained Bond
• PIMCO Total Return IV
• Principal Core Plus Bond
• PL Managed Bond
• PIMCO Fundamental Advantage Absolute Return Strategy
• VY PIMCO Bond
• PIMCO International StocksPLUS® Absolute Return Strategy
• PIMCO Small Cap StocksPLUS® Absolute Return Strategy
• PIMCO Fundamental IndexPLUS Absolute Return
• PIMCO StocksPLUS Absolute RETURN Short Strategy
• PIMCO GIS Low Average Duration
• PIMCO StocksPLUS Absolute Return
• Old Mutual Total Return
• PIMCO GIS StocksPlus
• PIMCO Moderate Duration
• PIMCO StocksPLUS
• PIMCO Low Duration III
• PIMCO Total Return II
• PIMCO Low Duration II
• PIMCO Total Return III
• Harbor Bond
• PIMCO Low Duration
• Prudential Income Builder

As we note with PIMCO GIS Unconstrained (the GIS standing for “global investor series”), there can be literally dozens of manifestations of the same portfolio, denominated in different currencies and hedged and unhedged forms, offers to investors in a dozen different nations.

Morningstar ETF Conference Notes

By Charles Boccadoro

The pre-autumnal weather was perfect. Blue skies. Warm days. Cool nights. Vibrant city scene. New construction. Breath-taking architecture. Diverse eateries, like Lou Malnati’s deep dish pizza. Stylist bars and coffee shops. Colorful flower boxes on The River Walk. Shopping galore. An enlightened public metro system that enables you to arrival at O’Hare and 45 minutes later be at Clark/Lake in the heart of downtown. If you have not visited The Windy City since say when the Sears Tower was renamed the Willis Tower, you owe yourself a walk down The Magnificent Mile.

At the opening keynote, Ben Johnson, Morningstar’s director responsible for coverage of exchange traded funds (ETFs) and conference host, noted that ETFs today hold $1.9T in assets versus just $700M only five years ago, during the first such conference. He explained that 72% is new money, not just appreciation.

The conference had a total of 671 attendees, including 470 registered attendees (mostly financial advisors, but this number also includes PR people and individual attendees), 123 sponsor attendees, 43 speakers, and 35 journalists, but not counting a very helpful M* staff and walk-ins. Five years ago? Just shy of 300 attendees.

The Dirty Words of Finance

AQR’s Ronen Israel spoke of Style Premia, which refers to source of compelling returns generated by certain investment vehicle styles, specifically Value, Momentum, Carry (the tendency for higher-yielding assets to provide higher returns than lower-yielding assets), and Defensive (the tendency for lower-risk and higher-quality assets to generate higher risk-adjusted returns). He argues that these excess returns are backed by both theory, be it efficient market or behavioral science, and “decades of data across geographies and asset groups.”

He presented further data that indicate these four styles have historically had low correlation. He believes that by constructing a portfolio using these styles across multiple asset classes investors will yield more consistent returns versus say the tradition 60/40 stocks/bond balanced portfolio. Add in LSD, which stands for leverage, shorting and derivatives, or what Mr. Israel jokingly calls “the dirty word of finance,” and you have the basic recipe for one of AQR’s newest fund offerings: Style Premia Alternative (QSPNX). The fund seeks long-term absolute (positive) returns.

Shorting is used to neutralize market risk, while exposing the Style Premia. Leverage is used to amplify absolute returns at defined portfolio volatility. Derivatives provide most efficient vehicles for exposure to alternative classes, like interest rates, currencies, and commodities.

When asked if using LSD flirted with disaster, Mr. Israel answered it could be managed, alluding to drawdown controls, liquidity, and transparency.

(My own experience with a somewhat similar strategy at AQR, known as Risk Parity, proved to be highly correlated and anything but transparent. When bonds, commodities, and EM equities sank rapidly from May through June 2013, AQR’s strategy sank with them. Its risk parity flagship AQRNX drew down 18.1% in 31 trading days…and the fund house stopped publishing its monthly commentary.)

When asked about the size style, he explained that their research showed size not to be that robust, unless you factored in liquidity and quality, alluding to a future paper called “Size Matters If You Control Your Junk.”

When asked if his presentation was available on-line or in-print, he answered no. His good paper “Understanding Style Premia” was available in the media room and is available at Institutional Investor Journals, registration required.

Launched in October 2013, the young fund has generated nearly $300M in AUM while slightly underperforming Vanguard’s Balanced Index Fund VBINX, but outperforming the rather diverse multi-alternative category.

QSPNX er is 2.36% after waivers and 1.75% after cap (through April 2015). Like all AQR funds, it carries high minimums and caters to the exclusivity of institutional investors and advisors, which strikes me as being shareholder unfriendly. Today, AQR offers 27 funds, 17 launched in the past three years. They offer no ETFs.

In The Shadow of Giants

PIMCO’s Jerome Schneider took over the short-term and funding desk from legendary Paul McCulley in 2010. Two years before, he was at Bear Stearns. Today, think popular active ETF MINT. Think PAIUX.

During his briefing, he touched on 2% being real expected growth rate. Of new liquidly requirements for money market funds, which could bring potential for redemption gates and fees, providing more motivation to look at low duration bonds as an alternative to cash. He spoke of 14 year old cars that needed to be replaced and expected US housing recovery.

He anticipates capital expenditure will continue to improve, people will get wealthier, and for US to provide a better investment outlook than rest of world, which was a somewhat contrarian view at the conference. He mentioned global debt overhang, mostly in the public sector. Of working age population declining. And, of geopolitical instability. He believes bonds still play a role in one’s portfolio, because historically they have drawn down much less than equities.

It was all rather disjointed.

Mostly, he talked about the extraordinary culture of active management at PIMCO. With time tested investment practices. Liquidity sensitivity. Risk management. Credit research capability, including 45 analysts across the globe that he begins calling at 03:45…the start of his work day. He touted PIMCO’s understanding of tools of the trade and trading acumen. “Even Bill Gross still trades.” He displayed a picture of himself that folks often mistook for a young Paul McCulley.

Cannot help but think what an awkward time it must be for the good folks at PIMCO. And be reminded of another giant’s quote: “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”

Youthful Hosts

Surely, it is my own graying hair, wrinkled bags, muddled thought processes, and inarticulate mannerisms that makes me notice something extraordinary about the people hosting and leading the conference’s many panels, workshops, luncheons, keynotes, receptions, and sidebars. They all look very young! In addition to being clear thinkers, articulate public speakers, helpful and gracious hosts.

It would not be too much of a stretch to say that the combined ages of M*’s Ben Johnson, Ling-Wei Hew, and Samuel Lee together add up to one Eugene Fama. Indeed, when Mr. Johnson sat across from Nobel laureate Professor Fama, during a charming lunch time keynote/interview, he could have easily been an undergraduate from University of Chicago.

Is it because the ETF industry itself is young? Or, is it as a colleague explains: “Morningstar has hard time holding on to good talent because it is a stepping stone to higher paying jobs at places like BlackRock.”

Whatever the reason, if we were all as knowledgeable about investing as Mr. Lee and the rest of the youthful staff, the world of investing would be a much better place.

Damp & Disappointing

That’s how JP Morgan’s Dr. David Kelly, Chief Global Strategist, describes our current recovery. While I did not agree with everything, it was hands-down the best talk of the conference. At one point he said that he wished he could speak for another hour. I wished he could have too.

“Damp and disappointing, like an Irish summer,” he explained.

Short term US prospects are good, but long term not good. “In the short run, it’s all about demand. But in the long run, it’s all about supply, which will be adversely impacted by labor and productivity.” The labor force is not growing. Baby boomers are retiring en masse. He also showed data that productivity was likely not growing, blaming lack of capital expenditure. (Hard to believe since we seem to work 24/7 these days thanks to amazing improvements communications, computing, information access, manufacturing technology, etc. All the while, living longer.)

Dr. Kelly offered up fixes: 1) corporate tax reform, including 10% flat rate, and 2) immigration reform, that allows the world’s best, brightest, and hardest working continued entry to the US. But since congress only acts in crisis, he concedes his forecast prepares for slowing US growth longer term.

Greater opportunity for long term growth is overseas. Manufacturing momentum is gaining around world. Cyclical growth will be higher than US while valuations remain lower and work force is younger. Simply put, they have more room to grow. Unfortunately, US media bias “always gives impression that the rest of the world is in flames…it shows only bad news.”

JP Morgan remains underweight fixed income, since monetary policy remains abnormal, and cautiously over weight US equities. The thing about Irish summers is…everything is green. Low interest rates. Higher corporate margins. Normal valuation. Although he takes issue with the phrase “All the easy money has been made in equities.” He asks “When was it ever easy?”

Alpha Architect

Dr. Wesley Gray is a former US Marine Captain, a former assistant and now adjunct professor at Drexel University, co-author of Quantitative Value: A Practitioner’s Guide to Automating Intelligent Investment and Eliminating Behavioral Errors, and founder of AlphaArchitect, LLC.

He earned his MBA and Finance PhD from University of Chicago, where Professor Fama was on his doctoral committee. He offers a fresh perspective in the investment community. Straight talking and no holds barred. My first impression – a kind of amped-up, in-your-face Mebane Faber. (They are friends.)

In fact, he starts his presentation with an overview of Mr. Faber’s book “The Ivy Portfolio,” which at its simplest form represents an equal allocation strategy across multiple and somewhat uncorrelated investment vehicles, like US stocks, world stocks, bonds, REITS, and commodities.

Dr. Gray argues that simple, equal allocation remains tough to beat. No model works all the time; in fact, the simple equal allocation strategy has under-performed the past four years, but precisely because forces driving markets are unstable, the strategy will reward investors with satisfactory returns over the long run. “Complexity does not add value.”

He seems equally comfortable talking efficient market theory and how to maximize a portfolio’s Sharpe ratio as he does explaining why the phycology of dynamic loss aversion creates opportunities in the market.

When Professor Fama earlier in the day dismissed a question about trend-following, answering “No evidence that this works,” Dr. Gray wished he would have asked about the so-called “Prime anomaly…momentum. Momentum is pervasive.”

When Dr. Gray was asked, “Will your presentation would be made available on-line?” He answered “Absolutely.” Here is link to Beware of Geeks Bearing Formulas.

His firm’s web site is interesting, including a new tools page, free with an easy registration. They launch their first ETF aptly called Alpha Architect’s Quantitative Value (QVAL) on 20 October, which will follow the strategy outlined in the book. Basically, buy cheap high-quality stocks that Wall Street hates using systematic decision making in a transparent fashion. Definitively a candidate MFO fund profile.

Trends Shaping The ETF Market

Ben Johnson hosted an excellent overview ETF trends. The overall briefings included Strategic Beta, Active ETFs (like BOND and MINT), and ETF Managed Portfolios.

Points made by Mr. Johnson:

1. Active vs passive is a false premise. Today’s ETFs represent a cross-section of both approaches.

2. “More assets are flowing into passive investment vehicles that are increasingly active in their nature and implementation.”

3. Smart beta is a loaded term. “They will not look smart all the time” and investors need to set expectations accordingly.

4. M* assigns the term “Strategic Beta” to a growing category of indexes and exchange traded products (ETPs) that track them. “These indexes seek to enhance returns or minimize risk relative to traditional market cap weighted benchmarks.” They often have tilts, like low volatility value, and are consistently rules-based, transparent, and relatively low-cost.

5. Strategic Beta subset of ETPs has been explosive in recent years with 374 listed in US as of 2Q14 or 1/4 of all ETPs, while amassing $360M, or 1/5th of ETP AUM. Perhaps more telling is that 31% of new cash flows for ETPs in 2013 went into Strategic Beta products.

6. Reduction or fees and a general disillusionment with active managers are two of several reasons behind the growth in these ETFs.  These quasi active funds charge a fraction of traditional fees. A disillusionment with active managers is evidenced in recent surveys made by Northern Trust and PowerShares.

M* is attempting to bring more neutral attention to these ETFs, which up to now has been driven by product providers. In doing so, M* hopes to help set expectation management, or ground rules if you will, to better compare these investment alternatives. With ground rules set, they seek to highlight winners and call out losers. And, at the end of the day, help investors “navigate this increasingly complex landscape.”

They’ve started to develop the following taxonomy that is complementary to (but not in place of) existing M* categories.

Honestly, I think their coverage of this area is M* at its best.

Welcomed Moderation

Mr. Koesterich gave the conference opening keynote. He is chief investment strategist for BlackRock. The briefing room was packed. Several hundred people. Many standing along wall. The reception afterward was just madness. His briefing was entitled “2014 Mid-Year Update – What to Know / What to Do.”

He threaded a somewhat cautiously reassuring middle ground. Things aren’t great. But, they aren’t terrible either. They are just different. Different, perhaps, because the fed experiment is untested. No one really knows how QE will turn out. But in mean time, it’s keeping things together.

Different, perhaps, because this is first time in 30-some years where investors are facing a rising interest rate environment. Not expected to be rapid. But rather certain. So bonds no longer seem as safe and certainly not as high yield as in recent decades.

To get to the punch-line, his advice is: 1) rethink bonds – seek adaptive strategies, look to EM, switch to terms less interest rate sensitive, like HY, avoiding 2-5 year maturities, look into muni’s on taxable accounts, 2) generate income, but don’t overreach – look for flexible approaches, proxies to HY, like dividend equities, and 3) seek growth, but manage volatility – diversify to unconstrained strategies

More generally, he thinks we are in a cyclical upswing, but slower than normal. Does not expect US to achieve 3.5% annual GDP growth (post WWII normal) for next decade. Reasons: high debt, aging demographics, and wage stagnation (similar to Rob Arnott’s 3D cautions).

He cited stats that non-financial debt has actually increased 20-30%, not decreased, since financial crisis. US population growth last year was zero. Overall wages, adjusted for inflation, same as late ’90s. But for men, same as mid ‘70s. (The latter wage impact has been masked by more credit availability, more women working, and lower savings.) All indicative of slower growth in US for foreseeable future, despite increases in productivity.

Lack of volatility is due to fed, keeping interest rates low, and high liquidity. Expects volatility to increase next year as rates start to rise. He believes that lower interest rates so far is one of year’s biggest surprises. Explains it due to pension funds shifting out of equities and into bonds and that US 10 year is pretty good relative to Japan and Europe.

On inflation, he believes tech and aging demographics tend to keep inflation in check.

BlackRock continues to like large cap over small cap. Latter will be more sensitive to interest rate increases.

Anything cheap? Stocks remain cheaper than bonds, because of extensive fed purchases during QE. Nothing cheap on absolute basis, only on relative basis. “All asset classes above long term averages, except a couple niche areas.”

“Should we all move to cash?” Mr. Koesterich answers no. Just moderate our expectations going forward. Equities are perhaps 10-15% above long term averages. But not expensive compared to prices before previous drops.

One reason is company margins remain high. For couple of same reasons: low credit interest and low wages. Plus higher productivity, which later appeared contrary to JP Morgan’s perspective.

He advises investors be selective in equities. Look for value. Like large over small. More cyclical companies. He likes tech, energy, manufacturing, financials going forward. This past year, folks have driven up valuations of “safe” equities like utilities, staples, REITS. But those investments tend to work well in recessions…not so much in rising interest rate environment. EM relatively inexpensive, but fears they are cheap for reason. Lots of divided arguments here at BlackRock. Japan likely good trade for next couple years due to Japanese pension funds shifting to organic assets.

He closed by stating that only New Zealand is offering a 10 year sovereign return above 4%. Which means, bond holders must take on higher risk. He suggests three places to look: HY, EM, muni’s.

Again, a moderate presentation and perhaps not much new here. While I personally remain more cautiously optimistic about US economy, compared to mounting predictions of another big pull-back, it was a welcomed perspective.

Beta Central

I’m hard-pressed to think of someone who has done more to enlighten investors about the benefits of ETF vehicles and opportunities beyond buy-and-hold US market cap than Mebane Faber. At this conference especially, he represents a central figure helping shape investment opportunities and strategies today.

He was kind enough to spend a few minutes before his panel on dividend investing and ETFs, which he held with Morningstar’s Josh Peters and Samuel Lee.

He shared that Cambria recently completed a funding campaign to expand its internal operations using the increasingly popular “Crowd Funding” approach. They did not use one of the established shops, like EquityNet, simply because of cost.  A couple hundred “accredited investors” quickly responded to Cambria’s request to raise $1-2M. The investors now have a private stake in the company. Mebane says they plan to use the funds to increase staff, both research and marketing. Indeed, he’s hiring: “If you are an A+ candidate, incredibly sharp, gritty, and super hungry, come join us!”

The new ETF Global Momentum (GMOM), which we mentioned in the July commentary, is due out soon, he thinks this month. Several others are in pipeline: Global Income and Currency Strategies ETF (FXFX), Emerging Shareholder Yield ETF (EYLD), Sovereign High Yield Bond ETF (SOVB), and Value and Momentum ETF (VAMO), which will make for a total of eight Cambria ETFs. The initial three ETFs (SYLD, FYLD, and GVAL) have attracted $365M in their young lives.

He admitted being surprised that Mark Yusko of Morgan Creek Funds agreed to take over AdvisorShares Global Tactical ETF GTAA, which now has just $20M AUM.

He was also surprised and disappointed to read about the SEC’s probe in F2 Investments, which alleges overstated performance results. F2 specializes in strategies “designed to protect investors from severe losses in down markets while providing quality participation in rising markets” and they sub-advise several Virtus ETFs. When WSJ reported that F2 received a so-called Wells notice, which portends a civil case against the company, Mebane posted “first requirement for anyone allocating to separate account investment advisor – GIPS audit. None? Move on.” I asked, “What’s GIPS?” He explains it stands for Global Investment Performance Standards and was created by the CFA Institute.

Mebane continues to write, has three books in work, including one on top hedge funds. Speaking of insight into hedge funds, subscribers joining his The Idea Farm after 31 December will pay a much elevated $499 annually.

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds. Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds. “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve.

This month’s funds call into two broad categories: The Fallen Titans Funds and Stealthy Funds from “A” Tier Teams.

Le roi est mort, vive le roi’s new fund

Janus Unconstrained Bond (JUCAX) On October 6, Bill Gross, The Bond King, completes the transition from running 34 funds and $1.8 trillion in assets to managing a single $13 million portfolio. Like a Walmart at dawn on Black Friday, the fund is sure is see a huge crush of anxious, half-unhinged shoppers jammed against the doors.

Miller Income Opportunity (LMCJX) On February 26, Bill Miller, The Guy Who Bested the S&P 15 Years in a Row, partnered with his son to manage a new fund with a slightly misleading name (the portfolio produces little income) and hedge fund like freedom (and fees).

Quiet funds from “A” tier teams

Meridian Small Cap Growth (MSAGX) Small growth stocks have been described as “a failed asset class” because of the inability of most professional investors to control the sector’s downside well enough to benefit from its upside. Fortunately Chad Meade and Brian Schaub didn’t know that it was impossible to profit handsomely by limiting a small growth portfolio’s downside and so, for the past seven years, they’ve been doing exactly that. After moving from Janus to Meridian, they get to do it with a small, nimble fund.

Sarofim Equity (SRFMX) Have you ever looked at a large fund with a sensible strategy, solid management team and fine long-term record and thought to yourself “sure wish they were running a small, new fund doing the exact same thing for noticeably less money”? If so, the management team behind Dreyfus Appreciation has an opportunity for you to consider.

Elevator Talk: Justin Frankel, RiverPark Structural Alpha (RSAFX/RSAIX)

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you. That’s about the number of words a slightly-manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half. In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site. Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share. These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more.

Justin Frankel (presumably not the JF described as “the world’s most dangerous geek”) co-manages Structural Alpha with his colleague Jeremy Berman. RiverPark launched the fund in June 2013, but the strategy’s public record is considerably longer. It began life in September 2008 as Wavecrest Partners Fund, LP which the guys ran alongside separate accounts for rich folks. Justin and I spent some time discussing the fund over warm drinks in lovely Milwaukee this August.

Structural Alpha embodies an options-based strategy. Every time I write that, my head begins to hurt because I struggle to explain them even to myself. Investors use options as a sort of portfolio insurance. The managers here sell options because those options are structurally overpriced; that is, there’s a predictable excess profit for the sellers built into the market just as you pay more for your insurance policies than you’ll ever get out of them.

The portfolio has four components – long-dated options which tend to move in the direction of the stock market, short-dated options which tend to be market independent, a permanent hedge which buffers the long options’ downside risk and a huge amount of cash which serves as collateral on the options they’ve sold. The guys invest that cash in short-term securities which produce income for the fund. As market conditions change, the managers adjust the size of the options components to keep the fund’s risk exposure within predetermined limits. That is, there are times when their market indicators show that the long-dated portion is carrying the potential for too much downside and so they’ll dial back that component.

Here’s what that performance looks like, including the strategy’s time as a hedge fund. RiverPark is the blue line, its painfully inept peer group is on the orange line and the S&P 500 is green.

Over the better part of a full market cycle, the Structural Alpha strategy captured the 80% of the stock index’s returns – the strategy gained about 70% while the S&P rose 87% – while largely sidestepping any sustained losses. On average, it captures about 20% of the market’s down market performance and 40% of its up market. The magic of compounding then works in their favor – by minimizing their losses in falling markets, they have little ground to make up when markets rally and so, little by little, they catch up with a pure equity portfolio.

It’s clear that they might substantially lag in sustained, low volatility rallies but it’s also clear that they’ll make money for their investors even then.

Here are Justin’s 200 words on how you might buy some insurance:

The RiverPark Structural Alpha Fund is a market-neutral, hedged equity strategy. Our goal is to generate equity-like returns with fixed-income like volatility. We use a consistent and systematic investment process that focuses first on the management of risk, and then on the management of return.

The core of our investment philosophy is that excessive returns are rarely realized, and therefore should be traded for the opportunity to generate more stable returns, protect against some market declines, and reduce overall portfolio volatility. Secondarily, we believe that index options are overpriced, and by systematically selling these options we can generate positive returns without market exposure. This is why we use the term Structural Alpha in the fund’s name.

Jeremy Berman

Importantly, we have no view of the market and do not change our holdings or market exposure based on market conditions. Specifically, we use options to set zones of protection and to allow the fund to perform in up markets while maintaining a constant hedge to help protect the fund in down markets. The non-linear profile of options makes them ideally suited to implement our philosophy. Our portfolio naturally gets more exposed to the market as it declines (which means that we are constantly buying lower), and gets less exposed to the market when it rises (which means we are constantly selling higher).

Over the long run, the fund is slightly long-biased. Therefore, we believe it should perform better in rising markets. In our opinion, small and consistent gains over time, when compounded, will yield above average risk-adjusted returns for our shareholders. We believe our structural approach to investing gives the strategy a high probability for success across a range of different market environments.

RiverPark Structural Alpha has a $1000 minimum initial investment. Expenses are capped at 2.0% on the investor shares and the fund has about gathered about $7 million in assets since its June 2013 launch. Here’s the fund’s homepage, which has a funny video of the guys talking through the strategy. It’s a sort of homemade ten minute video and has much of the unprepossessing charm of Sheldon Cooper’s “Fun with flags” videos on The Big Bang Theory. Spoiler alert: the first two minutes are the managers sharing their biographies and the last seven minutes are soundless images of slides and disclaimers (I feel the compliance group’s hand here). If you’d like to listen to a précis of the strategy, start listening at about the 4:00 minute mark through to about 6:50. They make a complex strategy about as clear as anyone I’ve yet heard.

Launch Alert: T. Rowe Price International Concentrated Equity (PRCNX)

It’s rare that a newly launched fund receives both a “Great Owl” (top quintile risk-adjusted returns in all trailing periods longer than a year) and Morningstar five star rating, but Price’s International Concentrated Equity Fund (PRCNX) managed the trick. On August 22, 2014, T. Rowe released a retail version of its outstanding Institutional International Concentrated Equity Fund (RPICX). That fund launched in July 2010. Federico Santilli, who has managed the RPICX since inception, will manage the new fund. He claims to be style, sector and region-agnostic, willing to go wherever the values are best. He targets “companies that have solid positions in attractive industries, have an ability to generate visible and durable free cash flow, and can create shareholder value over time.”

The portfolio holds 60 large cap names, weighting them equally but turning them over with alarming speed, about 150% per year. The portfolio offers little direct exposure to the emerging markets but the multinationals that dominate the portfolio (Royal Bank of Scotland, Sony, drug maker Glaxo, Honda) derive much of their earnings from consumers in those newer markets.

The fund has performed well. It has been in or near the top 10% of foreign large blend funds each year. $10,000 invested there at inception would have grown to $15,700 (as of late September, 2014) while its average peer would have generated $13,700 with noticeably higher volatility. It has been the second-strongest performer among all the T. Rowe Price international funds, trailing only International Discovery (PRIDX), whose lead is tiny.

PRCNX is not merely a share class of RPICX. It is a separate fund, managed by the same guy using the same discipline. Nonetheless, the portfolios may show significant differences depending on what names are attractive when money flows into each fund.

The expense ratio is capped at 0.90%, barely higher than the Institutional fund’s 0.75%, under February 2017. The minimum initial investment is $2500, reduced to $1000 for IRAs. The fund’s homepage is here but the institutional fund’s homepage has a far greater array of information and strategy detail. Price would urge me to remind you that the information about the institutional fund is designed to inform qualified investors and analysts and it’s not aimed to persuading you to buy the retail fund.

Funds in Registration

Our colleague David Welsch tracked down 12 new no-load, retail funds in registration this month. In general, these funds will be available for purchase by late November. A number of the prospectuses are incredibly incomplete (not listing, for example, a fund manager) which suggests that they’re just gearing up for the traditional year-end rush to launch new funds. Highlights among the registrants:

• 361 Global Long/Short Equity Fund, which will feature a global long/short portfolio. Its most notable for its cast of managers, including Blaine Rollins from 361 Capitals and Harindra de Silva from Analytic Investors. Mr. Rollins ran Janus Fund at the height of its popularity (sadly, that would be around the year 2000), left investing in 2006 but has since returned to cofound 361, a liquid alts firm that’s dedicated to trying to prevent the sorts of losses the Janus funds suffered. Mr. Silva has roots going back to the PBHG Funds in the 1990s. The fund is no-load with a $2500 minimum, but we don’t yet know the expenses.
• American Century Multi-Asset Income Fund, which will primarily seek income with a conservative balanced portfolio. You might anticipate 40% dividend-paying stocks and 60% bonds. It will be team-managed with a reasonable 0.91% e.r. and $2,000 minimum.
• DoubleLine Long Duration Total Return Bond Fund, which will sport an effective average duration of 10 years or more. That’s a fascinating launch since long duration funds are highly interest rate sensitive and most observers anticipate rising rates (eventually). The Other Bond King and Vitaliy Liberman will manage the fund. The expenses aren’t yet set. The minimum initial investment will be $2,000 for “N” shares.

Manager Changes

Yikes.  This month saw 93 manager changes without accounting for the full extent of the turmoil caused by Mr. Gross’s change of employment. 

Top Developments in Fund Industry Litigation – September 2014

Fundfox is the only intelligence service to focus exclusively on litigation involving U.S.-registered investment companies, their directors and advisers. Each month editor David Smith shares word of the month’s litigation-related highlights. Folks whose livelihood ride on such matters need to visit FundFox and chat a bit with David about the service.

New Lawsuit

• Harbor was hit with new excessive-fee litigation, alleging that it charges advisory fees to its International and High-Yield Bond Funds that include a mark-up of more than 80% over the fees paid by Harbor to unaffiliated subadvisers who do most of the work. (Tumpowsky v. Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc.)

Orders

• The court consolidated a pair of fee lawsuits regarding the Davis N.Y. Venture Fund. (In re Davis N.Y. Venture Fund Fee Litig.)
• In a pair of ERISA lawsuits regarding a J.P. Morgan pooled stable value investment fund, the court transferred venue to the S.D.N.Y. (Adams v. J.P. Morgan Ret. Plan Servs., LLC; Ashurst v. J.P. Morgan Ret. Plan Servs. LLC.)
• The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss excessive-fee litigation regarding six Principal LifeTime funds: “[W]hile Plaintiff has included some generalized statements regarding the mutual fund industry in its complaint, Plaintiff is not relying solely on speculation and has included some specific factual allegations regarding Defendants and their practices.” (Am. Chems. & Equip., Inc. 401(k) Ret. Plan v. Principal Mgmt. Corp.)
• The court gave its final approval to a $19.5 million settlement of an ERISA class action regarding TIAA-CREF‘s procedures for closing retirement plan accounts. (Bauer-Ramazani v. TIAA-CREF.)

Brief

• The plaintiff filed her opening brief in an appeal concerning American Century‘s liability for the Ultra Fund’s investments in off-shore Internet gambling businesses. Defendants include independent directors. (Seidl v. Am. Century Cos.)

Amended Complaint

• After surviving a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging Securities Act violations in connection with four closed-end Morgan Keegan bond funds (n/k/a Helios funds). (Small v. RMK High Income Fund, Inc.)

For a complete list of developments last month, and for information and court documents in any case, log in at www.fundfox.com and navigate to Fundfox Insider.

 

Liquid Alternative Observations

Brian Haskin publishes and edits the DailyAlts site, which is devoted to the fastest-growing segment of the fund universe, liquid alternative investments. Here’s his quick take on the DailyAlts mission:

Our aim is to provide our readers (investment advisors, family offices, institutional investors, investment consultants and other industry professionals) with a centralized source for high quality news, research and other information on one of the most dynamic and fastest growing segments of the investment industry: liquid alternative investments.

I like the site for a couple reasons. The writing is clean, the stories are fresh and the content seems thoughtful. Beyond that, one of the ways that the Observer tries to help folks is by linking them to the resources they need. There are really important areas that are outside our circle of competence and beyond our resources, and we’re deeply grateful for folks like David Smith at FundFox and Brian for their generous willingness to share leads and insights.

Brian offers this as his take on the month just past.

A Key Turning Point

September 2014 may be a month to remember – jot it down in the depths of your memory as it may be a useful data point some time down the road. Why? Because it was the point at which the largest pension fund in the United States, the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS), decided not to push forward with a larger allocation to hedge funds, and instead reversed course and cut their allocation to zero.

Citing costs and complexity, it is easy to see why the prior would be a problem for the taxpayer funded pension system. As James B. Stewart stated in his article for The New York Times, “the fees CalPERS paid [to hedge funds] would have soared to $1.35 billion” if they increased their hedge fund program to a meaningful allocation of their portfolio (~10-15%).

That’s clearly not a number that would make any investment committee member comfortable. The “CalPERS Decision” may be the real turning point for liquid alternatives, which are essentially hedge funds without performance fees wrapped in mutual fund or exchange traded fund wrappers.

By eliminating the performance fee, which generally is equal to 20% of annual returns, investors will reap the short- and long-term benefit of substantially lower costs. This lower cost will be attractive not only to individual investors and their advisors, but also to a much broader universe of investors that includes family offices, endowments, foundations and pension funds. Hedge funds are a key source of diversification for many of these investors already, and as more high quality mutual fund and ETF choices become available, investors will shift assets from higher cost hedge funds to lower cost liquid alternative vehicles.

It should be noted that most, but not all, alternative mutual funds do not incur a performance fee similar to a hedge fund performance fee. However, certain structures within mutual funds do allow for the mutual fund to indirectly purchase limited partnerships (i.e. hedge funds) that charge traditional hedge fund fees, including a performance fee.

New Fund Launches

As of this writing, September saw only six new alternative fund launches, with five of those being mutual funds. Additional launches often occur on the last day of the month, so others may be near, including a long/short equity fund from Goldman Sachs and a multi-alternative fund from Lazard. Two notable new funds that have launched are as follows:

• AQR Style Premia Alternative LV Fund (QSLIX) – this is a low volatility version of an existing AQR fund, but is interesting because it takes a leveraged market neutral approach to investing across multiple asset classes using a factor based investment approach. With a targeted volatility level similar to intermediate term bonds, this fund could be a good substitute for long-only fixed income if rates start to rise.
• Eaton Vance Richard Bernstein Market Opportunities Fund (ERMIX) – this new global macro fund is managed by the former Chief Investment Strategist at Merrill Lynch and the fund’s namesake, Richard Bernstein. The market environment is getting better for global macro funds as the Fed eases up on QE and more natural market trends re-emerge. Keep an eye on this one.

A full list of new funds can be found on the DailyAlts’ New Fund Listing.

New Fund Registrations

We tracked ten new alternative mutual fund filings in September, which means that the end of the year will be flush with new funds. Four of the filings are for long/short equity, which has been a recipient of significant inflows over the past year. Two of the notable filings outside of long/short equity include the following:

o  State Street Global Macro Absolute Return Fund – another go-anywhere global macro fund that will invest across global markets and asset classes. As with the new Eaton Vance fund above, the timing could be good and the universe for global macro funds is relatively small.

o   Palmer Square Long Short Credit Fund – just in time for rising interest rates, this new fund comes from a boutique asset management firm with a highly experienced fixed income team. The fund has a wide range of credit oriented securities that it can use on both a long and short basis to generate absolute (positive) returns over full market cycles.

Other Items of Interest

• On the ETF front, First Trust launched an actively managed long/short equity ETF. We’ll keep an eye on this low cost vehicle to see how well a long/short strategy can do in an ETF wrapper.
• HedgeCo launched HedgeCoVest, a managed accounts platform available to individual investors for as little as $30,000. Investors can get a hedge fund managed in their own brokerage account with full liquidity and transparency. This could be a real market disruptor.
• TFS marked the 10-year anniversary of their TFS Market Neutral Fund (TFSMX). Quite an accomplishment, especially when (in hindsight) being “market neutral” over the past five years has not been a desirable bet. But as we know, the next five years won’t be like the past five years. Congrats to TFS.

We look forward to bringing readers of the Mutual Fund Observer monthly insights on the evolving market for alternative mutual funds.

Meh. Just meh.

From time to time, I come across what strikes me as an extraordinarily cool website or online retailer. In the past those have included the DailyAlts site and the Duluth Trading Company. When that happens, I’m predisposed to share word about the site with you, for your sake and for theirs.

I still remember a sign in the hot dog shop’s window from when I was in grad school: “eat here or we’ll both go hungry.” It’s sort of like that.

I have lately been delighted with the little online shop, meh. If we were Vikings, that would be “meh son of woot” or “meh wootson.” Woot was an online shop launched in 2004. The founders worked as wholesalers and looked at the challenge of selling what I think of as “orphan goods.” That is, stuff where the quantity available is substantial but too small to be profitably distributed through a mainline retailer. Woot was distinguished by two characteristics: (1) a one-deal-one-day business model in which shoppers were offered one deeply discounted item each day and at the day’s end, the item vanished. And (2) a snarky dismissiveness of their own offerings.

It was sufficiently cool that Amazon.com bought it in 2010 and messed it up by, oh, 2011. Instead of advertising one great deal, Amazon thought they should offer one deal in each of ten categories, plus Side Deals and Woot!Plus deals and miscellaneous sale items from Amazon’s own site and goodness knows what else.

Woot’s founders decided to try again (presumably after the expiration of non-compete agreements) and, with the help of Kickstarter funding, launched meh. Like the original Woot!, meh offers precisely one deal for no more than 24 hours. The site is tantalizing for two reasons: (1) the stuff is always cheap and sometimes outstanding and (2) checking each day takes me about 30 seconds since there’s, well, just one thing.

What sort of “one thing”? 40 AA Panasonic batteries for $5. Two refurbished 39” Emerson LCD TVs for $300 (not $300 each, $300 for the pair). A Phillips Blu-ray player for $15. Down alternative comforters for $18-20. (I bought two for my son’s bed, under the assumption that 14-year-olds will eventually spot, stain or shred pretty much anything within reach.) A padded laptop, a refurbished Dyson DC41 vacuum, Bluetooth keyboards for your tablet. Stuff.

It’s a small operation. Shipping tends to be slow. They charge $5 per item to ship unless you join their Very Mediocre Person service where you get unlimited free shipping for $5/month. A lot, but not all, of the stuff is refurbished. Neither bells nor whistles are in evidence. On whole they are, I guess, sort of “meh.”

That said, they’re also worth visiting. (And no, we have no relationship of any sort with them. You’re so suspicious.) meh.

Briefly Noted . . .

Effective November 1, 2014, Catalyst/Lyons Hedged Premium Return Fund (CLPAX/ CLPFX) will pursue “long-term capital appreciation and income with less downside volatility than the equity market.” That’s a bold departure from the current promise to seek “long-term capital appreciation and income with low volatility and low correlation to the equity market.”

On October 1^st, FTSE and Research Affiliates rolled out a new set of low-volatility indexes. As with many RAFI products, the stocks in the index are weighted using fundamental factors, as opposed to market capitalization. Jason Hsu, one of the RA co-founders, describes it as “a next generation approach that produces a low volatility core universe which is valuation-aware, without uncomfortable country or sector active bets.” Given that there’s $60 billion in funds, ETFs and separate accounts benchmarked against the existing FTSE RAFI indexes, you might reasonably expect the product launches to commence in the near future.

Matthews raised the expense ratio on Matthews China Fund (MCHFX) by one basis point at the end of September, netting them a cool $110,000 on a $1.1 billion fund. MCHFX and Matthews Asia Dividend have both qualified for access to Chinese “A” shares, expenses relating to which apparently triggered the one bp bump.

In another odd development, the Board of Trustees of the Value Line Core Bond Fund (VAGIX) approved a 3:1 reverse stock split on or about October 17, 2014. It’s incredibly rare for a fund to execute a split or a reverse split because the fund’s NAV has absolutely no relevance to its operation. With stocks, share prices that are too low might trigger a delisting alert and shares prices that are too high (think Berkshire Hathaway Cl A shares) might impede trading. Funds have no such excuse. When I spoke with a fund rep, she dutifully read Value Line’s one-sentence rationale to me: “It will realign our fund’s NAV with their peers’ and daily performance would be more appropriately reported.” Neither she nor I nor why the former was important or how the latter occurred, so I rack it up to “it’s Value Line. They do that sort of thing.”

Seafarer adds capacity

As Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX) grows steadily in size, it’s now over $117 million, and approaches its third anniversary, Andrew Foster has taken the opportunity to add to his analyst corps.  The estimable Kate Jacquet (Morningstar keeps misspelling her name as “Jacque”) is joined by Paul Espinosa and Sameer Agarwal.   Paul was a London-based analyst who has worked for Legg Mason, JP Morgan, Citigroup and Salomon Brothers.  He’s got some interesting experience in small cap and market neutral strategies.  Sameer grew up in India and worked for an India-based mutual fund before joining Royal Bank of Scotland and later Cartica Management, LLC.  Cartica is a sort of liquid alts manager focusing on the emerging markets.  I’ll ask Andrew in the month ahead how the guys’ work with what appear to be hedged products might contribute to Seafarer’s famously risk-conscious approach.

Seafarer reduced its expenses again, to 1.25% for Investor shares, though Morningstar continues to report a higher cost. 

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Appleseed (APPLX/APPIX) is lowering their expenses for both investor and institutional classes. Manager Joshua Strauss writes: “As we begin a new fiscal year Oct. 1, we will be trimming four basis points off Appleseed Fund Investor shares, resulting in a 1.20% net expense ratio. At the same time, we will be lowering the net expense ratio on Institutional shares by four basis points, to 0.95%.” It’s a risk-conscious, go-anywhere sort of fund that Morningstar has recognized as one of the few smaller funds that’s impressed them.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Grandeur Peak Global Reach (GPROX), which was already soft closed to new investors, imposed a hard close on virtually all investors on September 30^th.

“Effective immediately, and until further notice” Guggenheim Alpha Opportunity Fund (SAOAX) has closed to all investors. That’s odd. It’s an exceedingly solid long/short fund with negligible assets. There’s been some administrative reshuffling going on but no clear indication of the fund’s future.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

The Absolute Opportunities Fund has been renamed the Absolute Credit Opportunities Fund (AOFOX). Its prospectus is being revised to reflect a focus on credit-related strategies. At the same time, the fund’s expense ratio is dropping from a usurious 2.75% down to a high 1.60%.

Chilton Realty Income & Growth Fund (REIAX) has become West Loop Realty Fund.

Effective on September 2, 2014, Dreyfus Select Managers Long/Short Equity Fund (DBNAX) became Dreyfus Select Managers Long/Short Fund (DBNAX). Dropping the word “equity” from the name allows the managers to invest more than 20% of the portfolio in non-equity securities but it’s not clear that any great change is in the works. The new prospectus still relegates non-equity securities to one line at the end of paragraph four: “The fund may invest, to a limited extent, in bonds and other fixed-income securities.”

Effective October 1, 2014, Mellon Capital Management Corporation replaced PVG Asset Management Corporation as sub-adviser to the Dunham Loss Averse Equity Income Fund (DAAVX),which was then re-named the Dunham Dynamic Macro Fund.

John Hancock China Emerging Leaders Fund (JCHLX) is rethinking the whole “China” thing and has become just the John Hancock Emerging Leaders Fund. The change allows them to invest across the emerging markets. DFA will still manage the fund.

Effective at the close of business on October 15, 2014, Loomis Sayles Capital Income Fund (LSCAX) becomes Loomis Sayles Dividend Income Fund. The investment strategies change to stipulate the fact that they’ll be investing, mostly, in equities.

Effective September 16, 2014, Market Vectors Wide Moat ETF (MOAT) became Market Vectors Morningstar Wide Moat ETF.

Pioneer is planning to find Solutions for you. Effective mid November, all of the Pioneer Ibbotson Allocation funds will jettison Ibbotson and gain Solutions. So, for example, Pioneer Ibbotson Growth Allocation Fund (GRAAX) will be Pioneer Solutions: Growth Fund. Moderate Allocation (PIALX) will become Solutions: Balanced and Conservative Allocation (PIAVX) will become Solutions: Conservative. Some as-yet undisclosed strategy and manager changes will accompany the name changes.

In that same “let’s add the name of someone well-known to our fund’s name” vein, what was Ramius Trading Strategies Managed Futures Fund (RTSRX) is now State Street/Ramius Managed Futures Strategy Fund. SSgA replaced Horizon Cash Management LLC as manager.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Dreyfus Emerging Asia Fund (DEAAX) becomes Dreyfus Submerging Asia Fund on or about October 30, 2014. The decision to liquidate caps a sorry seven year run for the tiny, volatile fund which made a ton of money for investors in 2009 (130%) but was unrelievedly bad the rest of the time.

Driehaus Global Growth Fund (DRGGX)is slated to liquidate on October 20, 2014. Cycling through a half dozen managers in a half dozen years certainly didn’t solve the fund’s performance problems and might well have deepened them.

Forward Managed Futures Strategy Fund (FUTRX) no longer has a future, a fact which will be formalized with the fund’s liquidation on October 31, 2014. The fund has lost about 12% since launch in 2012. The whole managed futures universe has performed so abysmally that you have to wonder if regression to the mean is about to rescue some of the surviving funds.

Huntington International Equity Fund (HIEAX) is merging into Huntington Global Select Markets Fund (HGSAX). Effectively both funds are being liquidated. HEIAX disappears entirely and HGSAX transforms from an underperforming equity markets stock fund to a global balanced fund with no particular tilt toward the Ems. The same management team that struggled with these as international equity funds will be entrusted with the new incarnation of Global Select. The best news is a new expense cap of 1.21% on Select. The worst news is that much of the combined portfolio might have to be liquidated to complete the transition.

Morgan Stanley Global Infrastructure Fund (UTLAX)will be absorbed by its institutional sibling, MSIF Select Global Infrastructure (MTIPX). They’re essentially the same fund, except for the fact that the surviving fund is much smaller and charges more. And, too, they’re both really good funds.

Nationwide International Value Fund (NWVAX)will be liquidated on December 19^th for all the usual reasons.

Effective November 14, 2014, Northern Large Cap Growth Fund (NOEQX) will merge into Northern Large Cap Core Fund (NOLCX). The Growth Fund shareholders get a major win out of the deal, since they’re joining a far stronger, larger, cheaper fund. The reorganization does not require a shareholder vote.

Perimeter Small Cap Growth Fund (PSCGX/PSIGX) has closed to new investors in anticipation of being liquidated on Halloween. The fund’s redemption fee has been waived, just in case you want to get out early.

On or about November 14, 2014, Pioneer Ibbotson Aggressive Allocation Fund (PIAAX) merges into Pioneer Ibbotson Growth Allocation Fund (GRAAX) At the same time, Growth Allocation changes its name to Pioneer Solutions – Growth Fund.

This is kind of boring, but here’s word that PNC Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Money Market Fund and PNC Ohio Municipal Money Market Fund both liquidate in early October.

QuantShares U.S. Market Neutral Momentum Fund (MOM) and QuantShares U.S. Market Neutral Size Fund (SIZ) are under threat of delisting. “The staff of NYSE Regulation, Inc. recently advised the Trust that the Funds’ shares currently are not in compliance with NYSE Arca, Inc.’s continued listing standards with respect to the number of record or beneficial holders. Therefore, commencing on or about September 16, 2014, NYSE Arca will attach a “below compliance” (.BC) indicator to each Fund’s ticker symbol … Should the Staff determine to delist a Fund, or should the Adviser conclude that a Fund cannot be brought into compliance with NYSE Arca’s continued listing standards, the Adviser will recommend the Fund’s liquidation to the Fund’s Board of Trustees and attempt to provide shareholders with advance notice of the liquidation.”

Pending shareholder approval, Sentinel Capital Growth Fund (BRGRX – it’d read as “Boogers” if it were a license plate) and Sentinel Growth Leaders Fund (BRFOX) will merge into Sentinel Common Stock Fund (SENCX). The shareholder meeting will nominally occur in lovely Montpelier, Vermont, on November 14^th. It wouldn’t be unusual for the merger to then occur by year’s end.

TCW Growth Fund (TGGYX) will liquidate around Halloween, 2014.

Turner Large Growth Fund (TCGFX) will soon merge into Turner Midcap Growth Fund (TMGFX), pending shareholder approval. I’ve never really gotten the Turner Funds. They always feel like holdovers from the run and gun ‘90s to me. The fact that Midcap Growth suffered a 56% drawdown during the financial crisis and is routinely a third more volatile than its peers fits with that impression.

Wade Tactical L/S Fund (WADEX) plans to cease and desist around the middle of October.

The Board of Directors for Western Asset Global Multi-Sector Fund (WALAX)has determined that “it is in the best interests of the fund and its shareholders to terminate the fund.” It seemed they long ago also determined it was in shareholders’ best interest not to invest in the fund:

The fund is expected to cease operations on or about November 14, 2014.

On January 30, 2015, Wilmington Short Duration Government Bond Fund (ASTTX) will be merged into the Wilmington Short-Term Corporate Bond Fund (MVSAX). Likewise the Wilmington Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (ARMRX) will be merged into the Wilmington Municipal Bond Fund (WTABX). The latter, muni into muni, makes more sense on face than the former.

The WY Core Fund (SGBFX/SGBYX) disappeared on September 30^th, just in case you were wondering why there’s an empty seat at the table.

In Closing . . .

As I sat in my study, 11:30 p.m. CDT on the last day of September, finishing this essay, my internet connection disappeared.  Then the lights flickered, flashed then failed.  Nuts.  The MidAmerican Energy outage map shows that I was one of precisely two customers to lose power.  This is the second time since moving to my new home in May that the power disappeared just as we were trying to finishing an update.  The first time it happened we were in a world of hurt, both having lost a bunch of writing and having the rest of the new issue trapped inside an inert machine.

This time we were irked and modestly inconvenienced. The difference is that after the first major outage, Chip identified and I bought a really good uninterruptible power supply (UPS) for us. While it’s not an industrial grade unit, it allowed me to save everything, move it for safekeeping to an external solid-state drive and finish the story I was working on before shutting the system down. We resumed work a bit before dawn and finished everything roughly on time.

All of which is to say thank you! to all the folks who’ve supported the Observer.  I was deeply grateful that we had the resources at hand to react, quickly and frugally, to resolve the problems caused by the first outage.  Thanks to all the folks who use our Amazon link (feel free to share it!), to Joe and Bladen (cool old English name, linked to a village in Oxfordshire) who contributed to our resources this month but most especially to Deb who, in an odd sense, is the Observer’s only subscriber.  Deb arranged a monthly auto-transfer from her PayPal account which provides us with a modest, very welcome stipend at the beginning of each month.

The other project that you helped support this month was the first ever face-to-face meeting of the folks who write for you each month.  Charles, Chip, Ed and I gathered in Chicago in the immediate aftermath of the Morningstar ETF Conference to discuss (some would say “plot”) the Observer’s future.  Among our first priorities coming out of the meeting is to formalize the Observer as a legal enterprise: incorporation, pursue of 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization status, better liability and intellectual property protection and so on.  None of that will immediately change the Observer but it all lays the foundation for a more sustainable future.  So thanks for your help in covering the expenses there, too.

Take care and enjoy October.  It tends to be a rough and tumble month in the markets, but a fine time for visiting orchards with your family and starting the holiday fruitcakes.

As ever,

 

By David Snowball

Dear friends,

They’re baaaaack!

The summer silence has been shattered. My students have returned in endlessly boisterous, hormonally-imbalanced, self-absorbed droves. They’re glued to their phones and to their preconceptions, one about as maddening as the other.

The steady rhythm of the off-season (deal with something else falling off the house, talk to a manager, mow, think, read, write, kvetch) has been replaced by getting up at 5:30 and bolting through days, leaving a blur behind.

Somewhere in the background, Putin threatens war, the market threatens a swoon, horrible diseases spread, politicians debate who among them is the most dysfunctional and someone finds time to think Deep Thoughts about the leaked nekkid pitchers of semi-celebrities.

On whole, it’s good to be back.

Seven things that matter, two that don’t … and one that might

I spoke on August 20^th to about 200 folks at the Cohen Fund client conference in Milwaukee. Interesting gathering, surprisingly attractive city, consistently good food (thanks guys!) and decent coffee. My argument was straightforward and, I hope, worth repeating here: if you don’t start thinking and acting differently, you’re doomed. A version of that text follows.

Your apparent options: dead, dying or living dead

From the perspective of most journalists, many advisors and a clear majority of investors, this gathering of mutual fund managers and of the professionals who make their work possible looks to be little more than a casting call for the Zombie Apocalypse. You are seen, dear friends, as “the walking dead,” a group whose success is predicated upon their ability to do … what? Eat their neighbors’ brains which are, of course, tasty but, and this is more important, once freed of their brains these folks are more likely to invest in your funds.

CBS News declared you “a losing bet.” TheStreet.com declared that you’re dead.  Joseph Duran asked, curiously, “are you a dinosaur?” Schwab declared that “a great question!” Ric Edelman, a major financial advisor, both widely quoted and widely respected, declares, “The retail mutual fund industry is a dinosaur and won’t exist in 10 or 15 more years, as investors are realizing the incredible opportunity to lower their cost, lower their risks and improve their disclosure through low-cost passive products.” When asked what their parents do for a living, your kids desperately wish they could say “my dad writes apps and mom’s a paid assassin.” Instead they mumble “stuff.” In short, you are no longer welcome at the cool kids’ table.

Serious data underlies those declarations. The estimable John Rekenthaler reports that only one-third of new investment money flows to active funds, one third to ETFs and one third to index funds. Drop target-date funds out of the equation and the amount of net inflows to funds is reduced by a quarter. The number of Google searches for the term “mutual funds” is down 80% over the past decade.

Funds liquidate or merge at the rate of 400-500  per year. Of the funds that existed 15 years ago, Vanguard found that 46% have been liquidated or merged. The most painful stroke might have been delivered by Morningstar, a firm whose fortunes were built on covering the mutual fund industry. Two weeks ago John Rekenthaler, vice president and resident curmudgeon, asked the question “do have funds have a future?”  He answered his own question with “to cut to the chase: apparently not much.”

Friends, I feel your pain. Not that zombies actually feel pain. You know if Mr. Cook accidentally rips Mr. Bynum’s arm off and bludgeons him with it, “it’s all good.” But if you did feel pain, I’d be right there with you since in a Zombies Anonymous sort of way I’m obliged to say “Hello. My name is Dave and I’m a liberal arts professor.”

The parallel experience of the liberal arts college

I teach at Augustana College – as school known only to those of you blessed with a Scandinavian Lutheran heritage or to fans of the history of college football.

We operate in an industry much like yours – higher education is in crisis, buffeted by changing demographics – a relentless decline in the number of 17 year old high school graduates everywhere except in a band of increasingly sunbaked states – changing societal demands and bizarre new competitors whose low cost models have caught the attention of regulators, journalists and parents.

You might think, “yeah, but if you’re good – if you’re individually excellent – you’ll do fine.”  “Emerson was wrong, wrong, wrong: being excellent does not imply you’ll be noticed, much less be successful.” 

Remember that “build a better mousetrap and people will beat a path to your door” promise. Nope.  Not true, even for mousetraps. There have been over 4400 patents for mousetraps (including a bunch labeled “better mousetrap”) issued since 1839. There are dozens of different subclasses, including “Electrocuting and Explosive,” “Swinging Striker,” “Choking or Squeezing,” and 36 others. One device, patented in 1897, controls 60% of the market and a modification of it patented in 1903 controls another 15-20%. About 0.6% of patented mousetraps were able to attract a manufacturer.

The whole “succeed in the market because you’re demonstrably better” thing is certainly not true for small colleges. Let me try an argument out with you: Augustana is the best college you’ve never heard of. The best. What’s the evidence?

• We’re #6 among all colleges in the number of Academic All-Americans we’ve produced, #2 behind only MIT as a Division 3 school.
• We were in the top 50 schools in the 20^th century for the number of our graduates who went on to earn doctorates.
• National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Wabash National Study both singled us out for the magnitude of gains that our students made over their four years.
• The Teagle Foundation identified use as one of the 12 colleges that define the “Gold Standard” in American higher education based on our ability to vastly outperform given the assets available to us.

And yet, we’re not confident of our future. We’re competing brilliantly, but we’re competing to maintain our share of a steadily shrinking pie. Fewer students each year are willing to even consider a small school as families focus more on price rather than value or on “name” rather than education. Most workers expect to enjoy their peak earnings in their late 40s and 50s.  For college professors entering the profession today, peak lifetimes earnings might well occur in Year One.  After that, they face a long series of pay freezes or raises that come in just below the CPI.  Bain & Company estimate that one third of all US colleges and universities are financially unsustainable; they spend more than the take in and collect debt faster than they build equity. While some colleges will surely fold, the threat for most is less closure than permanent stagnation and increasing irrelevance.

Curious problem: by all but one measures (name recognition), we’re better for students than the household names but no one believes us and few will even consider attending. We’re losing to upstart competitors with inferior products and lumbering behemoths. 

And you are too.

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

Half of that is our own fault. We tend to be generic and focused on ourselves, without material understanding of the bigger picture. And half of your problem is your fault: 80% of mutual funds could disappear without any noticeable loss of investors. They don’t matter. There are 500 domestic large core funds. I’d be amazed if anyone could make a compelling case for keeping 90% of them open. More correctly, those don’t matter to anyone but the advisor who needs them for business development purposes.

Here’s the test: would anyone pay good money to buy the fund from you? Get serious: half of all funds can’t draw even a penny’s investment from their own managers (Sarah Max, Fund managers who invest elsewhere). The level of fund trustee investment in the funds they oversee on behalf of the rest of us is so low, especially in the series trusts common among smaller funds, as to represent an embarrassment.

The question is: can you do anything? Will anything you do matter? In order to answer that question, it would help to understand what matters, what doesn’t … and what might.

Herewith: seven things that matter, two that don’t … and one that might.

Seven things that matter.

1. Independence matters. Whether measured by r-squared, tracking error or active share, researchers have generated a huge body of evidence that independent thinking is a prerequisite to outstanding performance. Surprisingly, that’s true on the downside as much as the upside: higher active managers perform better in falling markets than herd-huggers do. But herding behavior is increasing. Where two-thirds of the industry’s assets were once housed in “highly active” funds, that number is now 25% and falling.
2. Size matters. There is no evidence to suggest that “bigger is better” in the mutual fund world, at least once a fund passes the threshold of economic viability. Large funds face two serious constraints. First, their investable universes collapse; that is, if you have $10 billion to invest, there are literally thousands of small companies whose stocks become utterly meaningless to you and your forced to seek a competitive advantage against a few hundred competitors all looking at the same few hundred larger names. Second, larger funds become cash cows generating revenue essential to the adviser’s business. The livelihoods of dozens or hundreds of coworkers depend on having the manager not lose assets, much more than they depend on investment excellence. But money flows to “safe” bloated funds.
3. Alignment of interest matters. Almost all of us know that there’s a lot of research showing that good things happen when fund managers stake their personal fortunes on the success of their funds; in particular, risk-adjusted returns rise. Fewer people know that there appears to be an even stronger effect from substantial ownership by a fund’s trustees: high trustee ownership is linked to lower risk, higher active share and less tolerance of inept management. But, Morningstar reports, something like 500 firms have funds with negligible insider ownership.
4. Risk matters. Investors are far more risk-averse than they know. That’s one of the most frequently observed findings in the behavioral finance literature. No amount of upside offsets a tendency to crash. The sad consequence of misjudged risk is reflected in the Dalbar’s widely quoted calculations showing that investors might pocket as little as one-quarter of their funds’ returns largely because of excess confidence, excess trading and a tendency to run away as the worst possible time.
5. Focus matters. If the goal is to provide better (not necessarily higher, but perhaps steadier, more explicable, less volatile) returns than a broad market index, then you need to look as little like the index as possible. Too many folks become “fund collectors” with sprawling portfolios, just as too many fund managers to commit to marginal ideas.
6. Communication matters. I need to mention this because I’m, well, a professor of communication studies and we know it to be true. In general, communication from mutual funds to their investors (how to put this politely?) sucks. Websites get built for the sake of having a pretty side. Semi-annual reports get written because the SEC says to (but doesn’t say that you actually need to write anything to your investors, and many don’t). Shareholder letters get written to a template and conference calls are managed to assure that there’s no risk of anything interesting or informative breaking out. (If I hear the term “slide deck,” as in “on page 157 of your slide deck,” I’ll scream.) We know that most investors don’t understand why they’re invested or what their funds do. We know that when investors “get it,” they stay (look at Jared Peifer’s “Fund loyalty among socially responsible investors” for a study of folks who really think about their investments before making them). 
7. Relationships matter. Managers mumbling the mousetrap mantra believe that great performance will have the world beating a path to their door. It won’t. A fascinating study by the folks at Gerstein Fisher (“Mutual fund outperformance and growth,” Journal of Investment Management, 2014) offered an entirely maddening conclusion: good performance draws assets if you’re large, but has no effect on assets if you have under a quarter billion in assets. So how do smaller funds prosper? At least from our experience, it is by having a story that makes sense to investors and a nearly evangelical advocate to tell that story, face to face, over and over. Please flag this thought: it’s not whether you’re impressed with your story. It’s not whether it makes sense to you. It’s whether it makes enough sense to investors that, once you’re gone, they can explain it with conviction to other people.

Two things that don’t. 

1. Great returns don’t matter. Beating the market doesn’t matter. Beating your peers doesn’t matter. It’s impossible to do consistently (“peer beating” is, by definition, zero sum), it doesn’t draw assets and it doesn’t necessarily serve your investors’ needs. Consistent returns, consistently explained, might matter.
2. Morningstar doesn’t matter. A few of you might yet win the lottery and get analyst coverage from Morningstar, but you should depend on that about the way you depend on winning the Powerball. Recent feature on “Under the Radar” funds gives you a view of Morningstar’s basement: these seven funds were consistently excellent, averaged $400 million in assets and 12 years of manager tenure – and they were still “under the radar.” In reality, Morningstar doesn’t even know that you exist. More to the point: the genius of independent funds is that they’re not cookie-cutters, but Morningstar is constrained to use a cookie-cutter. The more independent you are, the more likely that Morningstar will give you a silly peer group.

This is not, by the way, a criticism of Morningstar. I like a lot of the folks there and I know they often work like dogs to get it right. It’s simply a reflection on their business model and the complexity of the task before them. In attempting to do the greatest good for the greatest number (and to serve their shareholders), they’re inevitably drawn to the largest, most popular funds.

The one thing that might matter? 

I might say “the Observer” does.  We’ve got 26,000 readers and we’ve had the opportunity to work with dozens of journalists.  We’ve profiled over 125 smaller funds, exceeding the number of Morningstar’s small fund profiles by, well, 120.  We know you’re there and know your travails.  We’re working really hard to help folks think more clearly about small, independent funds in general and by a hundred of so really distinguished smaller funds in particular.

But a better answer is: you might matter.

But do you want to?

It is clear that we can all do our jobs without mattering.  We can attend quarterly meetings, read thick packets, listen thoughtfully to what we’ve been told, ask a trenchant question (just to prove that we’ve been listening) … and still never make six cents worth of difference to anyone. 

There may have been a time, perhaps in the days of “a rising tide,” when firms could afford to have folks more interested in getting along than in making a difference.  Those days are passed.  If you aren’t intent on being A Person Who Matters, you need to go.

How might you matter?

1. Figure out whether you have a reason to exist.  Ask “what’s the story supposed to be?”  Look at the prospect that “your” story is so painfully generic or agonizingly technical than it means nothing to anyone.  And if you’ve got a good story, tell it passionately and well. 
2. Align your walking and your talking.  First, pin your personal fortune on the success of your funds.  Second, get in place a corporate policy that ensures everyone does likewise.  There are several fine examples of such policies that you might borrow from your peers.  Third, let people know what your policy is and why it matters to them.
3. Help people succeed.  Very few of the journalists who might share your message actually know enough to do it well.  And they often know it and they’d like to do better.  Great!  Find the time to help them succeed.  Become a valuable source of honest assessment, suggest story possibilities, notice when they do well.  That ethos is not limited to aiding journalists.   Help other independent funds succeed, too.  Tell people about the best of them.  Tell them what’s worked for you.  They’re not your enemies and they’re not your competitors.  They might, however, become part of a community that can help you survive.
4. Climb out of your silo.  Learn stuff you don’t need to know.  I know compliance is tough. I know those board packets are thick. But that’s not an excuse.  Bill Bernstein earned a PhD in chemistry, then MD in neurology, pursued the active practice of medicine, started writing about asset allocation and the efficient frontier, then advising, then writing books on topics well afield of his specialties. Bill writes:  “As Warren Buffett famously observed, investing is not a game in which the person with an IQ of 160 beats the persons with an IQ of 130.  Rather, it’s a game best played by those with a broad set of skills that are rich not only in quantitative ability but also in deep historical knowledge, all deployed with an Asperger’s-like emotional detachment.”  Those of us in the liberal arts love this stuff.
5. Build relationships, perhaps in odd ways.  Trustees: you were elected to represent the fund’s shareholders so why are you hiding from them?  Put your name and address on the website and let them know that if they have a concern, you’ll listen. Send a handwritten card to every new investor, at least those who invest directly with the fund.  Tell them they matter to you.  Heck, send them an anniversary card a year after they first invest, signed by you all.  When they go, ask “why?”  This is the only industry I’ve ever worked with that has precisely zero interest in customer loyalty.
6. Be prepared to annoy people.  Frankly, you’re going to be richly rewarded, financially and interpersonally, for your willingness to go away.  If you try to change things, you’re going to upset at least some of the people in every room.  You’re going to hear the same refrain, over and over: “But no one does that.”
7. Stop hiring pretty good people. Hire great ones, or no one. The hallmark of dynamic, rising institutions is their insistence on bringing in people who are so good it kind of scares the folks who are already there. That’s been the ethos of my academic department for 20 years. It is reflected in the Artisan Fund’s insistence that they will hire in only “category killers.” They might, they report, interview several dozen management teams a year and still make only one hire every two or three years. Check their record of performance and market success and draw your own conclusion. Achieving this means that you have to be a great place to work. You have to know why it’s a great place, and you have to have a strategy for making outsiders realize it, too.

Which is precisely the point. Independence is not merely a matter of portfolio construction. It’s a matter of innovation, responsibility and stewardship. It requires that you look beyond safety, look beyond asset gathering and short-term profit maximization to answer the larger question: is there any reason for us to exist?

It’s your decision. It is clear to me that business as usual will not work, but neither will hunkering down and hoping that it all goes away. Do you want to matter, or do you want to hold on – hoping that you’ll make it through despite the storm?  Like the faculty near retirement. Like Louis XV who declared, “Après moi, le déluge”. Mr. Rekenthaler concludes that “active funds retreat further into silence.” Do you want to prove him right or wrong?

If you want to make a difference, start today. Start here. Start today. Take the opportunity to listen, to talk, to learn and to decide. To decide to make all the difference you can. Which might be all the difference in the world.

From Charles’s Balcony: Why Am I Rebalancing?

Long-time MFO discussion board member AKAFlack emailed me recently wondering how much investors have underperformed during the current bull market due to the practice of rebalancing their portfolios.

For those that rebalance annually, the answer is…almost 12% in total return from March 2009 through June 2014. Not huge given the healthy gains, but certainly noticeable. The graph below compares performance for a buy & hold and an annually rebalanced portfolio, assuming an initial investment of $10,000 allocated 60% to stocks and 40% to bonds.

So why rebalance?

According to a good study by Vanguard, entitled “Best practices for portfolio rebalancing,” the answer is not to maximize return. “If the sole objective is to maximize return regardless of risk, then the investor should select a 100% equity portfolio.”

The purpose of rebalancing, whether done periodically or by threshold deviation, is to keep a portfolio risk composition consistent with an investor’s tolerance, as defined by their target allocation. Otherwise, investors “can end up with a portfolio that is over-weighted to equities and therefore more vulnerable to equity-market corrections, putting the investors’ portfolios at risk of larger losses compared with their target portfolios.” This situation is evidenced in the allocation shown above for the buy & hold portfolio, which is now at nearly 80/20 stocks/bonds.

In this way, rebalancing is one way to keep loss aversion in check and the attendant consequences of selling and buying at all the wrong times, often chronicled in Morningstar’s notorious “Investor Return” tracking metric.

Balancing makes up ground, however, when equities are temporarily undervalued, like was the case in 2008. The same comparison as above but now across the most current full market cycle, beginning in November 2007, shows that annual balancing actually slighted outperformed the buy & hold portfolio.

In his book “The Ivy Portfolio,” Mebane Faber presents additional data to support that “there is a clear advantage to rebalancing sometime rather than letting the portfolio drift. A simple rebalance can add 0.1 to 0.2 to the Sharpe Ratio.”

If your first investment priority is risk management, occasional rebalancing to your target allocation is one way to help you sleep better at night, even if it means underperforming somewhat during bull markets.

Edward, Ex Cathedra: Money money money money money money

“The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.”

                                                                    Oscar Wilde

This has been an interesting month in the world of mutual funds and fund managers. First we have Charles D. Ellis, CFA with another landmark (and land mine) article in the Financial Analysts Journal entitled “The Rise and Fall of Performance Investing.” For some years now, starting with his magnum opus for institutional investors entitled “Winning the Loser’s Game,” Ellis has been arguing that institutional (and individual) investors would be better served by using passive index funds for their investments, rather than hiring active managers who tend to underperform the index funds. By way of disclosure, Mr. Ellis founded Greenwich Associates and made his fortune selling services to those active managers that he now writes about with the zeal of a convert.

Nonetheless the numbers he presents are fairly compelling, and for that reason difficult to accept. I am reminded of one of my former banking colleagues who was always looking for the pony that he was convinced was hidden underneath the manure in the room. I can see the results of this thinking by scanning some of the discussions on the Mutual Fund Observer bulletin board. Many of those discussions seem more attuned with how smart or lucky one was to invest with a particular manager before his or her fund closed, rather than how the investment has actually performed. And I am not talking about the performance numbers put out by the fund companies, which are artificial results for artificial investors. No, I’m talking about the real results obtained by putting the moneys invested and time periods into one’s HP12C calculator to figure out the returns. Most people really do not want to know those numbers, otherwise they become forced to think about Senator Warren’s argument that “the game is rigged.”

Ellis however makes a point that he has made before and that I have covered before. However I feel it is so important that it is worth noting again. Most mutual fund advertising or descriptions involving fees consist of one word and a number. The fee is “only” 1% (or less for most institutional investors). The problem is that that is a phrase worthy of Don Draper, as the 1% is related to the assets the investor has given to the fund company. Yet the investor already owns the assets. What is being promised then? The answer is returns. And if one accepts the Ibbotson return histories for large cap common stocks in the U.S. as running at 8 – 10% per year over a fifty-year period, we are talking about a fee running from 10 – 12.5% a year based on returns. 

Taking this concept one step further Ellis suggests what you really should be looking at in assessing fees are the “incremental fee as a percentage of incremental returns after adjusting for risk.” And using those criteria, we would see something very different given that most active investment managers are underperforming their benchmark indices, namely that the incremental fees are above 100% Ellis goes on to raise a number of points in his article. I would like to focus on just one of them for the remainder of this commentary. One of Ellis’ central questions is “When will our clients decide that continuing to take all the risks and pay all the costs of striving to beat the market with so little success is no longer a good deal for them?”

My assessment is that we have finally hit the tipping point, and things are moving inexorably in that direction. Two weeks ago roughly, it was announced that Vanguard now has more than $3 trillion worth of assets, much of it in passive products. Jason Zweig recently wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal suggesting that the group of fund and portfolio managers in their 30’s and 40’s should start thinking about alternative careers, possibly as financial planners giving asset allocation advice to clients. The Financial Times suggests in an article detailing the relationship between Bill Gross at PIMCO and the analyst that covered him at Morningstar that they had become too close. The argument there was that Morningstar analysts had become co-opted by the fund industry to write soft criticism in return for continued access to managers. My own observational experience with Morningstar was that their mutual fund analysts had been top shelf when they were interviewing me and both independent and objective. I can’t speak now as to whether the hiring and retention criteria have changed. 

My own anecdotal observations are limited to things I see happening in Chicago. My conclusion is that the senior managers at most of the Chicago money management firms are moving as fast as they can to suck as much money out of their businesses as quickly as possible. In some respects, it has become a variation on musical chairs and that group hears the music slowing. So you will see lots of money in bonus payments. Sustainability of the business will be talked about, especially as a sop to absentee owners, but the businesses will be under-invested in, especially with regard to personnel. What do I base that on? Well, at one firm, what I will call the boys from Winnetka and Lake Forest, I was told every client meeting now starts with questions about fees. Not performance, but fees are what is primary in the client minds. The person who said this indicated he is fighting a constant battle to see that his analyst pool is being paid commensurate with the market notwithstanding an assumption by senior management that the talent is fungible and could easily be replaced at lower prices. At another firm, it is a question of preserving the “collegiality” of the fund group’s trustees when they are adding new board members. As one executive said to me about an election, “Thank God they had two candidates and picked the less problematic one in terms of our business and causing fee issues for us.”

The investment management business, especially the mutual fund business, is a wonderful business with superb returns. But to use Mr. Ellis’ phrase, is it anything more now than a “crass commercial business?” How the industry behaves going forward will offer us a clue. Unfortunately, knowing as many of the players as well as I do leads me to conclude that greed will continue to be the primary motivator. Change will not occur until it is forced upon the industry.

I will leave you with a scene from a wonderful movie, The Freshman (with Marlon Brando and Matthew Broderick) to ponder.

“This is an ugly word, this scam.  This is business, and if you want to be in business, this is what you do.”

                               Carmine Sabatini as played by Marlon Brandon

Categories Morningstar doesn’t recognize: Short-term high-yield income

There are doubtless a million ways to slice and dice the seven or eight thousand extant funds into categories. Morningstar has chosen to create 105 categories in hopes of (a) creating meaningful peer comparisons and (b) avoid mindless proliferation of categories. We’re endlessly sympathetic with their desire to maintain a disciplined, manageable system. That said, the Observer tracks some categories of funds that Morningstar doesn’t recognize, including short-term high yield, emerging markets balanced and absolute value equity.

We think that these funds have two characteristics that might be obscured by Morningstar’s assignment of them to a larger category of fundamentally different funds. First, it causes funds to be misjudged if their risk profiles vary dramatically from the group’s. Short-term high yield, for example, are doomed to one- and two-star ratings. That’s not because they fail. It’s because they succeed in a way that’s fundamentally different from the majority of their peer group. In general, high yield funds have risk profiles similar to stock funds. Short-term high yield funds have dramatically lower volatility and returns closer to a short term bond fund’s than a high yield fund’s.

[High yield/orange, ST high yield blue, ST investment grade green]

Morningstar’s risk-adjusted returns calculation is far less sensitive to risk than the Observer’s is; as a risk, the lower risk is blanketed by the lower returns and the funds end up with an undeservedly wretched rating.

Bottom line: investors who need to earn more than the payout of a money market fund (0.01% ytd) or certificates of deposit (currently 1.1% annually) might take the risk of a conventional short-term bond fund (in the hopes of making 1-2%) or might be lured by the appeal of a complex market neutral derivatives strategy (paying 2% to make 3%). Another path that might reasonably consider are short-term high yield funds that take on greater risk but whose managers generally recognize that fact and have risk-management tools at hand.

The Observer has profiled three such funds: Intrepid Income, RiverPark Short-Term High Yield (now closed to new investors) and Zeo Strategic Income.

Short-term, high Income peer group, as of 9/1/14

		YTD Returns	3 yr	5 yr	Expense ratio
AllianzGI Short Duration High Income A	ASHAX	2.41	—	—	0.85
Eaton Vance Short Duration High Income A	ESHAX	1.85	—	—	—
Fidelity Short Duration High Income	FSAHX	2.88	—	—	0.8
First Trust Short Duration High Income A	FDHAX	2.65	—	—	1.25
Fountain Short Duration High Income A	PFHAX	3.01	—	—	—
Intrepid Income	ICMUX	2.75	5
JPMorgan Short Duration High Yield A	JSDHX	2.24	—	—	0.89
MainStay Short Duration High Yield A	MDHAX	3.22	—	—	1.05
RiverPark Short Term High Yield (closed)	RPHYX	2.03	3.8	—	1.25
Shenkman Short Duration High Income A	SCFAX	1.88	—	—	1
Wells Fargo Advantage S/T High Yield Bond A	SSTHX	1.3	5	5.07	0.81
Westwood Short Duration High Yield A	WSDAX	1.65	—	—	1.15
Zeo Strategic Income	ZEOIX	2.32	4.1	—	1.38
Vanguard High Yield Corporate (benchmark 1)	VWEHX	5.46	9.9	10.7
Vanguard Short Term Corporate (benchmark 2)	VBISX	1.03	1.1	2.17
Short-term high yield composite average		2.34	4.2	5.07

Over the next several months we’ll be reviewing the performance of some of these unrecognized peer groups, in hopes of having folks look beyond the stars. 

To the New Castle County executives: I know your intentions were good, but …

Shortly after taking office, the new county executive for New Castle County, Delaware, made a shocking discovery: someone has nefariously invested the taxpayers’ money in two funds that (gasp!) earned one-star from Morningstar and were full of dangerous high yield investments. The executive in question, not pausing to learn anything about what the funds actually do, snapped into action. He rushed “to protect the County reserves from the potential of significant financial loss and undo risk by directing the funds to be placed in an account representing the financial security values associated with taxpayer dollars” by giving the money to UBS (a firm fined $1.5 billion two years ago in a “rogue trading” scandal). And then he, or the county staff, wrote a congratulatory press release (New Castle County Executive Acted Quickly to Protect Taxpayer Reserves).

The funds in question were RiverPark Short-Term High Yield (RPHYX) which is one of the least volatile funds in existence and which has posted the industry’s best Sharpe ratio, and FPA New Income (FPNIX), which Morningstar celebrates as an ultra-conservative choice in the face of deteriorating markets: “thanks to its super-low volatility, its five-year Sharpe ratio, a measure of risk-adjusted returns, bests all it but one of its competitors’ in both groups.”

The press release doesn’t mention how or where UBS will be investing the taxpayer’s dollars but it does sound like UBS has decided to work for free: enviable savings resulted from the fact that New Castle County “does not pay investment management fees to UBS.”

Due diligence requires going beyond a cursory reading. It turns out that The Tale of Two Cities is not a travelogue and that Animal Farm really doesn’t offer much guidance on animal husbandry, titles notwithstanding. And it turns out that the county has sold two exceptionally solid, conservative funds – funds with about the best risk-adjusted returns possible – based on a cursory reading and spurious concerns.

Observer Fund Profiles: AKREX and MAINX

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds.  “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve. 

Akre Focus (AKREX): the only question about Akre Focus is whether it can be as excellent in the future has it, and its predecessors, have been for the past quarter century. 

Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX): against all the noise in the markets and in the world news, Teresa Kong remains convinced that your most important sources of income in the decades ahead will increasingly be centered in Asia.  She’ll doing an exceptional job of letting you tap that future today.

Elevator Talk: Brent Olsen, Scout Equity Opportunity (SEOFX)

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you. That’s about the number of words a slightly-manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half. In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site. Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share. These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more.

Brent Olson is the lead portfolio manager of the Scout Equity Opportunity Fund. He joined the firm in 2013 and has more than 17 years of professional investment experience. Prior to joining Scout, Brent was director of research and a portfolio manager with Three Peaks Capital Management, LLC. From 2010-2013, Brent comanaged Aquila Three Peaks Opportunity Growth (ATGAX) and Aquila Three Peaks High Income (ATPAX) with Sandy Rufenacht. Before that, he served as an equity analyst for Invesco and both a high-yield and equity analyst for Janus.

Scout Equity Opportunity proposes to invest in leveraged companies. Leveraged companies are firms that have accumulated, or are accumulating, a noticeable level of debt on their books. These are firms that are, or were, dependent on borrowing to finance operations. Many equity investors, particularly those interested in “high quality stocks,” look askance at the practice. They’re interested in firms with low debt-to-equity ratios and the ability to finance operations internally.

Nonetheless, leveraged company stock offers the prospect for outsized gains. Tom Soviero of Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock Fund (FLVCX) captured more than 150% of the S&P 500’s upside over the course of a decade (2003-2013). The Credit Suisse Leveraged Equity Index substantially outperformed the S&P500 over the same period. Why so? Three reasons come to mind:

1. Debt adds complexity, which increases the prospects for mispricing. Beyond the simple fact that most equity investors are not comfortable analyzing the other half of a firm’s capital structure, there are also several different kinds of debt, each of which adds its own complexity.
2. Debt can be used wisely, which allows firms to increase their return on equity, especially when the cost of debt is low and the stock market is already rising.
3. Indebtedness increases a firm’s accountability and transparency, since they gain the obligation to report to creditors, and to pay them regularly. They are, as a result, less free to make dumb decisions than managers deploying internally-generated capital.

The downside to leveraged equity investing is, well, the downside to leveraged equity investing.  When the market falls, leveraged company stocks can fall harder and faster than most.  By way of illustration, Fidelity Leverage Company dropped 55% in 2008. That makes it hard for many investors to hold on; indeed, by Morningstar’s calculations, Mr. Soveiro’s invested managed to pocket less than a third of his fund’s excellent returns because they tended to bail when the pain got too great.

Brent Olson knows the tale, having co-managed for three years a fund with a similar discipline.  He recognizes the importance of risk control and thinks that he and the folks at Scout have found a way to manage some of the strategy’s downside.

Here are Brent’s 200 words on what a manager sensitive to high-yield fixed-income metrics brings to equity investing:

We believe superior risk-adjusted relative performance can be achieved through long-term ownership of a diversified portfolio of levered stocks. We recognize debt metrics as a leading indicator for equity performance – our adage is “credit leads, equity follows” – and so we use this as the basis for our disciplined investment process. That perspective allows us to identify companies that we believe are undervalued and thus attractive for investors.

We focus our attention on stable industries with lots of free cash flow.  Within those industries, we’re looking at companies that are either using credit improvement through de-levering their balance sheet, though debt paydown or refinancing, or ones that are reapplying leverage to transform themselves, perhaps through growth or acquisitions. At the moment there are 68 names in the portfolio. There are roughly 50 other names that we’re actively monitoring with about 10 that are getting close.

We’ve thought a lot about risk management. One of the most attractive aspects of working at Scout is the deep analyst bench, and especially the strength of our fixed income team at Reams Asset Management. That gives me access to lots of data and first-rate analysis. We also can move 20% of the portfolio into fixed income in order to dampen volatility, the onset of which might be signaled by wider high-yield spreads. Finally, we can raise the ratings quality of our portfolio names.

Scout Equity Opportunity has a $1000 minimum initial investment which is reduced to a really friendly $100 for IRAs and accounts established with an automatic investing plan. Expenses are capped at 1.25% and the fund has about gathered about $7 million in assets since its March 2014 launch. Here’s the fund’s homepage. Investors intrigued by the characteristics of leveraged equity might benefit from reading Tom Soveiro’s white paper, Opportunities in Leveraged Equity Investing (2014).

Launch Alert: Touchstone Large Cap Fund (TLCYX)

On July 9, Touchstone Investments launched the Touchstone Large Cap Fund, sub-advised by The London Company. The London Company is Virginia-based RIA with over $8.7 billion in assets under management. The firm subadvises several other US-domiciled funds including:

Hennessy Equity and Income (HEIFX), since 2007. HEIFX is a $370 million, five-star LCV fund that The London Company jointly manages with FCI Advisors.

Touchstone Small Cap Core (TSFYX), since 2009. TSFYX is an $830 million, four-star SCB fund.

Touchstone Mid Cap (TMCPX), since 2011. TMCPX is a $460 million, three-star mid-cap blend fund.

American Beacon The London Company Income Equity (ABCYX), since 2012. It’s another LCV fund with about $275 million in assets.

The fund enters the most crowded part of the equity universe: large cap domestic stock.  Depending on how you count, there are 466 large blend funds. The new Touchstone fund proposes to invest in 30-40 US large cap stocks.  In particular they’re looking for financially stable firms that will compound returns over time.  Rather than looking at earnings per share, they “pay strict attention to each company’s sustainability of return on capital and resulting free cash flow and balance sheet to derive its strategic value.”  The argument is that EPS bounces, is subject to gaming and is not predictive.  Return on capital tends to be a stable predictor of strong future performance.  They target buying those firms at a 30-40% discount to intrinsic value and holding them for relatively long periods.

It’s a sound and attractive strategy.  Still, there are hundreds of funds operating in this space and dozens that might lay plausible claim to a comparable discipline. Touchstone’s president, Steve Graziano, allows that this looks like a spectacularly silly move:

If I wasn’t looking under the hood and someone came to me to launch a large cap core fund, I’d say “you must be crazy.”  It’s an overpopulated space, a stronghold of passive investing.

The reason to launch, Mr. Graziano argues, is TLC’s remarkable discipline.  They’ve used this same strategy for over 15 years in its private accounts.  Their large core composite has returned 9.7% annually over the last decade through June 30, 2014. During the same time, the S&P500 returned 7.8%.  They’ve beaten the S&P500 over the past 3, 5, 10 and 15 year periods.  The margin of victory has ranged from 130-210 bps, depending on the time period.

The firm argues that much of the strategy’s strength comes from its downside protection: “[Our] large cap core strategy focuses on investing primarily in conservative, low‐beta, large cap equities with above average downside protection.”  Over the past five years, the strategy captured 62% of the market’s downside and 96% of its upside.  That’s also reflected in the strategy’s low beta (0.77, which is striking for a fully-invested equity strategy) and low standard deviation (12.6, about 300 bps below the market’s).

Of the 500 or so large cap blend funds, only 23 can match the 9.7% annualized10-year returns for The London Company’s Large Core Strategy. Of those, only one (PIMCO StocksPlus Absolute Return PSPTX) can also match its five-year returns of 20.7%.

The minimum initial investment in the retail class is $2500, reduced to $1000 for IRAs. The expenses are capped at 1.49%. Here’s the fund’s homepage.  While it reflects the performance of the separate accounts rather than the mutual fund’s, TLC’s Large Cap Core quarterly report contains a lot of useful information on the strategy’s historic profile.

Pre-launch Alert: PSP Multi-Manager (CEFFX)

In a particularly odd development, the legal husk of the Congressional Effect Fund is being turned to good use.  As you might recall, Congressional Effect (CEFFX) was (along with the Blue Funds) another of a series of political gestures masquerading as investment vehicles. Congressional Effect went to cash whenever (evil, destructive) Congress was in session and invested in stocks otherwise. Right: out of stocks during the high-return months and in stocks over the summer and at holidays. Good.

The fund’s legal structure has been purchased by Pulteney Street Capital Management, LLC and is soon to be relaunched as the PSP Multi-Manager Fund (ticker unknown). The plan is to hire experienced managers who specialize in a set of complementary alternative strategies (long/short equity, event-driven, macro, market neutral, capital structure arbitrage and distressed) and give each of them a slice of the portfolio.  The management teams represent EastBay Asset Management, Ferro Investment Management, Riverpark Advisors, S.W. Mitchell Capital, and Tiburon Capital Management. The good news is that the fund features solid managers and a low minimum initial investment ($1000). The bad news is that the expenses (north of 3%) are near the level charged by T’ree Fingers McGurk, my local loan shark sub-prime lender.

Funds in Registration

Our colleague David Welsch tracked down 17 new no-load, retail funds in registration this month.  In general, these funds will be available for purchase by around Halloween.  (Caveat emptor.) They include new offers from several A-tier families including BBH, Brown Advisory,and Causeway.  Of special interest is the new Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF (GAA), a passive fund tracking an active index.  Charles is working to arrange an interview with the manager, Mebane Faber, during the upcoming Morningstar ETF conference.

Manager Changes

Chip reports a huge spike in the number of announced manager or management team changes this month, with 73 recorded changes, about 30 more than we’ve being seeing over the summer months. A bunch are simple games of musical chairs (Ivy and Waddell & Reed are understandably re-allocating staff) and about as many are additions of co-managers to teams, but there are a handful of senior folks who’ve announced their retirements.

Top Developments in Fund Industry Litigation – August2014

Fundfox is the only intelligence service to focus exclusively on litigation involving U.S.-registered investment companies, their directors and advisers. Publisher David Smith has agreed to share highlights with us. For a complete list of developments last month, and for information and court documents in any case, log in at www.fundfox.com and navigate to Fundfox Insider.

New Lawsuits

• Davis was hit with a new excessive-fee lawsuit regarding its N.Y. Venture Fund (the same fund already involved in another pending fee litigation). (Chill v. Davis Selected Advisers, L.P.)
• Alleging the same fee claim but for a different damages period, plaintiffs filed an “anniversary complaint” in the excessive-fee litigation regarding six Principal LifeTime funds. (Am. Chems. & Equip., Inc. 401(k) Ret. Plan v. Principal Mgmt. Corp.)

Order

• The court partly denied motions to dismiss a shareholder’s lawsuit regarding four Morgan Keegan closed-end funds, allowing misrepresentation claims under the Securities Act to proceed. (Small v. RMK High Income Fund, Inc.)

Certiorari Petition

• Plaintiffs have filed a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in an ERISA class action that challenged Fidelity‘s use of the float income generated by transactions in retirement plan accounts. (Tussey v. ABB, Inc.)

Briefs

• Davis filed a motion to dismiss excessive-fee litigation regarding its N.Y. Venture Fund. (Hebda v. Davis Selected Advisers, L.P.)
• Putnam filed its opening brief in the appeal of a fraud lawsuit regarding its collateral management services to a CDO; and the plaintiff filed a reply. (Fin. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co.)
• Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Vanguard‘s motion to dismiss a lawsuit regarding investments by two funds in offshore online gambling businesses; and Vanguard filed its reply brief. (Hartsel v. Vanguard Group, Inc.)

David Hobbs, president of Cook & Bynum, and I were talking at the Cohen Fund conference about the challenges facing fund trustees.  David mentioned that he encourages his trustees to follow David Smith’s posts here since they represent a valuable overview of new legal activity in the field.  That struck me as a thoughtful initiative and so I thought I’d pass David H’s suggestion along.

A cool resource for folks seeking “liquid alts” funds

The folks at DailyAlts maintain a list of all new hedge fund like mutual funds and ETFs. The list records 52 new funds launched between January and August 2014 and offers a handful of useful data points as well as a link to a cursory overview of the strategy.

I stumbled upon the site in pursuit of something else. It struck me as a cool and useful resource and led me to a fair number of funds that were entirely new to me. Kudos to Editor Brian Haskin and his team for the good work.

Briefly Noted . . .

Arrowpoint Asset Management LLC has increased its stake in Destra Capital Management, adviser to the Destra funds, to the point that it’s now the majority owner and “controlling person” of the firm.

Causeway’s bringing it home: pending shareholder approval, Causeway International Opportunities Fund (CIOVX) will be restructured from a “fund of funds” to “a fund making direct investments in securities.” The underlying funds in question are institutional shares of Causeway’s two other international funds – Emerging Markets (CEMIX) and International Opportunities Value(CIVIX) – so it’s hard to see how much gain investors might expect. The downside: the fund needs to entirely liquidate its portfolio which will trigger “a significantly higher taxable distribution” than investors are used to. In a slightly-stern note, Causeway warns “taxable investors receiving the distributions should be prepared to pay taxes on them.” The effect of the change on the fund’s expense ratio is muddled at the moment. Morningstar’s reported e.r. for the fund, .36%, doesn’t include the expense ratios of the underlying funds. With the new fund’s expense ratio not set, we have no idea about whether the investors are likely to see their expenses rise or fall. 

Morningstar, due to their somewhat confused reporting on the expense ratios of funds-of-funds, derides the 36 basis point fee as “high”, when they should be providing the value of the expense ratio of both the fund and it’s underlying holdings. (Thanks, Ira!)

Effective August 21, FPA Crescent Fund (FPACX) became free to invest more than 50% of its assets overseas.  Direct international exposure was previously capped at 50%.  No word yet as to why.  Or, more pointedly, why now?

Jeffrey Gundlach, DoubleLine’s founder, is apparently in talks about buying the Buffalo Bills. I’m not sure if anyone mentioned to him that E.J. Manuel (“Buffalo head coach Doug Marrone already is lowering the bar of expectation considerably for the team’s 2013 first-round pick”) is all they’ve got for a QB, unless of course The Jeffrey is imagining himself indomitably under center. That’s far from the oddest investment by a mutual fund billionaire. That honor might go to Ned Johnson’s obsessive pursuit of tomato perfection through his ownership of Backyard Farms.

On or about November 3, 2014, the principal investment strategies of the Manning Napier Real Estate and Equity Income will change to permit the writing (selling) of options on securities.

Another tough month for Marsico.  With the departure (or dismissal) of James Gendelman,  Marsico International Opportunities (MIOFX) loses its founding manager and Marsico Global (MGBLX)loses the second of its three founding managers. On the same day they lost their sub-advisory role at Litman Gregory Masters International Fund (MNILX).  Five other first-rate teams remain with the fund, whose generally fine record is marred by substantially losses in 2011.  In April 2012, one of the management teams – from Mastholm Asset Management – was dropped and performance on other sides of 2011 has been solid.

Royce Special Equity Multi-Cap Fund (RSMCX) has declared itself, and its 30 portfolio holdings, “non-diversified.”

T. Rowe Price Spectrum Income (RPSIX) is getting a bit spicy. Effective September 1, 2014, the managers may invest between 0 – 10% of the fund’s assets in T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Fund, Floating Rate Fund, Inflation Focused Bond Fund, Inflation Protected Bond Fund, and U.S. Treasury Intermediate Fund.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Effective immediately, 361 Global Macro Opportunity, Managed Futures Strategy and Global Managed Futures Strategy fund will no longer impose a 2% redemption fee.

That’s a ridiculously small number of wins for our side.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

On September 19, 2014, Eaton Vance Multi-Cap Growth Fund (EVGFX) will be soft-closed.  One-star rating, $162 million in assets, regrettable tendency to capture more downside (108%) than upside (93%), new manager in November 2013 with steadily weakening performance since then.  This might be the equivalent of a move into hospice care.

Effective September 5, 2014, Nationwide International Value Fund (NWVAX) will close to new investors.  One star rating, $22 million in assets, a record the trails 87% of its peers: Hospice!

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective October 1, 2014, Dunham Loss Averse Equity Income Fund (DAAVX/DNAVX) will be renamed Dunham Dynamic Macro Fund.  The revised fund will use “a dynamic macro asset allocation strategy” which might generate long or short exposure to pretty much any publicly-traded security.

Effective October 31, 2014, Eaton Vance Large-Cap Growth Fund (EALCX) gets renamed Eaton Vance Growth Fund.  The change seems to be purely designed to dodge the 80% rule since the principle investment strategies remain unchanged except for the “invests 80% of its assets in large” piece.  The fund comes across as modestly overpriced tapioca pudding: there’s nothing terribly objectionable about it but, really, why bother?  At the same time Eaton Vance Large-Cap Core Research Fund (EAERX) gains a bold new name: Eaton Vance Stock Fund.  With an R-squared that’s consistently over 98 but returns that trailed the S&P in four of the past five calendar years, it might be more accurately renamed Eaton Vance “Wouldn’t You Be Better in a Stock Index Fund?” Fund.

Oh, I know why that would be a bad name.  Because, the prospectus declares “Particular stocks owned will not mirror the S&P 500 Index.” Right, though the portfolio as a whole will.

Eaton Vance Balanced Fund (EVIFX) has become a fund of two Eaton Vance Funds: Growth and Investment Grade Income.  It’s a curious decision since the fund has had substantially above-average returns over the past five years.

Effective on October 1, 2014. Goldman Sachs Core Plus Fixed Income Fund becomes Goldman Sachs Bond Fund

On or around October 21, 2014, JPMorgan Multi-Sector Income Fund (the “Fund”) becomes the JPMorgan Unconstrained Debt Fund. Its principal investment strategy is to invest in (get ready!) “debt.” The list of allowable investments offers a hint, in listing two sorts of bank loans first and bonds fifth.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

If you’ve ever wondered how big the dustbin of history is, here’s a quick snapshot of it from the Investment Company Institute’s latest Factbook. In broad terms, 500 funds disappear and 600 materialize in the average year. The industry generally sees healthy shakeouts in the year following a market crash.

 

Ron Rowland, founder of Invest With an Edge and editor of AllStarInvestor.com, maintains the suitably macabre ETF Deathwatch which each month highlights those ETFs likeliest to be described as zombies: funds with both low assets and low trading volumes.  The August Deathwatch lists over 300 ETFs that soon might, and perhaps ought to, become nothing more than vague memories.

This month’s entrants to the dustbin include AMF Intermediate Mortgage Fund (ASCPX)and AMF Ultra Short Fund (AULTX), both slated to liquidate on September 26, 2014.

AllianceBernstein International Discovery Equity (ADEAX) and AllianceBernstein Market Neutral Strategy — Global (AANNX)will be liquidated and dissolved (how are those different?) on October 10, 2014.

Around December 19^th, Clearbridge Equity Fund (LMQAX) merges into ClearBridge Large Cap Growth Fund (SBLGX).  LMQAX has had the same manager since 1995.

On Aug. 20, 2014, the Board of Trustees of Voyageur Mutual Funds unanimously voted and approved a proposal to liquidate and dissolve Delaware Large Cap Core Fund (DDCAX), Delaware Core Bond Fund (DPFIX) and Delaware Macquarie Global Infrastructure Fund (DMGAX). The euthanasia will occur by late October but they did not specify a date.

Direxion Indexed CVT Strategy Bear Fund (DXCVX) and Direxion Long/Short Global Currency Fund (DXAFX)are both slated to close on September 8^th and liquidate on September 22^nd.  Knowing that you were being eaten alive by curiosity, I checked: DXCVX seeks to replicate the inverse of the daily returns of the QES Synthetic Convertible Index. At base, it shorts convertible bonds.  Morningstar designates the fund as Direxion Indxd Synth Convert Strat Bear, for reasons not clear, but does give a clue as to its demise: it has $30,000 in AUM and has fallen a sprightly 15% since inception in February.

Horizons West Multi-Strategy Hedged Income Fund (HWCVX) will liquidate on October 6, 2014, just six months after launch.  In the interim, Brenda A. Smith has replaced Steven M. MacNamara as the fund’s president and principal executive officer.

The $100 million JPMorgan Strategic Preservation Fund (JSPAX) is slated for liquidation on September 29^th.  The manager may have suffered from excessive dedication to the goal of preservation: throughout its life the fund never had more than a third of its assets in stocks.  That gave it a minimal beta (about 0.20) but also minimal appeal in generally rising markets.

Oddly, the fund’s prospectus warns that “The Fund’s total allocation to equity securities and convertible bonds will not exceed 60% of the Fund’s total assets except for temporary defensive positions.”  They never explain when moving out of cash and into stocks qualifies as a defensive move.

Parametric Market Neutral Fund (EPRAX) ceases to exist on September 19, 2014.

PIMCO, the world’s biggest bond fund shop and happiest employer, is trimming out its ETF roster: Australia Bond, Build America Bond, Canada Bond and Germany Bond disappear on or about October 1, 2014.  “This date,” PIMCO gently reminds us, “may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.”  At the same time iShares, the biggest issuer of ETFs, plans to close 18 small funds with a combined asset base of a half billion dollars.  That includes 10 target-date funds plus several EM and real estate niche funds.

Prudential International Value Fund (PISAX), run by LSV, will be merged into Prudential International Equity Fund (PJRAX).  Both funds are overpriced and neither has a consistent record of adding much value, though PJRAX is slightly less overpriced and has strung through a decent run lately.

PTA Comprehensive Alternatives Fund (BPFAX) liquidates on September 15, 2014. I didn’t even know the PTA had funds, though around here they certainly have fund-raisers.

In Closing . . .

Thanks, as always, to all of you who’ve supported the Observer either by using our Amazon link (which costs you nothing but earns us 6-7% of the value of whatever you buy using it) or making a direct contribution by check or through PayPal (which costs you … well, something admittedly).  Nuts.  I really owe Philip A. a short note of thanks.  Uhhh … sorry, big guy!  The card is in the mail (nearly).

For the first time ever, the four of us who handle the bulk of the Observer’s writing and administrative work – Charles, Chip, Ed and me – are settling down to a face-to-face planning session at the end of the upcoming Morningstar ETF Conference. Which also means that we’ll be wandering around the conference. If you’re there and would like to chat with any of us, drop me a note and we’ll get it set up.

Talk to you soon, think of you sooner!

 

By David Snowball

Dear friends,

We’ve always enjoyed and benefited from your reactions to the Observer. Your notes are read carefully, passed around and they often shape our work in the succeeding months. The most common reaction to our July issue was captured by one reader who shared this observation:

Dear David: I really love your writing. I just wish there weren’t so much of it. Perhaps you could consider paring back a bit?

Each month’s cover essay, in Word, ranges from 22 – 35 pages, single-spaced. June and July were both around 30 pages, a length perhaps more appropriate to the cool and heartier months of late autumn and winter. In response, we’ve decided to offer you the Seersucker Edition of Mutual Fund Observer. We, along with the U.S. Senate, are celebrating seersucker, the traditional fabric of summer suits in the South. Light, loose and casual, it is “a wonderful summer fabric that was designed for the hot summer months,” according to Mississippi senator Roger Wicker. In respect of the heat and the spirit of bipartisanship, this is the “light and slightly rumpled” edition of the Observer that “retains its fashionable good looks despite summer’s heat and humidity.”

For September we’ll be adding a table of contents to help you navigate more quickly around the essay. We’ll target “Tweedy”, and perhaps Tweedy Browne, in November!

“There’ll never be another Bill Gross.” Lament or marketing slogan?

Up until July 31, the market seemed to be oblivious to the fact that the wheels seemed to be coming off the global geopolitical system. We focused instead on the spectacle of major industry players acting like carnies (do a Google image search for the word, you’ll get the idea) at the Mississippi Valley Fair.

Exhibit One is PIMCO, a firm that we lauded as having the best record for new fund launches of any of the Big Five. In signs of what must be a frustrating internal struggle:

PIMCO icon Bill Gross felt compelled to announce, at Morningstar, that PIMCO was “the happiest place in the world” to work, allowing that only Disneyland might be happier. Two notes: 1) when a couple says “our marriage is doing great,” divorce is imminent, and 2) Disneyland is, reportedly, a horrible place to work.

Gross also trumpeted “a performance turnaround” which appears not to be occurring at Gross’s several funds, either an absolute return or risk-adjusted return basis.

After chasing co-CIO Mohammed el-Erian out and convincing fund manager Jeremie Banet (a French national whose accent Gross apparently liked to ridicule) that he’d be better off running a sandwich truck, Gross took to snapping at CEO Doug Hodge for his failure to stanch fund outflows.

PIMCO insiders have reportedly asked Mr. Gross to stop speaking in public, or at least stop venting to the media. Mr. Gross threatened to quit, then publicly announced that he’s never threatened to quit.

Despite PIMCO’s declaration that the Wall Street Journal article that detailed many of these promises was “full of untruths and mischaracterizations that are unworthy of a major news daily,” they’ve also nervously allowed that “Pimco isn’t only Bill Gross” and lamented (or promised) that there will never been another PIMCO “bond king” after Gross’s departure.

Others in the industry, frustrated that PIMCO was hogging the silly season limelight, quickly grabbed the red noses and cream pies and headed at each other.

The most colorful is the fight between Morningstar and DoubleLine. On July 16, Morningstar declared that “On account of a lack of information … [DoubleLine Total Return DBLNX] is Not Ratable.” That judgment means that DoubleLine isn’t eligible for a metallic (Gold, Silver, Bronze) Analyst Rating but it doesn’t affect that fund’s five-star rating or the mechanical judgment that the $34 billion fund has offered “high” returns and “below average” risk. Morningstar’s contention is that the fund’s strategies are so opaque that risks cannot be adequately assessed at arm’s length and the DoubleLine refuses to disclose sufficient information to allow Morningstar’s analysts to understand the process from the inside. DoubleLine’s rejoinder (which might be characterized as “oh, go suck an egg!”) is that Morningstar “has made false statement about DoubleLine” and “mischaracterized the fund,” in consequence of which they’ll have “no further communication with Morningstar.com” (“How Bad is the Blood Between DoubleLine and Morningstar?” 07/18/2014).

DoubleLine declined several requests for comment on the fight and, specifically, for a copy of the reported eight page letter of particulars they’d sent to Morningstar. Nadine Youssef, speaking for Morningstar, stressed that

It’s not about refusing to answer questions—it’s about having sufficient information to assign an Analyst Rating. There are a few other fund managers who don’t answer all of our questions, but we assign an Analyst Rating if we have enough information from filings and our due diligence process.

If a fund produced enough information in shareholder letters and portfolios, we could still rate it. For example, stock funds are much easier to assess for risk because our analysts can run good portfolio analytics on them. For exotic mortgages, we can’t properly assess the risk without additional information.

It’s a tough call. Many fund managers, in private, deride Morningstar as imperious, high-handed, sanctimonious and self-serving. Others aren’t that positive. But in the immediate case Morningstar seems to be acting with considerable integrity. The mere fact that a fund is huge and famous can’t be grounds, in and of itself, for an endorsement by Morningstar’s analysts (though, admittedly, Morningstar does not have a single Negative rating on even one of the 234 $10 billion-plus funds). To the extent that this kerfuffle shines a spotlight on the larger problem of investors placing their money in funds whose strategies that don’t actually understand and couldn’t explain, it might qualify as a valuable “teachable moment” for the community.

Somewhere in there, one of the founders of DoubleLine’s equity unit quit and his fund was promptly liquidated with an explanation that almost sounded like “we weren’t really interested in that fund anyway.”

Waddell & Reed, adviser to the Ivy Funds, lost star manager Bryan Krug to Artisan.  He was replaced on Ivy High Income (IVHIX) by William Nelson, who had been running Waddell & Reed High Income (UNHIX) since 2008. On July 9^th Nelson was fired “for cause” and for reasons “unrelated to his portfolio management responsibilities,” which raised questions about the management of nearly $14 billion in high-yield assets. They also named a new president, had their stock downgraded, lost a third high-profile manager, drew huge fund inflows and blew away earnings expectations.

Recovery Time

In the book “Practical Risk-Adjusted Performance Measurement,” Carl Bacon defines recovery time or drawdown duration as the time taken to recover from an individual or maximum drawdown to the original level. In the case of maximum drawdown (MAXDD), the figure below depicts recovery time from peak. Typically, for equity funds at least, the descent from peak to valley happens more quickly than the ascent from valley to recovery level.

An individual’s risk tolerance and investment timeline certainly factor into expectations of maximum drawdown and recovery time. As evidenced in “Ten Market Cycles” from our April commentary, 20% drawdowns are quite common. Since 1956, the SP500 has fallen nearly 30% or more eight times. And, three times – a gut wrenching 50%. Morningstar advises that investors in equity funds need “investment horizons longer than 10 years.”

Since 1962, SP500’s worst recovery time is actually a modest 53 months. Perhaps more surprising is that aggregate bonds experienced a similar duration, before the long bull run.  The difference, however, is in drawdown level.

 During the past 20 years, bonds have recovered much more quickly, even after the financial crisis.

Long time MFO board contributor Bee posted recently:

MAXDD or Maximum Drawdown is to me only half of the story.

Markets move up and down. Typically the more aggressive the fund the more likely it is to have a higher MAXDD. I get that.

What I find “knocks me out of a fund” in a down market is the fund’s inability to bounce back.

Ulcer Index, as defined by Peter Martin and central to MFO’s ratings system, does capture both the MAXDD and recovery time, but like most indices, it is most easily interpreted when comparing funds over same time period. Shorter recovery times will have lower UIcer Index, even if they experience the same absolute MAXDD. Similarly, the attendant risk-adjusted-return measure Martin Ratio, which is excess return divided by Ulcer Index, will show higher levels.

But nothing hits home quite like maximum drawdown and recovery time, whose absolute levels are easily understood. A review of lifetime MAXDD and recoveries reveals the following funds with some dreadful numbers, representing a cautionary tale at least:

In contrast, some notable funds, including three Great Owls, with recovery times at one year or less:

On Bee’s suggestion, we will be working to make fund recovery times available to MFO readers.

Flash Geeks and Other Vagaries of Life …..

By Edward Studzinski

“The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing.”

                Gamal Abdel Nasser

Some fifteen to twenty-odd years ago, before Paine Webber was acquired by UBS Financial Services, it had a superb annual conference. It was their quantitative investment conference usually held in Boston in early December. What was notable about it was that the attendees were the practitioners of what fundamental investors back then considered the black arts, namely the quants (quantitative investors) from shops like Acadian, Batterymarch, Fidelity, Numeric, and many of the other quant or quasi-quant shops. I made a point of attending, not because I thought of myself as a quant, but rather because I saw that an increasing amount of money was being managed in this fashion. WHAT I DID NOT KNOW COULD HURT BOTH ME AND MY INVESTORS.

One of the things you quickly learned about quantitative methods was that their factor-based models for screening stocks and industries, and then constructing portfolios, worked until they did not work. That is, inefficiencies that were discovered could be exploited until others noticed the same inefficiencies and adjusted their models accordingly. The beauty of this conference was that you had papers and presentations from the California Technology, MIT, and other computer geeks who had gone into the investment world. They would discuss what they had been working on and back-testing (seeing how things would have turned out). This usually gave you a pretty good snapshot of how they would be investing going forward. If nothing else, it helped you to know when you might want to step out of the way to keep from being run-over. It was certainly helpful to me in 1994. 

In late 2006, I was in New York at a financial markets presentation hosted by the Santa Fe Institute and Bill Miller of Legg Mason. It was my follow-on substitute for the Paine Webber conference. The speakers included people like Andrew Lo, who is both a brilliant scientist at MIT and the chief scientific officer of the Alpha Simplex Group. One of the other people I chanced to hear that day was Dan Mathisson of Credit Suisse, who was one of the early pioneers and fathers of algorithmic trading. In New York then on the stock exchanges people were seeing change not incrementally, but on a daily basis. The floor trading and market maker jobs which had been handed down in families from generation to generation (go to Fordham or NYU, get your degree, and come into the family business) were under siege, as things went electronic (anyone who has studied innovation in technology and the markets knows that the Canadians, as with air traffic control systems, beat us by many years in this regard). And then I returned to Illinois, where allegedly the Flat Earth Society was founded and still held sway. One of the more memorable quotes which I will take with me forever is this. “Trying to understand algorithmic trading is a waste of time as it will never amount to more than ten per cent of volume on the exchanges. One will get better execution by having” fill-in-the blank “execute your trade on the floor.” Exit, stage right.

Flash forward to 2014. Michael Lewis has written and published his book, Flash Boys. I have to confess that I purchased this book and then let it sit on my reading pile for a few months, thinking that I already understood what it was about. I got to it sitting in a hotel room in Switzerland in June, thinking it would put me to sleep in a different time zone. I learned very quickly that I did not know what it was about. Hours later, I was two-thirds finished with it and fascinated. And beyond the fascination, I had seen what Lewis talked about happen many times in the process of reviewing trade executions.

If you think that knowing something about algorithmic trading, black pools, and the elimination of floor traders by banks of servers and trading stations prepares you for what you learn in Lewis’ book, you are wrong. Think about your home internet service. Think about the difference in speeds that you see in going from copper to fiber optic cable (if you can actually get it run into your home). While much of the discussion in the book is about front-running of customer trades, more is about having access to the right equipment as well as the proximity of that equipment to a stock exchange’s computer servers. And it is also about how customer trades are often routed to exchanges that are not advantageous to the customer in terms of ultimate execution cost. 

Now, a discussion of front running will probably cause most eyes to glaze over. Perhaps a better way to think about what is going on is to use the term “skimming” as it might apply for instance, to someone being able to program a bank’s computers to take a few fractions of a cent from every transaction of a particular nature. And this skimming goes on, day in and day out, so that over a year’s time, we are talking about those fractions of cents adding up to millions of dollars.

Let’s talk about a company, Bitzko Kielbasa Company, which is a company that trades on average 500,000 shares a day. You want to sell 20,000 shares of Bitzko. The trading screen shows that the current market is $99.50 bid for 20,000 shares. You tell the trader to hit the bid and execute the sale at $99.50. He types in the order on his machine, hits sell, and you sell 100 shares of Bitzko at $99.50. The bid now drops to $99.40 for 1,000 shares. When you ask what happened, the answer is, “the bid wasn’t real and it went away.” What you learn from Lewis’ book is that as the trade was being entered, before the send/execute button was pressed, other firms could read your transaction and thus manipulate the market in that security. You end up selling your Bitzko at an average price well under the original price at which you thought you could execute.

So, how is it that no one has been held accountable for this yet? I don’t know, although there seem to be a lot of investigations ongoing. You also learn that a lot here has to do with order flow, or to what exchange a sell-side firm gets to direct your order for execution. The tragi-comic aspect of this is that mutual fund trustees spend a lot of time looking at trading evaluations as to whether best execution took place. The reality is that they have absolutely no idea on whether they got best execution because the whole thing was based on a false premise from the get-go. And the consultant’s trading execution reports reflect none of that.

Who has the fiduciary obligation? Many different parties, all of whom seem to hope that if they say nothing, the finger will not get pointed at them. The other side of the question is, you are executing trades on behalf of your client, individual or institutional, and you know which firms are doing this. Do you still keep doing business with them? The answer appears to be yes, because it is more important to YOUR business than to act in the best interests of your clients. Is there not a fiduciary obligation here as well? Yes.

I would like to think that there will be a day of reckoning coming. That said, it is not an easy area to understand or explain. In most sell-side firms, the only ones who really understood what was going on were the computer geeks. All that management and the marketers understood was that they were making a lot of money, but could not explain how. All that the buy-side firms understood was that they and their customers were being disadvantaged, but by how much was another question.

As an investor, how do you keep from being exploited? The best indicators as usual are fees, expenses, and investment turnover. Some firms have trading strategies tied to executing trades only when a set buy or sell price is triggered. Batterymarch was one of the forerunners here. Dimensional Fund Advisors follows a similar strategy today. Given low turnover in most indexing strategies, that is another way to limit the degree of hurt. Failing that, you probably need to resign yourself to paying hidden tolls, especially as a purchaser or seller of individual securities. Given that, being a long-term investor makes a good bit of sense. I will close by saying that I strongly suggest Michael Lewis’ book as must-reading. It makes you wonder how an industry got to the point where it has become so hard for so many to not see the difference between right and wrong.

What does it take for Morningstar to notice that they’re not noticing you?

Based on the funds profiled in Russ Kinnel’s July 15th webcast, “7 Under the Radar Funds,” the answer is about $400 million and ten years with the portfolio.

	Ten year record	Lead manager tenure (years)	AUM (millions)
LKCM Equity LKEQX	8.9%	18.5	$331
Becker Value BVEFX	9.2	10	325
FPA Perennial FPPFX	9.2	15	317
Royce Special Equity Multi-Cap RSEMX	n/a	4	236
Bogle Small Cap Growth BOGLX	9.9	14	228
Diamond Hill Small to Mid Cap DHMAX	n/a	9	486
Champlain Mid Cap CIPMX	n/a	6	705
		10.9	$375

Let’s start with the obvious: these are pretty consistently solid funds and well worth your consideration. What most strikes me about the list is the implied judgment that unless you’re from a large fund complex, the threshold for Morningstar even to admit that they’ve been ignoring you is dauntingly high. While Don Phillips spoke at the 2013 Morningstar Investment Conference of an initiative to identify promising funds earlier in their existence, that promise wasn’t mentioned at the 2014 gathering and this list seems to substantiate the judgment that from Morningstar’s perspective, small funds are dead to them.

That’s a pity given the research that Mr. Kinnel acknowledges in his introduction…when it comes to funds, bigger is simply not better.

Investors might be beginning to suspect the same thing. Kevin McDevitt, a senior analyst on Morningstar’s manager research team (that’s what they’re calling the folks who cover mutual funds now), studied fund flows and noticed two things:

1. Starting in early 2013, investors began pouring money into “risk on” funds. “Since the start of 2013, flows into the least-volatile group of funds have basically been flat. During that same six-quarter stretch, investors poured nearly $125 billion into the most-volatile category of funds.” That is, he muses, reminiscent of their behavior in the years (2004-07) immediately before the final crisis.
2. Investors are pouring money into recently-launched funds. He writes: “What’s interesting about this recent stretch is that a sizable chunk of inflows has gone to funds without a three-year track record. If those happen to be higher-risk funds too, then people really have embraced risk once more. It’s pretty astonishing that these fledgling funds have collected more inflows over the past 12 months through June ($154 billion) than the other four quartiles (that is, funds with at least a three-year record) combined ($117 billion).”

I’ve got some serious concerns about that paragraph (you can’t just assume newer funds as “higher-risk funds too”) and I’ve sent Mr. McDevitt a request for clarification since I don’t have any ideas of what “the other four quartiles” (itself a mathematical impossibility) refers to. See “Investors Show Willingness to Buy Untested Funds,” 07/31/2014.

That said, it looks like investors and their advisors might be willing to listen. Happily, the Observer’s willing to speak with them about newer, smaller, independent funds.  Our willingness to do so is based on the research, not simple altruism. Small, nimble, independent, investment-driven rather than asset-driven works.

And so, for the 3500 funds smaller than the smallest name on Morningstar’s list and the 4100 smaller than the average fund on this list, be of good cheer! For the 141 small funds that have a better 10-year record than any of these, be brave! To the 17 unsung funds that have a five-star rating for the past three years, five years, ten years and overall, your time will come!

Thanks to Akbar Poonawala for bringing the webcast to my attention!

What aren’t you reading this summer?

If you’re like me, you have at your elbow a stack of books that you promised yourself you were going to read during summer’s long bright evenings and languid afternoons.  Mine includes Mark Miodownik’s Stuff Matters: Exploring the Marvelous Materials that Shape Our Manmade World (2013) and Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (2012). Both remain in lamentably pristine condition.

How are yours?

Professor Jordan Ellenberg, a mathematician at Wisconsin-Madison, wrote an interesting but reasonably light-hearted essay attempting to document the point at which our ambition collapses and we surrender our pretensions of literacy.  He did it by tracking the highlights that readers embed in the Kindle versions of various books.  His thought is that the point at which readers stop highlighting text is probably a pretty good marker of where they stopped reading it.  His results are presented in “The Summer’s Most Unread Book Is…” (7/5/14). Here are his “most unread” nominees:

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman : 6.8% 
Apparently the reading was more slow than fast. To be fair, Prof. Kahneman’s book, the summation of a life’s work at the forefront of cognitive psychology, is more than twice as long as “Lean In,” so his score probably represents just as much total reading as Ms. Sandberg’s does.

A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking: 6.6% 
The original avatar backs up its reputation pretty well. But it’s outpaced by one more recent entrant—which brings us to our champion, the most unread book of this year (and perhaps any other). Ladies and gentlemen, I present:

Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty: 2.4% 
Yes, it came out just three months ago. But the contest isn’t even close. Mr. Piketty’s book is almost 700 pages long, and the last of the top five popular highlights appears on page 26. Stephen Hawking is off the hook; from now on, this measure should be known as the Piketty Index.

At the other end of the spectrum, one of the most read non-fiction works is a favorite of my colleague Ed Studzinski’s or of a number of our readers:

Flash Boys by Michael Lewis : 21.7% 
Mr. Lewis’s latest trip through the sewers of financial innovation reads like a novel and gets highlighted like one, too. It takes the crown in my sampling of nonfiction books.

What aren’t you drinking this summer?

The answer, apparently, is Coca-Cola in its many manifestations. US consumption of fizzy drinks has been declining since 2005. In part that’s a matter of changing consumer tastes and in part a reaction to concerns about obesity; even Coca-Cola North America’s president limits himself to one 8-ounce bottle a day. 

Some investors, though, suspect that the problem arises from – or at least is not being effectively addressed by – Coke’s management. They argue that management is badly misallocating capital (to, for example, buying Keurig rather than investing in their own factories) and compensating themselves richly for the effort.

Enter David Winters, manager of Wintergreen Fund (WGRNX). While some long-time Coke investors (that would be Warren Buffett) merely abstain rather than endorse management proposals, Mr. Winters loudly, persistently and thoughtfully objects. His most public effort is embodied in the website Fix Big Soda. 

This is far from Winters’ first attempt to influence the direction of one of his holdings. He stressed two things in a long ago interview with us: (1) the normal fund manager’s impulse to simply sell and let a corporation implode struck him as understandable but defective, and (2) the vast majority of management teams welcomed thoughtful, carefully-researched advice from qualified outsiders. But some don’t, preferring to run a corporation for the benefit of insiders rather than shareholders or other stakeholders. When Mr. Winters perceives that a firm’s value might grow dramatically if only management stopped being such buttheads (though I’m not sure he uses the term), he’s willing to become the catalyst to unlock that value for the benefit of his own shareholders. A fairly high profile earlier example was his successful conflict with the management of Florida real estate firm Consolidated-Tomoka.

You surely wouldn’t want all of your managers pursuing such a strategy but having at least one of them gives you access to another source of market-independent gains in your portfolio. So-called “special situation” or “distressed” investments can gain value if the catalyst is successful, even if the broader market is declining.

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds. “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve. 

This month we profile two funds that offer different – and differently successful – takes on the same strategy. There’s a lot of academic research that show firms which are seriously and structurally devoted to innovation far outperform their rivals. These firms can exist in all sectors; it’s entirely possible to have a highly innovative firm in, say, the cement industry. Conversely, many firms systematically under-invest in innovation and the research suggests these firms are more-or-less doomed.

Why would firms be so boneheaded? Two reasons come to mind:

1. Long-term investments are hard to justify in a market that demands short-term results.
2. Spending on research and training are accounted as “overhead” and management is often rewarded for trimming unnecessary overhead.

Both of this month’s profiles target funds that are looking for ways to identify firms that are demonstrably and structurally (that is, permanently) committed to innovation or knowledge leadership. While their returns are very different, each is successful on its own terms.

GaveKal Knowledge Leaders (GAVAX) combines a search for high R&D firms with sophisticated market risks screens that force it to reduce its market exposure when markets begin teetering into “the red zone.” The result is an equity portfolio with hedge fund like characteristics which many advisors treat as a “liquid alts” option.

Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators (IWIRX) stays fully invested regardless of market conditions in the world’s 30 most innovative firms. What started in the 1990s as the Wired 40 Index Fund has been crushing its competition as an actively managed for fund over a decade. Lipper just ranked it as the best performing Global Large Cap Growth fund of the past year. And of the past three years. Also the #1 performer for the past five years and, while we’re at it, for the past 10 years as well.

Elevator Talk: Jim Cunnane, Advisory Research MLP & Energy Income Fund (INFRX/INFIX)

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you. That’s about the number of words a slightly-manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half. In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site. Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share. These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more.

The Observer has presented the case for investing in Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) before, both when we profiled SteelPath Alpha (now Oppenheimer SteelPath Alpha MLPAX) and in our Elevator Talk with Ted Gardiner of Salient MLP Alpha and Energy Infrastructure II (SMLPX). Here’s the $0.50 version of the tale:

MLPs are corporate entities which typically own energy infrastructure. They do not explore for oil and they do not refine it, but they likely own the pipelines that connect the E&P firm with the refiner. Likewise they don’t mine the coal nor produce the electricity, but might own and maintain the high tension transmission grid that distributes it.

MLPs typically make money by charging for the use of their facilities, the same way that toll road operators do. They’re protected from competition by the ridiculously high capital expenses needed to create infrastructure. The rates they charge as generally set by state rate commissions, so they’re very stable and tend to rise by slow, predictable amounts.

The prime threat to MLPs is falling energy demand (for example, during a severe recession) or falling energy production.

From an investor’s perspective, direct investment in an MLP can trigger complex and expensive tax requirements. Indeed, a fund that’s too heavily invested in MLPs alone might generate those same tax headaches.

That having been said, these are surprisingly profitable investments. The benchmark Alerian MLP Index has returned 17.2% annually over the past decade with a dividend yield of 5.2%. That’s more than twice the return of the stock market and twice the income of the bond market.

The questions you need to address are two-fold. First, do these investments make sense for your portfolio? If so, second, does an actively-managed fund make more sense than simply riding an index. Jim Cunnane thinks that two yes’s are in order.

Mr. Cunnane manages Advisory Research MLP & Energy Infrastructure Fund which started life as a Fiduciary Asset Management Company (FAMCO) fund until the complex was acquired by Advisory Research. He’d been St. Louis-based FAMCO’s chief investment officer for 15 years. He’s the CIO for the MLP & Energy Infrastructure team and chair of AR’s Risk Management Committee. He also manages two closed-end funds which also target MLPs: the Fiduciary/Claymore MLP Opportunity Fund (FMO) and the Nuveen Energy MLP Total Return Fund (JMF). Here are his 200 words (and one picture) on why you might consider INFRX:

We’re always excited to talk about this fund because it’s a passion of ours. It’s a unique way to manage MLPs in an open-end fund. When you look at the landscape of US energy, it really is an exciting fundamental story. The tremendous increases in the production of oil and gas have to be accompanied by tremendous increases in energy infrastructure. Ten years ago the INGA estimated that the natural gas industry would need $3.6 billion/year in infrastructure investments. Today the estimate is $14.2 billion. We try to find great energy infrastructure and opportunistically buy it.

There are two ways you can attack investing in MLPs through a fund. One would be an MLP-dedicated portfolio but that’s subject to corporate taxation at the fund level. The other is to limit direct MLP holdings to 25% of the portfolio and place the rest in attractive energy infrastructure assets including the parent companies of the MLPs, companies that might launch MLPs and a new beast called a YieldCo which typically focus on solar or wind infrastructure. We have the freedom to move across the firms’ capital structure, investing in either debt or equity depending on what offers the most attractive return.

Our portfolio in comparison to our peers offers a lot of additional liquidity, a lower level of volatility and tax efficiency. Despite the fact that we’re not exclusively invested in MLPs we manage a 90% correlation with the MLP index.

While there are both plausible bull and bear cases to be made about MLPs, our conclusion is that risk and reward is fairly balanced and that MLP investors will earn a reasonable level of return over a 10-year horizon. To account for the recent strong performance of MLPs, we are adjusting our long term return expectation down to 5-9% per annum, from our previous estimate of 6-10%. We also expect a 10% plus MLP market correction at some point this year.

The “exciting story” that Mr. Cunnane mentioned above is illustrated in a chart that he shared:

The fund has both institutional and retail share classes. The retail class (INFRX) has a $2500 minimum initial investment and a 5.5% load.  Expenses are 1.50% with about $725 million in assets.  The institutional share class (INFIX) is $1,000,000 and 1.25%. Here’s the fund’s homepage.

Funds in Registration

The Securities and Exchange Commission requires that funds file a prospectus for the Commission’s review at least 75 days before they propose to offer it for sale to the public. The release of new funds is highly cyclical; it tends to peak in December and trough in the summer.

This month the Observer’s other David (research associate David Welsch) tracked down nine new no-load funds in registration, all of which target a September launch. It might be the time of year but all of this month’s offerings strike me as “meh.”

Manager Changes

Just as the number of fund launches and fund liquidations are at seasonal lows, so too are the number of fund manager changes.  Chip tracked down a modest 46 manager changes, with two retirements and a flurry of activity at Fidelity accounting for much of the activity.

Top Developments in Fund Industry Litigation – July 2014

Fundfox is the only intelligence service to focus exclusively on litigation involving U.S.-registered investment companies, their directors and advisers. Publisher David Smith has agreed to share highlights with us. For a complete list of developments last month, and for information and court documents in any case, log in at www.fundfox.com and navigate to Fundfox Insider.

New Lawsuit

• In a copyright infringement lawsuit, the publisher of Oil Daily alleges that KA Fund Advisors (you might recognize them as Kayne Anderson) and its parent company have “for years” internally copied and distributed the publication “on a consistent and systematic basis,” and “concealed these activities” from the publisher. (Energy Intelligence Group, Inc. v. Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, LP.)

 Order

• The court granted American Century‘s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit that challenged investments in an illegal Internet gambling business by the Ultra Fund. (Seidl v. Am. Century Cos.)

 Briefs

• Plaintiffs filed their opposition to BlackRock‘s motion to dismiss excessive-fee litigation regarding its Global Allocation and Dividend Equity Funds. (In re BlackRock Mut. Funds Advisory Fee Litig.)
• First Eagle filed a motion to dismiss an excessive-fee lawsuit regarding its Global and Overseas Funds. (Lynn M. Kennis Trust v. First Eagle Inv. Mgmt., LLC.)
• J.P. Morgan filed a motion to dismiss an excessive- fee lawsuit regarding its Core Bond, High Yield, and Short Duration Bond Funds. (Goodman v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt., Inc.)

Answer

• Opting against a motion to dismiss, ING filed an answer in the fee lawsuit regarding its Global Real Estate Fund. (Cox v. ING Invs. LLC.)

– – –

A potentially fascinating case arose just a bit after David shared his list with us. A former Vanguard employee is suing Vanguard, alleging that they illegally dodged billions in taxes. While Vanguard itself warns that “The issues presented in the complaint are far too complex to get a full and proper hearing in the news media” (the wimps), it appears that the plaintiff has two allegations:

1. That Vanguard charges too little for their services; they charge below-market rates while the tax code requires that, for tax purposes, transactions be assessed at market rates. A simple illustration: if your parents rented an apartment to you for $300/month when anyone else would expect to pay $1000/month for the same property, the $700 difference would be taxable to you since they’re sort of giving you a $700 gift each month.
2. That Vanguard should have to pay taxes on the $1.5 billion “contingency reserve” they’ve built.

Joseph DiStephano of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Vanguard’s hometown newspaper, laid out many of the issues in “Vanguard’s singular model is under scrutiny,” 07/30/2014. If you’d like to be able to drop legalese casually at your next pool party, you can read the plaintiff’s filing in State of New York ex rel David Danon v. Vanguard Group Inc.

Updates

Aston/River Road Long-Short (ARLSX) passed its three year anniversary in May and received its first Morningstar rating recently. They rated it as a four-star fund which has captured a bit more of the upside and a bit less of the downside than has its average peer. The fund had a bad January (down more than 4%) but has otherwise been a pretty consistently above average, risk-conscious performer.

Zac Wydra, manager of Beck, Mack and Oliver Partners Fund (BMPEX), was featured in story in the Capitalism and Crisis newsletter. I suspect the title, “Investing Wisdom from Zac Wydra,” likely made Zac a bit queasy since it rather implies that he’s joined the ranks of the Old Dead White Guys (ODWGs) also with Graham and Dodd.

Here’s a major vote of confidence: Effective August 1, 2014, John Neff and Thomas Saberhagen were named as co-portfolio managers for the Akre Focus Fund. They both joined Mr. Akre’s firm in 2009 after careers at William Blair and Aegis Financial, respectively. The elevation is striking. Readers might recall that Mr. Akre was squeezed out after running FBR Focus (now Hennessy Focus HFCSX) for 13 years. FBR decided to cut Mr. Akre’s contract by about 50% (without reducing shareholder expenses), which caused him to launch Akre Focus using the same discipline. FBR promptly poached Mr. Akre’s analysts (while he was out of town) to run their fund in his place. At that point, Mr. Akre swore never to repeat the mistake and to limit analysts to analyzing rather than teaching them portfolio construction. Time and experience with the team seems to have mellowed the great man. Given the success that the rapscallions have had at HFCSX, there’s a good chance that Mr. Akre, now in his 70s, has trained Neff and Saberhagen well which might help address investor concerns about an eventual succession plan.

Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX) passed the $100 million AUM threshold in July and is in the process of hiring a business development director. Manager Andrew Foster reports that they received a slug of really impressive applications. Our bottom line was, and is, “There are few more-attractive emerging markets options available.” We’re pleased that folks are beginning to have faith in that conclusion.

Stewart Capital Mid Cap Fund (SCMFX) has been named to the Charles Schwab’s Mutual Fund OneSource Select List for the third quarter of 2014. It’s one of six independent mid-caps to make the list. The recognition is appropriate and overdue.  Our Star in the Shadow’s profile of the fund concluded that it was “arguably one of the top two midcap funds on the market, based on its ability to perform in volatile rising and falling markets. Their strategy seems disciplined, sensible and repeatable.” That judgment hasn’t changed but their website has; the firm made a major and welcome upgrade to it last year.

Briefly Noted . . .

Yikes. I mean, really yikes. On July 28, Aberdeen Asset Management Plc (ADN) reported that an unidentified but “very long standing” client had just withdrawn 4 billion pounds of assets from the firm’s global and Asia-Pacific region equity funds. The rough translation is $6.8 billion. Overall the firm saw over 8 billion pounds of outflow in the second quarter, an amount large enough that even Bill Gross would feel it.

We all have things that set us off. For some folks the very idea of “flavored” coffee (poor defenseless beans drenched in amaretto-kiwi goo) will do it. For others it’s the designated hitter rule or plans to descrecate renovate Wrigley Field. For me, it’s fund managers who refuse to invest in their own funds, followed closely behind by fund trustees who refuse to invest in the funds whose shareholders they represent.

Sarah Max at Barron’s published a good short column (07/12/14) on the surprising fact that over half of all managers have zero (not a farthing, not a penny, not a thing) invested in their own funds. The research is pretty clear (the more the insiders’ interests are aligned with yours, the better a fund’s risk-adjusted performance) and the atmospherics are even clearer (what on earth would convince you that a fund is worth an outsider’s money if it’s not worth an insider’s?). That’s one of the reasons that the Observer routinely reports on the manager and director investments and corporate policies for all of the funds we cover. In contrast to the average fund, small and independent funds tend to have persistently, structurally high levels of insider commitment.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

On June 30, both the advisory fee and the expense cap on The Brown Capital Management International Equity Fund (BCIIX) were reduced. The capped e.r. dropped from 2.00% to 1.25%.

Forward Tactical Enhanced Fund (FTEAX) is dropping its Investor Share class expense ratio from 1.99% to 1.74%. Woo hoo! I’d be curious to see if they drop their portfolio turnover rate from its current 11,621%.  (No, I’m not making that up.)

Perritt Ultra MicroCap Fund (PREOX) reopened to new investors on July 8. It had been closed for three whole months. The fund has middling performance at best and a tiny asset base, so there was no evident reason to close it and no reason for either the opening or closing was offered by the advisor.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Effective at the close of business on August 15, 2014, Grandeur Peak Emerging Opportunities Fund (GPEOX/GPEIX) the Fund will close to all purchases. There are two exceptions, (1) individuals who invested directly through Grandeur Peak and who have either a tax-advantaged account or have an automatic investing plan and (2) institutions with an existing 401(k) arrangement with the firm. The fund reports about $370M in assets and YTD returns of 11.6% through late July, which places it in the top 10% of all E.M. funds. There are a couple more G.P. funds in the pipeline and the guys have hinted at another launch sooner rather than later, but the next gen funds are likely more domestic than international.

Effective as of the close of business on October 31, 2014, the Henderson European Focus Fund (HFEAX) will be closed to new purchases. The fund sports both top tier returns and top tier volatility. If you like charging toward closing doors, it’s available no-load and NTF at Schwab and elsewhere.

Parametric Market Neutral Fund (EPRAX) closed to new investors on July 11, 2014. The fund is small and slightly under water since inception. Under those circumstances, such closures are sometimes a signal of bigger changes – new management, new strategy, liquidation – on the horizon.

Citing “the lack of investment opportunities” and “high current cash levels” occasioned by the five year run-up in global stock prices, Tweedy Browne announced the impending soft close of Tweedy, Browne Global Value II (TBCUX).  TBCUX is an offshoot of Tweedy, Browne Global Value (TBGVX) with the same portfolio and managers but Global Value often hedges its currency exposure while Global Value II does not. The decision to close TBCUX makes sense as a way to avoid “diluting our existing shareholders’ returns in this difficult environment” since the new assets were going mostly to cash. Will Browne planned “to reopen the Fund when new idea flow improves and larger amounts of cash can be put to work in cheap stocks.”

Here’s the question: why not close Global Value as well?

The good folks at Mount & Nadler arranged for me to talk with Tom Shrager, Tweedy’s president. Short version: they have proportionately less  inflows into Global Value but significant net inflows, as a percentage of assets, into Global Value II. As a result, the cash level at GV II is 26% while GV sits at 20% cash. While they’ve “invested recently in a couple of stocks,” GV II’s net cash level climbed from 21% at the end of Q1 to 26% at the end of Q2. They tried adding a “governor” to the fund (you’re not allowed to buy $4 million or more a day without prior clearance) which didn’t work.

Mr. Shrager describes the sudden popularity of GV II as “a mystery to us” since its prime attraction over GV would be as a currency play and Tweedy doesn’t see any evidence of a particular opportunity there. Indeed, GV II has trailed GV over the past quarter and YTD while matching it over the past 12 months.

At the same time, Tweedy reports no particular interest in either Value (TWEBX, top 20% YTD) or High Dividend Yield Value (TBHDX, top 50% YTD), both at 11% cash.

The closing will not affect current shareholders or advisors who have been using the fund for their clients.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Alpine Foundation Fund (ADABX) has been renamed Alpine Equity Income Fund. The rechristened version can invest no more than 20% in fixed income securities. The latest, prechange portfolio was 20.27% fixed income. Over the longer term, the fund trails its “aggressive allocation” peers by 160 – 260 basis points annually and has earned a one-star rating for the past three, five and ten year periods. At that point, I’m not immediately convinced that a slight boost in the equity stake will be a game-changer for anyone.

On October 1, the billion dollar Alpine Ultra Short Tax Optimized Income Fund (ATOAX) becomes Alpine Ultra Short Municipal Income Fund and promises to invest, mostly, in munis.

Effective October 1, SunAmerica High Yield Bond (SHNAX)becomes SunAmerica Flexible Credit. The change will free the fund of the obligation of investing primarily in non-investment grade debt which is good since it wasn’t particularly adept at investing in such bonds (one-star with low returns and above average risk during its current manager’s five-year tenure).

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Thanks, as always, go to The Shadow – an incredibly vigilant soul and long tenured member of the Observer’s discussion community for his contributions to this section.  Really, very little gets past him and that gives me a lot more confidence in saying that we’ve caught of all of major changes hidden in the ocean of SEC filings.

Grazie!

CM Advisors Defensive Fund (CMDFX) “has terminated the public offering of its shares and will discontinue its operations effective on or about August 1, 2014.”  Uhhh … what would be eight weeks after launch?

Direxion U.S. Government Money Market Fund (DXMXX) will liquidate on August 20, 2014.  I’m less struck by the liquidation of a tiny, unprofitable fund than by the note that “the Fund’s assets will be converted to cash.”  It almost feels like a money market’s assets should be describable as “cash.”

Geneva Advisors Mid Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”) will be closed and liquidated on August 28. 2014. That decision comes nine months after the fund’s launch. While the fund’s performance was weak and it gathered just $4 million in assets, such hasty abandonment strikes me as undisciplined and unprofessional especially when the advisor reminds its investors of “the importance of … a long-term perspective when it comes to the equity portion of their portfolio.”  The fund representatives had no further explanation of the decision.

GL Macro Performance Fund (GLMPX) liquidated on July 30, 2014.  At least the advisor gave this fund 20 months of life so that it had time to misfire with style:

The Board of Trustees of Makefield Managed Futures Strategy Fund (MMFAX) has concluded that “it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations.” Having lost 17% for its few investors since launch, the Board probably reached the right conclusion.  Liquidation is slated for August 15, 2014.

Following the sudden death of its enigmatic manager James Wang, the Board of the Oceanstone Fund (OSFDX) voted to liquidate the portfolio at the end of August. The fund had unparalleled success from 2007-2012 which generated a series of fawning (“awesome,” “the greatest investor you’ve never heard of,” “the most intriguing questions in the mutual fund world today”) stories in the financial media.  Mr. Wang would neither speak to be media nor permit his board to do so (“he will be upset with me,” fretted one independent trustee) and his shareholder communications were nearly nonexistent. His trustees rightly eulogize him as “very sincere, hard working, humble, efficient and caring.” Our sympathies go out to his family and to those for whom he worked so diligently.

Pending shareholder approval, Sentinel Capital Growth Fund (BRGRX) and Sentinel Growth Leaders Fund (BRFOX) will be merged into Sentinel Common Stock Fund (SENCX) sometime this fall. Here’s the best face I can put on the merger: SENCX isn’t awful.

Effective October 16, SunAmerica GNMA (GNMAX) gets merged into SunAmerica U.S. Government Securities (SGTAX). Both funds fall just short of mediocre (okay, they both trail 65 – 95% of their peers over the past three, five and ten year periods so maybe it’s “way short” or “well short”) and both added two new managers in July 2014.  We wish Tim and Kara well with their new charges.

With shareholder approval, the $16 million Turner All Cap Growth Fund (TBTBX) will soon merge into the Turner Midcap Growth Fund (TMGFX). Midcap has, marginally, the better record but All Cap has, massively, the greater assets so …

In Closing . . .

I’m busily finishing up the outline for my presentation to the Cohen Client Conference, which takes place in Milwaukee on August 20 and 21. The working title of my talk is “Seven things that matter, two that don’t … and one that might.” My hope is to tie some of the academic research on funds and investing into digestible snackage (it is at lunchtime, after all) that attempts to sneak a serious argument in under the cover of amiable banter. I’ll let you know how it goes.

I know that David Hobbs, Cook and Bynum’s president, will be there and I’m looking forward to a chance to chat with him. He’s offered some advice about the thrust of my talk that was disturbingly consistent with my own inclinations, which should worry at least one of us. I’ll be curious to get his reaction.

We’re also hoping to cover the Morningstar ETF Conference en masse; that is, Charles, Chip, Ed and I would like to meet there both to cover the presentations (Meb Faber, one of Charles’s favorite guys, and Eugene Fama are speaking) and to debate about ways to strengthen the Observer and better serve you folks. A lot depends on my ability to trick my colleagues into covering two of my classes that week. Perhaps we’ll see you there?

My son Will, still hobbled after dropping his iPad on a toe, has taken to wincing every time we approach the mall. It’s festooned with “back to school sale! Sale! sale!” banners which seem, somehow, to unsettle him.

Here’s a quick plug for using the Observer’s link to Amazon.com. If you’d like to spare your children, grandchildren, and yourself the agony of the mall parking lot and sound of wailing and keening, you might consider picking some of this stuff up online. The Observer receives a rebate equal to about 6% on whatever is purchased through our link. It’s largely invisible to you – if costs nothing extra and doesn’t involve any extra steps on your part – but it generates the majority of the funds that keep the lights on here.

Here are some ways to make support easy:

• Click on our Amazon link and bookmark it for easy referral.
• Look to your right, the dang thing is continually floating over there ->
• In Chrome, set us as one of your start pages.  On the upper right of your screen, click on the three horizontal bars then click “settings.”  You’ll see this option:

Click on “Set pages” then simply paste the Observer link in along with wherever else you like to start. Each time you open Chrome, it’ll launch several tabs including your regular homepage and our Amazon page.

• If, like many, you’re not comfortable with Amazon’s plan to take over everything …
  feel free to resort to PayPal or the USPS. It all helps and it’s all detailed on our Support Us page.

Finally, we offer cheerful greetings to our curiously large and diligent readership in Cebu City, Philippines; Cebu Citizens spend about a half hour on site per visit, about five times the global average. Greetings, too, to the good folks in A Coruña in the north of Spain. You’ve been one of our most persistent international audiences.  The Madrileños are fewer in number, but diligent in their reading. To our sole Ukrainian visit, Godspeed and great care.

As ever,

By David Snowball

Dear friends,

Welcome to the midway point of … well, nothing in particular, really. Certainly six months have passed in 2014 and six remain, but why would you care?  Unless you plan on being transported by aliens or cashing out your portfolio on December 31^st, questions like “what’s working this year?” are interesting only to the poor saps whose livelihoods are dependent on inventing explanations for, and investment responses to, something that happened 12 minutes ago and will be forgotten 12 minutes from now.

So, what’s working for investors in 2014? If you guessed “investments in India and gold,” you’ve at least got numbers on your side.  The top funds YTD:

		YTD return, through 6/30, for Investor or “A” shares
Tocqueville Gold	TGLDX	– 48.3
Van Eck International Gold	INIVX	– 48.9
Matthews India	MINDX	–  5.9
Gabelli Gold	GLDAX	– 51.3
ProFunds Oil Equipment	OEPIX	+ 38.1
OCM Gold	OCMGX	– 47.6
Fidelity Select Gold	FSAGX	– 51.4
Dreyfus India *	DIIAX	– 31.5
ALPS | Kotak India Growth	INDAX	–  5.1

Oh wait!  Sorry!  My bad.  That’s how this year’s brilliant ideas did last year.  Here’s the glory I wanted to highlight for this year?

		YTD return, through 6/30, for Investor or “A” shares
Tocqueville Gold	TGLDX	36.7
Van Eck International Gold	INIVX	36.0
Matthews India	MINDX	35.9
Gabelli Gold	GLDAX	35.5
ProFunds Oil Equipment	OEPIX	34.6
OCM Gold	OCMGX	31.7
Fidelity Select Gold	FSAGX	30.7
Dreyfus India *	DIIAX	30.6
ALPS | Kotak India Growth	INDAX	30.5

 * Enjoy it while you can.  Dreyfus India is slated for liquidation by summer’s end.

Now doesn’t that make you feel better?

The Two Morningstar conferences

We had the opportunity to attend June’s Morningstar Investor Conference where Bill Gross, the world’s most important investor, was scheduled to give an after lunch keynote address today. Apparently he actually gave two addresses: the one that Morningstar’s folks attended and the one I attended.

Morningstar heard a cogent, rational argument for why a real interest rate of 0-1% is “the new neutral.” At 2% real, the economy might collapse. In that fragile environment, PIMCO models bond returns in the 3-4% range and stocks in the 4-5% range. In an act of singular generosity, he also explained the three strategies that allows PIMCO Total Return to beat everyone else and grow to $280 billion. Oops, $230 billion now as ingrates and doubters fled the fund and weren’t around to reap this year’s fine returns: 3.07% YTD. He characterized that as something like “fine” or “top tier” returns, though the fund is actually modest trailing both its benchmark and peer group YTD.

Representatives of other news outlets also attended that speech and blandly reported Gross’s generous offer of “the keys to the PIMCO Mercedes” and his “new neutral” stance.  One went so far as to declare the whole talk “charming.”

I missed out on that presentation and instead sat in on an incoherent, self-indulgent monologue that was so inappropriate to the occasion that it made me seriously wonder if Gross was off his meds. He walked on stage wearing sunglasses and spent some time looking at himself on camera; he explained that he always wanted to see himself in shades on the big screen. “I’m 70 years old and looking good!” he concluded. He tossed the shades aside and launched into a 20 minute reflection on the film The Manchurian Candidate, a Cold War classic about brainwashing and betrayal. I have no idea of why. He seemed to suggest that we’d been brainwashed or that he wasn’t able to brainwash us but wished he could or he needed to brainwash himself into not hating the media. 20 minutes. He then declared PIMCO to be “the happiest workplace in the world,” allowing that if there was any place happier, it was 15 miles up the road at Disneyland. That’s an apparent, if inept, response to the media reports of the last month that painted Gross as arrogant, ill-tempered, autocratic and nigh unto psychotic in the deference he demanded from employees. He then did an ad for the superiority of his investment process before attempting an explanation of “the new neutral” (taking pains to establish that the term was PIMCO’s, not Bloomberg’s). After 5-10 minutes of his beating around the bush, I couldn’t take it any more and left.

Gross’s apologists claimed that this was a rhetorical masterpiece whose real audience was finance ministers who might otherwise screw up monetary policy. A far larger number of folks – managers, marketers, advisors – came away horrified. “I’ve heard Gross six times in 20 years and he’s always given to obscure analogies but this was different. This was the least coherent I’ve ever heard him,” said one. “That was absolutely embarrassing,” opined someone with 40 years in the field. “An utter train wreck,” was a third’s. I’ve had friends dependent on psychoactive medications; this presentation sounded a lot like what happens when one of them failed to take his meds, a brilliant guy stumbling about with no sense of appropriateness.

Lisa Shidler at RIA Advisor was left to wonder how much damage was done by a speech that was at times “bizarre” and, most optimistically, “not quite a disaster.”

Bottom line: Gross allowed that “I could disappear today and it wouldn’t have a material effect on PIMCO for 3-5 years.” It might be time to consider it.

The Morningstar highlight: Michael Hasenstab on emerging markets

Michael Hasenstab, a CIO and manager of the four-star, $70 billion Templeton Global Bond Fund (TPINX), was the conference keynote. Over 40% of the fund is now invested in emerging markets, including 7% in Ukraine. He argued that investors misunderstand the fundamental strength of the emerging markets. Emerging markets were, in the past, susceptible to collapse when interest rates began to rise in the developed world. Given our common understanding that the Fed is likelier to raise rates in the coming year than to reduce them, the question is: are we on the cusp of another EM collapse.

He argues that we are not. Two reasons: the Bank of Japan is about to bury Asia in cash and emerging markets have shown a fiscal responsibility far in excess of anything seen in the developed world.

The Bank of Japan is, he claims, on the verge of printing a trillion dollars worth of stimulus. Prime Minister Abe has staked his career on his ability to stimulate the Japanese economy. He’s using three tools (“arrows,” in his terms) but only one of those three (central bank stimulus) is showing results. In consequence, Japan is likely to push this one tool as far as they’re able. Hasenstab thinks that the stimulus possible from the BOJ will completely, and for an extended period, overwhelm any moderation in the Fed’s stimulus. In particular, BOJ stimulus will most directly impact Asia, which is primarily emerging. The desire to print money is heightened by Japan’s need to cover a budget deficit that domestic sources can’t cover and foreign ones won’t.

Emerging markets are in exemplary fiscal shape, unlike their position during past interest rate tightening phases. In 1991, the emerging markets as a whole had negligible foreign currency reserves; when, for example, American investors wanted to pull $100 million out, the country’s banks did not hold 100 million in US dollars and crisis ensued. Since 1991, average foreign currency reserves have tripled. Asian central banks hold reserves equal to 40% of their nation’s GDPs and even Mexico has reserves equal to 20% of GDP. At base, all foreign direct investment could leave and the EMs would still maintain large currency reserves.

Hasenstab also noted that emerging markets have undergone massive deleveraging so that their debt:GDP ratios are far lower than those in developed markets and far lower than the historic levels in the emerging markets. Finally we’re already at the bottom of the EM growth cycle with growth rates over the next several years averaging 6-7%.

As an active manager, he likely felt obliged to point out that EM stocks have decoupled; nations with negative real interest rates and negative current account balances are vulnerable. Last year, for example, Hungary’s market returned 4000 bps more than Indonesia’s which reflects their fundamentally different situations. As a result, it’s not time to buy a broad-based EM index.

Bottom line: EM exposure should be part of a core portfolio but can’t be pursued indiscriminately. While the herd runs from manic to depressed on about a six month cycle, the underlying fundamentals are becoming more and more compelling.  For folks interested in the argument, you should read the MFO discussion board thread on it.  There’s a lot of nuance and additional data there for the taking.

Feeding the Beast

by Edward Studzinski

“Finance is the art of passing currency from hand to hand until it finally disappears.”

                                                  Robert Sarnoff

A friend of mine, a financial services reporter for many years, spoke to me one time about the problem of “feeding the beast.”  With a weekly deadline requirement to come up with a story that would make the editors up the chain happy and provide something informative to the readers, it was on more than one occasion a struggle to keep from repeating one’s self and avoid going through the motions.  Writing about mutual funds and the investment management business regularly presents the same problems for me.  Truth often becomes stranger than fiction, and many readers, otherwise discerning rational people, refuse to accept that the reality is much different than their perception.  The analogy I think of is the baseball homerun hitter, who through a combination of performance enhancing chemicals and performance enhancing bats, breaks records (but really doesn’t). 

So let’s go back for a moment to the headline issue.  One of my favorite “Shoe” cartoons had the big bird sitting in the easy chair, groggily waking up to hear the break-in news announcement “Russian tanks roll down Park Avenue – more at 11.”  The equivalent in the fund world would be “Famous Fund Manager says nothing fits his investment parameters so he is sending the money back.”  There is not a lot of likelihood that you will see that happening, even though I know it is a concern of both portfolio managers and analysts this year, for similar reasons but with different motivations.  In the end however it all comes back to job security, about which both John Bogle and Charlie Ellis have written, rather than a fiduciary obligation to your investors. 

David Snowball and I interviewed a number of money managers a few months ago.  All of them were doing start-ups.  They had generally left established organizations, consistently it seemed because they wanted to do things their own way.  This often meant putting the clients first rather than the financial interests of a parent company or the senior partners.  The thing that resonated the most with me was a comment from David Marcus at Evermore Global, who said that if you were going to set up a mutual fund, set up one that was different than what was available in the market place.  Don’t just set up another large cap value fund or another global value fund.  Great advice but advice that is rarely followed it seems. 

If you want to have some fun, take a look at:

•  an S&P 500 Index Fund’s top ten holdings vs.
•  the top ten holdings at a quantitative run large cap value fund (probably one hundred stocks rather than five hundred, and thirty to sixty basis points in fees as opposed to five at the index fund) vs.
•  the top ten holdings at a diversified actively managed large cap value fund (probably sixty stocks and eighty basis points in fees) vs.
•  a non-diversified concentrated value fund (less than twenty holdings, probably one hundred basis points in fees).

Look at the holdings, look at the long-term performance (five years and up), and look at the fees, and draw your own conclusions.  My suspicion is that you will find a lot of portfolio overlap, with the exception of the non-diversified concentrated fund.  My other suspicion is that the non-diversified concentrated fund will show outlier returns (either much better or much worse).  The fees should be much higher, but in this instance, the question you should be paying attention to is whether they are worth it.  I realize this will shock many, but this is one of the few instances where I think they are justified if there is sustained outperformance.

Now I realize that some of you think that the question of fees has become an obsession with me, my version of Cato the Elder saying at every meeting of the Roman Senate, “Carthage must be destroyed.”  But the question of fees is one that is consistently under appreciated by mutual fund investors, if for no other reason that they do not see the fees.  In fact, if you were to take a poll of many otherwise sophisticated investors, they would tell you that they are not being charged fees on their mutual fund investment.  And yet, high fees without a differentiated portfolio does more to degrade performance over time than almost anything else.

John Templeton once said that if your portfolio looks like everyone else’s, your returns also will look the same.  The great (and I truly mean great) value investor Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital puts it somewhat differently but equally succinctly.  Here I am paraphrasing but, if you want to make outsized returns than you have to construct a portfolio that is different than that held by most other investors.  Sounds easy right?

But think about it.  In large investment organizations, unconventional behavior is generally not rewarded.  If anything, the distinction between the investors and the consultant intermediaries increasingly becomes blurred in terms of who really is the client to whom the fiduciary obligation is owed.  Unconventional thinking loses out to job security.  It may be sugar coated in terms of the wording you hear, with all the wonderful catch phrases about increased diversification, focus on generating a higher alpha with less beta, avoiding dispersion of investment results across accounts, etc., etc.  But the reality is that if 90% of the client assets were invested in an idea that went to zero or the equivalent of zero and 10% of them did not because the idea was avoided by some portfolio managers, the ongoing discussion in that organization will not be about lessons learned relative to the investment mistake.  Rather it will be about the management and organizational problems caused by the 10% managers not being “team players.” 

The motto of the Special Air Service in Great Britain is, “Who dares, wins.”  And once you spend some time around those people, you understand that the organization did not mold that behavior into them, but rather they were born with it and found the right place where they could use those talents (and the organization gave them a home).  Superior long-term investment performance requires similar willingness to assess and take risks, and to be different than the consensus.  It requires a willingness to be different, and a willingness to be uncomfortable with your investments.  That requires both a certain type of portfolio manager, as well as a certain type of investor.

I have written before about some of the post-2008 changes we have seen in portfolio management behavior, such as limiting position sizes to a certain number of days trading volume, and increasing the number of securities held in a portfolio (sixty really is not concentrated, no matter what the propaganda from marketing says).  But by the same token, many investors will not be comfortable with a very different portfolio.  They will also not be comfortable investing when the market is declining.  And they will definitely not be comfortable with short-term underperformance by a manager, even when the long-term record trashes the indices. 

From that perspective, I again say that if you as an investor can’t sleep at night with funds off the beaten path or if you don’t want to do the work to monitor funds off the beaten path, then focus your attention on asset-allocation, risk and time horizon, and construct a portfolio of low-cost index funds. 

At least you will sleep at night knowing that over time you will earn market returns.  But if you know yourself, and can tolerate being different – than look for the managers where the portfolio is truly different, with the potential returns that are different. 

But don’t think that any of this is easy.  To quote Charlie Munger, “It’s not supposed to be easy.  Anyone who finds it easy is stupid.”  You have to be prepared to make mistakes, in both making investments and assessing managers.  You also have to be willing to look different than the consensus.  One other thing you have to be willing to do, especially in mutual fund investing, is look away from the larger fund organizations for your investment choices (with the exception of index funds, where size will drive down costs) for by their very nature, they will not attract and retain the kind of talent that will give you outlier returns (and as we are seeing with one large European-owned organization, the parent may not be astute enough to know when decay has set in).  Finally, you have to be in a position to be patient when you are wrong, and not be forced to sell, either by reason of not having a long-term view or long-term resources, or in the case of a manager, not having the ability to weather redemptions while maintaining organizational and institutional support for the philosophy. 

Next month: Flash geeks and other diversions from the mean.

Navigating Scylla and Charybdis: reading advice from the media saturated

Last month’s lead essay, “All the noise, noise, noise noise!”  made the simple argument that you need to start paying less attention to what’s going on in the market, not more.  Our bottom line:

It’s survival. I really want to embrace my life, not wander distractedly through it. For investors, that means making fewer, more thoughtful decisions and learning to trust that you’ve gotten it right rather than second-guessing yourself throughout the day and night.

The argument is neither new nor original to us.  The argument is old.  In 1821 the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley complained “We have more moral, political, and historical wisdom than we know how to reduce into practice.”  By the end of the century, the trade journal Printer’s Ink (1890) complained that “the average [newspaper] reader skims lightly over the thousand facts massed in serried columns. To win his attention he must be aroused, excited, terrified.”  (Certain broadcast outlets apparently took note.)

And the argument is made more eloquently by others than by us.  We drew on the concerns raised by a handful of thoughtful investors who also happen to be graceful writers: Joshua Brown, Tadas Viskanta, and Barry Ritholtz. 

We should have included Jason Zweig in the roster.  Jason wrote a really interesting essay, Stock Picking for the Long, Long, Long Haul, on the need for us to learn to be long-term investors:

Fund managers helped cause the last financial crisis—and they will contribute to the next one unless they and their clients stop obsessing over short-term performance.

Jason studied the remarkable long-term performance of the British investment firm Baillie Gifford and find that their success is driven by firms whose management is extraordinarily far-sighted:

What all these companies have in common, Mr. Anderson [James, BG’s head of global equities] says, is that they aren’t “beholden to the habits of quarterly capitalism.” Instead of trying to maximize their short-term growth in earnings per share, these firms focus almost entirely on growing into the distant future.

“Very often, the best way to be successful in the long run is not to aim at being successful in the short run,” he says. “The history of capitalism has been lurched forward by people who weren’t looking primarily for the rewards of narrow, immediate gain.”

In short, he doesn’t just want to find the great companies of today—but those that will be even greater companies tomorrow and for decades to come.

The key for those corporate leaders is to find investors, fund managers and others, who “have a horizon of decades.”  “It’s amazing how some of the largest and greatest companies hunger to have shareholders who are genuinely long-term,” Mr. Anderson says.

In June I asked those same writers to shift their attention from problem to solution.  If the problem is that we become addled to paying attention – increasingly fragmented slivers of attention, anyway – to all the wrong stuff, where should we be looking?  How should we be training our minds?  Their answers were wide-ranging, eloquent, consistent and generous.  We’ll start by sharing the themes and strategies that the guys offered, then we’ll reproduce their answers in full for you on their own pages.

“What to read if you want to avoid being addled and stupid.”  It’s the Scylla and Charybdis thing: you can’t quite ignore it all but you don’t want to pay attention to most of it, so how do you steer between?  I was hopeful of asking the folks I’d quoted for their best answer to the question: what are a couple things, other than your own esteemed publication, that it would benefit folks to read or listen to regularly?

Three themes seem to run across our answers.

1. Don’t expose yourself to any more noise than your job demands.

   As folks in the midst of the financial industry, the guys are all immersed in the daily stream but try to avoid being swept away by it. Josh reports that “at no time do I ever visit the home page of a blog or media company’s site.”  He scans headlines and feeds, looking for the few appearances (whether Howard Marks or “a strategist I care about”) worth focusing on. Jason reads folks like Josh and Tadas “who will have short, sharp takes on whatever turns out to matter.”  For the rest of us, Tadas notes, “A monthly publication is for the vast majority of investors as frequent as they need to be checking in on the world of investing.”

2. Take scientific research seriously. 

   Jason is “looking for new findings about old truths – evidence that’s timely about aspects of human nature that are timeless.”  He recommends that the average reader “closely follow the science coverage in a good newspaper like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times.”  Tadas concurs and, like me, also regularly listens to the Science Friday podcast which offers “an accessible way of keeping up.” 

3. Read at length and in depth. 

   All of us share a commitment to reading books.  They are, Tadas notes, “an important antidote to the daily din of the financial media,” though he wryly warns that “many of them are magazine articles padded out to fill out the publisher’s idea of how long a book should be.”

   Of necessity, the guys read (and write) books about finance, but those books aren’t at the top of their stacks and aren’t the ones in their homes.  Jason’s list is replete with titles that I dearly wish I could get my high achieving undergrads to confront (Montaigne’s Essays) but they’re not “easy reads” and they might well be things that won’t speak even to a very bright teenager.  Jason writes, “Learning how to think is a lifelong struggle, no matter how intelligent or educated you may be.  Books like these will help.  The chapter on time in St. Augustine’s Confessions, for instance, which I read 35 years ago, still guides me in understanding why past performance doesn’t predict future success.”  Tadas points folks to web services that specialize in long form writing, including Long Reads and The Browser.

Here’s my answer, for what interest that holds:

Marketplace, from American Public Media.  The Marketplace broadcast and podcast originate in Los Angeles and boast about 11 million listeners, mostly through the efforts of 500 public radio stations.  Marketplace, and its sister programs Marketplace Money and Marketplace Morning Report, are the only shows that I listen to daily.  Why?  Marketplace starts with the assumption that its listeners are smart and curious, but not obsessed with the day’s (or week’s) market twitches.  They help folks make sense of business and finance – personal and otherwise – and they do it in a way that makes you feel more confident of your own ability to make sense of things.  The style is lively, engaged and sometimes surprising.

Books, from publishers. I know this seems like a dodge, but it isn’t.  At Augustana, I teach about the effects of emerging technologies and on the ways they use us as much as we use them.  This goes beyond the creepiness of robots reading my mail (a process Google is now vastly extending) or organizations that can secretly activate my webcam or cellphone.  I’m concerned that we’re being rewired for inattention. Neurobiologists make it clear that our brains are very adaptive organs; when confronted with a new demand – whether it’s catching a thrown baseball or navigating the fact of constant connection – it assiduously begins reorganizing itself. We start as novices in the art of managing three email accounts, two calendars, a dozen notification sounds, coworkers we can never quite escape and the ability to continuously monitor both the market and the World Cup but, as our brains rewire, we become experts and finally we become dependent. That is, we get to a state where we need constant input.  Teens half wake at night to respond to texts. Adults feel “ghost vibrations” from phones in their pockets. Students check texts 11 times during the average class period. Board members stare quietly at devices on their laps while others present.  Dead phones become a source of physical anxiety. Electronic connectedness escapes control and intrudes on driving, meals, sleep, intimacy.  In trying never to miss anything, we end up missing everything.

Happily, that same adaptability works in the other direction.  Beyond the intrinsic value of encountering an argument built with breadth and depth, the discipline of intentionally disconnecting from boxes and reconnecting with other times and places can rebuild us.  It’s a slog at first, just as becoming dependent on your cell phone was, but with the patient willingness to set aside unconnected time each day – 20 minutes at first?  one chapter next? – we can begin distancing ourselves from the noise and from the frenetic mistakes it universally engenders.

And now the guys’ complete responses:

	Josh Brown, The Reformed Broker … rules so as to be maximally informed and minimally assaulted by nonsense.
	Tadas Viskanta, Abnormal Returns … looking for analysis and insight that has a half-life of more than a day or two.
	Jason Zweig, The Intelligent Investor If you want to think long-term, you can’t spend all day reading things that train your brain to twitch

Thanks to them all for their generosity and cool leads.  I hadn’t looked at either The Browser or The Epicurean Dealmaker before (both look cool) though I’m not quite brave enough to try Feedly just yet for fear of becoming ensnared.

Despite the loud call of a book (Stuff Matters just arrived and is competing with The Diner’s Dictionary and A Year in Provence for my attention), I’ll get back to talking about fund stuff.

Top Developments in Fund Industry Litigation – June 2014

Fund advisors spend a surprising amount of time in court or in avoiding court.  We’ve written before about David Smith and FundFox, the only website devoted to tracking the industry’s legal travails.  I’ve asked David if he’d share a version of his monthly précis with us and he generously agreed.  Here’s his wrap up of the legal highlights from the month just passed.

For a complete list of developments last month, and for information and court documents in any case, log in at www.fundfox.com.  Fundfox is the only intelligence service to focus exclusively on litigation involving U.S.-registered investment companies, their directors and advisers—making it easy to remain specialized and aware in today’s fluid legal environment.

New Lawsuit

• A new excessive-fee lawsuit alleges that Davis provides substantially the same investment advisory services to subadvised funds for lower fees than its own New York Venture Fund. (Hebda v. Davis Selected Advisers, L.P.)

Settlements

• The court preliminarily approved a $14.95 million settlement of the ERISA class action regarding ING’s receipt of revenue-sharing payments. (Healthcare Strategies, Inc. v. ING Life Ins. & Annuity Co.)
• The court preliminarily approved a $22.5 million settlement of the ERISA class action alleging that Morgan Keegan defendants permitted Regions retirement plans to invest in proprietary RMK Select Funds despite excessive fees. (In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litig.)

Briefs

• A former portfolio manager filed his opposition to Allianz’s motion to dismiss his breach-of-contract suit regarding deferred compensation under two incentive plans; and Allianz filed a reply brief. (Minn v. Allianz Asset Mgmt. of Am. L.P.)
• BlackRock filed an answer and motion to dismiss an excessive-fee lawsuit alleging that two BlackRock funds charge higher fees than comparable funds subadvised by BlackRock. (In re BlackRock Mut. Funds Advisory Fee Litig.)
• Harbor filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss an excessive-fee lawsuit regarding a subadvised fund. (Zehrer v. Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc.)

Advisor Perspectives launches APViewpoint, a discussion board for advisors

We spent some time at Morningstar chatting with Justin Kermond, a vice president with Advisor Perspectives (AP).  We’ve collaborated with AP on other issues over the years, they’re exploring the possibility of using some of our fund-specific work their site and they’ve recently launched a discussion board that’s exclusive to the advisor community.   We talked for a while about MFO’s experience hosting a lively (oh so lively) discussion board and what AP might be doing to build on our experience.  For the sake of those readers in the advisor community, I asked Justin to share some information about their new discussion community.  Here’s his description>

[We] recently launched APViewpoint, a secure discussion forum and “online study group.” APViewpoint enables investment advisers, registered reps, and financial planners to learn from each other by sharing their experiences and knowledge on a wide range of topics of interest to the profession. Current topics of discussion include Thomas Pikkety’s views on inequality; whether small cap and value stocks truly outperform the market; the pros and cons of rebalancing; and the potential transformative effect of robo-advisors. APViewpoint is free to all financial advisors. The site formally launched mid May, 2014 and currently has more than 900 members.

One of APViewpoint’s key differentiators is the participation of more than 40 nationally recognized industry thought leaders, including Bob Veres, Carl Richards, Harold Evensky, Wade Pfau, Doug Short, Michael Kitces, Dan Solin, Michael Edesess, Geoff Considine, Marylin Capelli Dimitroff, Ron Rhoades, Sue Stevens and Advisor Perspectives CEO and editor Robert Huebscher. These thought leaders start and participate in discussions on a variety of topics, and advisors are invited to learn and share their own views, creating a vibrant, highly respectful environment that encourages the free exchange of ideas.

For advisors interested in discussing funds, APViewpoint automatically recognizes mutual fund and ETF symbols mentioned in discussions, permitting users to easily search for conversations about specific products. Users can also create a specific list of funds they wish to “follow,” and be alerted when these funds are mentioned in conversations.

APViewpoint is also designed to foster discussion of the content featured on the Advisor Perspectives web site and weekly newsletter. Every article now features a direct link to an associated discussion on APViewpoint, allowing members to provide spontaneous feedback.

Only advisors can be members of APViewpoint; investors may not join. A multi-step validation process ensures that only advisors are approved, and the content on APViewpoint is not accessible to the general public. This relieves advisors of some of the compliance issues that often restrict their ability to post their thoughts on social media platforms such as Linkedin, where investors can view messages posted in groups where advisors congregate.

Advisors can sign up today at www.apviewpoint.com. 

The piece in between the pieces

I’ve always been honored, and more than a little baffled, that folks as sharp as Charles, Chip and Ed have volunteered to freely and continually contribute so much to the Observer and, through us, to you. Perhaps they share my conviction that you’re a lot brighter than you know and that you’re best served by encountering smart folks who don’t always agree and who know that’s just fine. 

Our common belief is not that we learn by listening to a smart person with whom we agree (isn’t that the very definition of a smart person?  Someone who tells us we’re right?), but to listening to a variety of really first rate people whose perspectives are a bit complicated and whose argument might (gasp!) be more than one screen long.

The problem is that they’re often smarter than we are and often disagree, leaving us with the question “who am I to judge?”  That’s at the heart of my day job as a college professor: helping learners get past the simple, frustrated impulse of either (1) picking one side and closing your ears, or (2) closing your ears without picking either. 

One of the best expressions of the problem was offered by Leo Strauss,  a 20^th century political philosopher and classicist:

To repeat: liberal education consists of listening to the conversation among the greatest minds.  But here we are confronted with the overwhelming difficulty that this conversation does not take place without our help – that in fact we must bring about that conversation.  The greatest minds utter monologues.  We must transform their monologues into a dialogue, their “side by side” into a “together.”  The greatest minds utter dialogues even when they write monologues.

Let us face this difficulty, a difficulty so great that it seems to condemn liberal education to an absurdity.  Since the greatest minds contradict one another regarding the most important matters, they compel us to judge their monologues; we cannot take on trust what any one of them says.  On the other hand, we cannot be notice that we are not competent to be judges.  In Liberalism Ancient and Modern (1968)

The two stories that follow are quick attempts to update you on what a couple of first-rate guys have been thinking and doing.  The first is Charles’s update on Mebane Faber, co-founder and CIO of Cambria Funds and a prolific writer.  The second is my update on Andrew Foster, founder and CIO of Seafarer Funds.

Meb Faber gets it right in interesting ways

A quick follow-up to our feature on Mebane Faber in the May commentary, entitled “The Existential Pleasure of Engineering Beta.”

On May 16, Mebane posted on his blog “Skin in the Game – My Portfolio,” which states that he invests 100% of his liquid net worth in his firm’s funds: Global Tactical Hedge Fund (private), Global Value ETF (GVAL), Shareholder Yield ETF (SYLD), Foreign Shareholder Yield ETF (FYLD) – all offered by Cambria Investment Management.

His disclosure meets the “Southeastern Asset Management” rule, as coined and proposed by our colleague Ed Studzinski. It would essentially mandate that all employees of an investment firm limit their investments to funds offered by the firm. Ed proposes such a rule to better attune “investment professionals to what should be their real concern – managing risk with a view towards the potential downside, rather than ignoring risk with other people’s money.”

While Mr. Faber did not specify the dollar amount, he did describe it as “certainly meaningful.” The AdvisorShares SAI dated December 30, 2013, indicated he had upwards of $1M invested in his first ETF, Global Tactical ETF (GTAA), which was one of largest amounts among sub-advisors and portfolio managers at AdvisorShares.

Then, on June 5^th, more clarity: “The two parties plan on separating, and Cambria will move on” from sub-advising GTAA and launch its own successor Global Momentum ETF (GMOM) at a full 1% lower expense ratio. Here’s the actual announcement:

Same day, AdvisorShares announced: “After a diligent review and careful consideration, we have decided to propose a change of GTAA’s sub-advisor. At the end of the day, our sole focus remains our shareholders’ best interests…” The updated SAI indicates the planned split is to be effective end of July.

Given the success of Cambria’s own recently launched ETFs, which together represent AUM of $357M or more than 10 times GTAA, the split is not surprising. What’s surprising is that AdvisorShares is not just shuttering GTAA, but chose instead to propose a new sub-advisor, Mark Yusko of Morgan Creek Capital Management.

On the surface, Mr. Yusko and Mr. Faber could not be more different. The former writes 25 page quarterly commentaries without including a single data graph or table. The latter is more likely to give us 25 charts and tables without a single paragraph.

When Mebane does write, it is casual, direct, and easily understood, while Mr. Yusko seems to read from the corporate play book: “We really want to think differently. We really want to embrace alternative strategies. Not alternative investments but alternative strategies. To gain access to the best and brightest. To invest on that global basis. To take advantage of where we see biggest return opportunities around the world.”

When we asked Mebane for a recent photo to use in the May feature, he did not have one and sent us a self-photo taken with his cell phone. In contrast, Mark Yusko offers a professionally produced video introducing himself and his firm, accompanied with scenes of a lovely creek (presumably Morgan’s) and soft music.   

Interestingly, Morgan Creek launched its first retail fund last September, aptly named Morgan Creek Tactical Allocation Fund (MAGTX/MIGTX). MAGTX carries a 5.75% front-load with a 2% er. (Gulp.) But, the good news is institutional share class MIGTX waives load on $1M minimum and charges only 1.75% er.

Mr. Yusko says “I don’t mind paying [egregious] fees as long as my net return is really high.” While Mr. Faber made a point during the recent Wine Country Conference that a goal for Cambria is to “disrupt the traditional high fee mutual fund and hedge fund business, mostly through launching ETFs.”

The irony here is that GTAA was founded on the tenants described in Mebane’s first book “The Ivy Portfolio,” which includes attempting to replicate Yale’s endowment success with all-asset strategy using an ETF.

Mr. Yusko’s earned his reputation managing the endowments at Notre Dame and University of North Carolina, helping to transform them from traditional stock/bond/cash portfolios to alternative hedge fund/venture capital/private investment portfolios. But WSJ reports that he was asked to step-down last year as CIO of the $3.5B Endowment Fund, which also attempted to mimic endowments like Yale’s. He actually established the fund in partnership with Salient Partners LP in 2004. “After nearly a decade of working with our joint venture partner in Texas, we found ourselves differing on material aspects of how to best run an endowment portfolio and run the business…” Perhaps with AdvisorShares, Mark Yusko will once again be able to see eye-to-eye.

As for Mebane? We will look forward with interest to the launch of GMOM (a month or two away), his continued insights and investment advice shared generously, and wish him luck in his attempts to disrupt the status quo. 

Seafarer gets it right in interesting ways

Why am I not surprised?

Seafarer is an exceedingly independent, exceedingly successful young emerging markets fund run by an exceedingly thoughtful, exceedingly skilled manager (and team).  While most funds imply a single goal (“to make our investors rich, rich, rich!”), Seafarer articulated four.  In their most recent shareholder letter, Andrew and president Michelle Foster write:

Our abiding goal as an investment adviser is to deliver superior long-term performance to our clients. However, we also noted three ancillary objectives:

1. to increase the transparency associated with investment in developing countries;
2. to mitigate a portion of the volatility that is inherent to the emerging markets; and
3. to deliver lower costs to our clients, over time and with scale.

They’ve certainly done a fine job with their “abiding goal.”  Here’s the picture, with Seafarer represented by the blue line:

That success is driven, at least in part, by Seafarer’s dogged independence, since you can’t separate yourself from the herd by acting just like it. Seafarer’s median market cap ($4 billion) is one-fifth of its peers’ while still being spread almost evenly across all market capitalizations, it has no exposure at all to some popular countries (Russia: 0) and sectors (commodities: 0), and a simple glance at the portfolio stats (higher price, lower earnings)  belies the quality of the holdings.

Four developments worth highlighting just now:

Seafarer’s investment restrictions are being loosened

One can profit from developments in the emerging markets either by investing in firms located there or by investing in firms located here than do business there (for example, BMW’s earnings are increasingly driven by China). Seafarer does both and its original prospectus attempted to give investors a sense of the comparative weights of those two approaches by enunciating guideline ranges: firms located in developed nations might represent 20-50% of the portfolio and developing nations would be 50-80%.  Those numeric ranges will disappear with the new prospectus. The advisor’s experience was that it was confusing more investors than it was informing.  “I found in practice,” he writes, “that some shareholders were wrongly but understandably interpreting these percentages as precise restrictions, and so we removed the percentage ranges to reduce confusion.”

Seafarer’s gaining more flexibility to add bonds to the portfolio

Currently the fund’s principal investment strategy has it investing in “dividend-paying common stocks, preferred stocks, convertible securities and debt obligations of foreign companies.” Effective August 29, “the Fund may also pursue its investment objective by investing in the debt obligations of foreign governments and their agencies.” Andrew notes that “they help bolster liquidity, yield, and to some extent improve the portfolio’s stability — so we have made this change accordingly. Still, I think it’s unlikely they will become a big part of what we do here at Seafarer.”

Seafarer’s expenses are dropping (again)

Effective September 1, the expense ratio on retail shares drops from 1.49% to 1.25% and the management fee – the money the advisor actually gets to keep – drops from 0.85% to 0.75%.  Parallel declines occur in the Institutional shares.

Given their choice, Seafarer would scoot more investors into its lower cost institutional shares but agreements with major distributions (think “Schwab”) keep them from reducing the institutional minimum. That said, the current shareholder letter actually lists three ways that investors might legally dodge the $100k minimum and lower their expenses. Those are details in the final six paragraphs of the shareholder letter. If you’re a large individual investor or a smaller advisor, you might want to check out the possibilities.

Active management is working!

Seafarer’s most recent conference call was wide-ranging. For those unable to listen in (sadly, the mp3 isn’t available), the slide deck offers some startling information.  Here’s my favorite slide:

Dark blue: stocks the make money for the portfolio.  White: break-even.  Light blue: losers (“negative contributors”).  If you buy a broad-based EM index, exactly 38% of the stocks in your fund actually make you money. If you buy Seafarer, that proportion doubles.

That strikes me as incredibly cool.  Also consistent with my suspicion (and Andrew’s research) that indexes are often shockingly careless constructs.

Observer Fund Profiles

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds. Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds. “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve.

This month: fixed income investing from A to Z (or zed).

Artisan High Income (ARTFX): Artisan continues to attract highly-talented young managers with promises of integrity, autonomy and support. The latest emigrant is Bryan Krug, formerly the lead manager of the four star, $10 billion Ivy High Income fund. Mr. Krug is a careful risk manager who invests in a mix of high-yield bonds and secured and unsecured loans. And yes, he does know what everybody is saying about the high yield market.

Zeo Strategic Income (ZEOIX): Manager Venk Reddy has been honing his craft in private partnerships for years now as the guy who put the “hedging” in hedge funds but he aspires to more. He wanted to get out and pursue his own vision. In Latin, EXEO is pronounced “ek-zeo” and means something like “I’m outta here.” And so he left the world of high alpha for the land of low beta. Mr. Reddy is a careful risk manager who invests in an unusually compact portfolio of short term high-yield bonds and secured loans designed to produce consistent, safe inflation-beating returns for investors looking for “cash” that’s not trash.

Launch Alert: Touchstone Sands Emerging Markets Growth Fund

In May, 2014, Touchstone Investments launched the Touchstone Sands Capital Emerging Markets Growth Fund, sub-advised by Sands Capital Management. Sands Capital, with about $42 billion in AUM, has maintained an exclusive focus on growth-oriented equity investing since 1992. They began investing in the emerging markets in 2006 as part of their Global Growth strategy then launched a devoted EM strategy at the very end of 2012. Over time they’ve added resources to allow their EM team to handle ever greater responsibilities.

The EM composite has done exceedingly well since launch, substantially outperforming the standard EM index in both 2013 and 2014. The more important factor is that there are rational decisions which increase the prospect that the strategy’s success with be repeated in the fund. At base, there are good places to be in emerging markets and bad places to be.

Good places: small firms that tap into the growing affluence of the EMs and the emergence of their middle class.

Bad places: large firms that are state-owned or state-controlled that are economically tied to the slow-growing developed world. Banks, telecoms, and energy companies are pretty standard examples.

Structurally, indexes and many funds that benchmark themselves against the indexes tend to over-invest in the bad places because they are, well, big.  Cap-weighted means buy whatever’s big, corrupt and inefficient or not.

Steve Owens of Touchstone talked with me about Sands’ contrasting approach to EM investing:

Sands Capital’s investment philosophy is based on a belief that over time, common stock prices will reflect the earnings power and growth of the underlying businesses. Sands Capital utilizes the same six investment criteria to evaluate all current and potential business investments across its [three] strategies.

Sands Capital has found many innovative and distinctive businesses that are similar to those which the firm has historically invested in its developed market portfolios. Sands Capital seeks dominant franchises that are taking market share in a growing business space, while generating significant free cash flow to self-fund their growth. Sands Capital tends to avoid most commodity-based companies, state-owned enterprises or companies that are highly leveraged with opaque balance sheets (i.e. many Utilities and Financials). It seeks to avoid emerging market businesses that are levered to developed market demand rather than local consumption.

This process results in a benchmark agnostic, high active share, all-cap portfolio of 30-50 businesses which tends to behave differently from traditional Emerging Market indices. Sands Capital opportunistically invests in Frontier Market Equities when it finds a great business opportunity.

Sands other funds are high growth, low turnover four- and five-star funds, now closed to new investors.  The new fund is apt to be likewise.  The minimum initial investment in the retail class is $2500, reduced to $1000 for IRAs.  The expenses are capped at 1.49%. Here’s the fund’s homepage.

Sands will likely join Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income and Dreihaus Emerging Markets Small Cap Growth Fund on the short list of still-open EM funds that we keep a close eye on.  Investors who are more cautious but still interested in enhanced EM exposure should watch Amana Developing World as well. 

Funds in Registration

The summer doldrums continue with only nine new no-load funds in registration. The most interesting might be an institutional fund from T. Rowe Price which focuses on frontier markets. Given Price’s caution, the launch of this fund seems to signal the fact that the frontier markets are now mainstream investments.

Manager Changes

Fifty-six funds underwent partial or total manager changes this month, a substantial number that’s a bit below recent peaks. One change in particular piqued Chip’s curiosity. As you know, our esteemed technical director also tracks industry-wide manager changes. She notes, with some perplexity, that Wilmington Multi-Manager Alternative might well be renamed Wilmington Ever-changing Manager Alternative fund. She writes:

Normally, writing up the manager changes is relatively straight-forward. This month, one caught my eye. The Wilmington Multi-Manager Alternatives Fund (WRAAX) turned up with a manager change for the third month in a row. A quick check of the data shows that the fund has had 42 managers since its inception in 2012. Twenty-eight of them are no longer with the fund.

Year	Managers ending their tenure at WRAAX
2012	5
2013	18
2014 to date	5

The fund currently sports 14 managers but they also dismiss about 14 managers a year. Our recommendation to the current crew: keep your resumes polished and your bags packed.

We’d be more sympathetic to the management churn if it resulted in superior returns for the fund’s investors, but we haven’t seen that yet. $10,000 invested in the fund at launch would have swollen to $10,914 today. In the average multialternatives fund, it would be $10,785. That’s a grand total of $129 in excess returns generated by almost constant staff turnover.

By way of an alternative, rather than paying a 5% load and 2.84% expenses here in order to hedge yourself, you might consider Vanguard Balanced Index (VBINX). The world’s dullest fund charges 0.24% and would have turned your $10,000 into $13,611.

Briefly Noted . . .

Special thanks, as always, to The Shadow for independently tracking down 14 or 15 fund changes this month, sometimes posting changes just before the fund companies realize they’re going to make them. That’s spooky-good.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

American Century Equity Income Fund (TWEIX) reopens to new investors on August 1. The folks on the discussion board react with three letters (WTF) and one question: Why? The fund’s assets have risen just a bit since the closure while its performance has largely been mediocre.

On July 1, 2014, ASTON/LMCG Emerging Markets Fund (ALEMX) reduced its expense ratio from 1.65% to 1.43% on its retail “N” shares and from 1.40% down to 1.18% on its institutional shares. The fund has had a tough first year. The fund returned about 9% over the past 12 months while its peers made 15%. A lower expense ratio won’t solve all that, but it’s a step in the right direction.

CCM Alternative Income (CCMNX) is lowering its investment minimum from $100,000 to $1,000. While the Morningstar snapshot of the fund trumpets expenses of 0.00%, they’re actually capped at 1.60%.

Morningstar’s clarification: Our website shows the expense ratio from the fund’s annual report, not a fund’s prospectus. The 1.60% expense ratio is published in the fund’s prospectus. Thanks for the quick response.

Effective June 23, 2014, Nuveen converted all of their funds’ “B” shares into “A” shares.

We should have mentioned this earlier: Effective May 7, 2014, Persimmon Long/Short (LSEAX/LSEIX) agreed to reduce its management fee from 2.50% to 1.99%. This is really a small win since the resulting total expense ratio remains around 3.25% and the fund sports a 5% sales load. Meaning no disrespect to the doubtless worthy folks behind the fund, but I’m baffled at how they expect to gain traction in the market with such structurally high expenses.

Good news for all Lutherans out there! For the month of August 2014 only, the sales load on the “A” shares of Thrivent Growth and Income Plus Fund (TEIAX), Thrivent Balanced Income Plus Fund (AABFX), Thrivent Diversified Income Plus Fund (AAHYX), Thrivent Opportunity Income Plus Fund (AAINX), and Thrivent Municipal Bond Fund (AAMBX) will be temporarily waived. Bad news for all Lutherans out there: other than Diversified Income, these really aren’t very good.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

As of August 1, 2014, AMG Managers Skyline Special Equities Fund (SKSEX) will close to new investors. In the nature of such things, the fund’s blistering performance in 2013 (up 51.6%) drew in a rush of eager new money. The newbies are now enjoying the fund’s bottom 10% performance YTD and might well soon head out again for greener pastures. These are, doubtless, folks who should have read Erma Bombeck’s classic The Grass Is Always Greener over the Septic Tank (1976) rather than watching CNBC.

As of July 11, 2014, Columbia Acorn Emerging Markets Fund (CAGAX) is closing to new investors. The fund reached the half billion plateau well before it reached its third birthday, driven by a surge in performance that began in May 2012.

On July 8, 2014, the $1.3 billion Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund (FBDIX) is closed to new folks as well.

The Board of Trustees approved the imposition of a 2% redemption fee on shares of the Hotchkis & Wiley High Yield Fund (HWHAX) that are redeemed or exchanged in 90 days or less. Given the fact that high yield is hot and overpriced (those two do go together), it strikes me as a good thing that H&W are trying to slow folks down a bit.

Any guesses about why Morningstar codes half of the H&W funds as “Hotchkis and Wiley” and the other half as “Hotchkis & Wiley”? It really goofs up my attempts to search the danged database.

A reply from Morningstar: For all Hotchkis & Wiley funds, Morningstar has been in the process of replacing “and” with “&” in accordance with the cover page of the fund’s prospectus. You should see this reflected on Morningstar.com in the next day or two. The consistency will be greatly appreciated.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

I’ve placed this note here because I hadn’t imagined the need for a section named “Coups and Other Uprisings.” Effective August 1, Forward Endurance Long/Short Fund (FENRX) becomes a new fund. The name changes (to Forward Equity Long/Short), the mandate changes, fees drop by 25 bps, it ceases to be “non-diversified” and the management team changes (the earlier co-manager left on one week’s notice in May, two new in-house guys are … well, in).

The old mandate was “to identify trends that may have a disruptive impact on and result in significant changes to global business markets, including new technology developments and the emergence of new industries.” The less disruptive new strategy is “to position the Fund in the stronger performing sectors using a proprietary relative strength model and in high conviction fundamental ideas.”

Other than for a few minutes in the spring of 2014, they were actually doing a pretty solid job.

On July 7, 2014, the Direxion Monthly Commodity Bull 2X Fund (DXCLX) will be renamed as Direxion Monthly Natural Resources Bull 2X Fund, with a corresponding change to the underlying index.

At the beginning of September, Dreyfus Select Managers Long/Short Equity Fund (DBNAX) becomes Dreyfus Select Managers Long/Short Fund. I’m deeply grateful for Dreyfus’s wisdom in choosing to select managers rather than randomly assigning them. Thanks, guy!

On October 1, 2014, SunAmerica High Yield Bond Fund (SHNAX) becomes SunAmerica Flexible Credit Fund, and that simultaneously make “certain changes to their principal investment strategy and techniques.” In particular, they won’t have to invest in high yield bonds if they don’t wanna. That good because, as a high yield bond fund, they’ve pretty much trail the pack by 50-100 bps over most trailing time periods.

At the end of July, the $300 million Vice Fund (VICEX) becomes the Barrier Fund. It’s a nice fund run by a truly good person, Gerry Sullivan. The new mandate does, however, muddy things a bit. First, the fund only commits to investing at least 25% of assets to its traditional group of alcohol, tobacco, gaming and defense (high barrier-to-entry) stocks but it’s not quite clear where else the money would go, or why. And the fund will reserve for itself the power to short and use options.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Apparently diversification isn’t working for everybody. Diversified Risk Parity Fund (DRPAX/DRPIX) will “cease operations, close and redeem all outstanding shares” on July 30, 2014. ASG Diversifying Strategies Fund (DSFAX) is slated to be liquidated about a week later, on August 8.   The omnipresent Jason Zweig has a thoughtful essay of the fund’s liquidation, “When hedging cuts both ways.”  At base, the ASG product was a hedge-like fund that … well, would actually hedge a portfolio.  Investors loved the theory but were impatient with the practice:

If you want an investment that can do well when stocks and bonds do badly, a liquid-alt fund can do that for you. But you will have nobody but yourself to blame when stocks and bonds do well and you get annoyed at your alternative fund for underperforming. That is what it is supposed to do.

If you can’t accept that, maybe you should just keep some of your money in cash.

Dreyfus is giving up on a variety of its funds: one bad hedge-y fund Global Absolute Return (DGPAX, which has returned absolutely nothing since launch), one perfectly respectable hedge-y fund, Satellite Alpha (DSAAX), with under a million in assets and the B and I of the BRICs: India (DIIAX) and Brazil (DBZAX) are all being liquidated in late August.

Driehaus Mid Cap Growth Fund (DRMGX) has closed to new investors and will liquidate at the end of August. It’s not a very distinguished fund but it’s undistinguished in an unDriehaus way. Normally Driehaus funds are high vol / high return, which is sometimes their undoing.

Got a call into Fidelity on this freak show: Strategic Advisers® U.S. Opportunity Fund (FUSOX) is about to be liquidated. It’s a four star fund with $5.5 billion in assets. Low expenses. Top tier long-term returns. Apparently that makes it a candidate for closure. Manager Robert Vick left on June 4^th, ahead of his planned retirement at the end of June. (Note to Bob: states with cities named Portland are really lovely places to spend your later years!). On June 6 they appointed two undertakers new managers to “oversee all activities relating to the fund’s liquidation and will manage the day-to-day operations of the fund until the final liquidation.” Wow. Fund Mortician.

Special note to Morningstar: tell your programmers to stop including the ® symbol in fund names. It makes it impossible to search for the fund since the ® is invisible, there’s no way to type it in the search box and the search will fail unless you type it.

Replay from Morningstar: Thanks for your feedback about using the ® symbol in fund names on Morningstar.com. Again, this is a reflection of what is published in the annual reports, but I’ve shared your feedback with our team, which has already been working on a project to standardize the display of trademark symbols in Morningstar products.

JPMorgan International Realty Fund (JIRAX) experiences “liquidation and dissolution” on July 31, 2014

The $100 million Nationwide Enhanced Income Fund (NMEAX) and the $73 million Nationwide Short Duration Bond Fund (MCAPX)are both, simultaneously, merging into $300 million Nationwide Highmark Short Term Bond Fund (NWJSX). The Enhanced Duration shareholders must approve the move but “[s]hareholders of the Short Duration Bond Fund are not required, and will not be requested, to approve the Merger.” No timetable yet.

Legg Mason’s entire lineup of tiny, underperforming, overcharged retirement date funds (Legg Mason Target Retirement 2015 – 50 and Retirement Fund) “are expected to cease operations during the fourth quarter of 2014.”

Payden Tax Exempt Bond Fund (PYTEX) will be liquidated on July 22. At $6.5 million and an e.r. of 0.65%, the fund wasn’t generating enough income to pay its postage bills much less its manager.

On June 11, the Board of the Plainsboro China Fund (PCHFX) announced that the fund had closed and that it would be liquidated on the following day. Curious. The fund had under $2 million in assets, but top 1% returns over the past 12 months. The manager, Yang Xiang, used to be a portfolio manager for Harding Loevner. On whole, the “liquidated immediately and virtually without notice” sounds rather more like the Plainsboro North Korea Fund (JONGX).

RPg Emerging Market Sector Rotation Fund (EMSAX/EMSIX) spins out for the last time on July 30, 2014.

Royce Focus Value Fund (RYFVX) will be liquidated at the end of July “because it has not attracted and maintained assets at a sufficient level for it to be viable.” Whitney George, who runs seven other funds for Royce, isn’t likely even to notice that it’s gone.

SunAmerica GNMA Fund (GNMAX) is slated to merge into SunAmerica U.S. Government Securities Fund (SGTAX), a bit sad for shareholders since SGTAX seems the weaker of the two.

Voya doesn’t merge funds. They disappear them. And when some funds disappear, others are survivors. On no particular date, Voya Core Equity Research Fund disappears while Voya Large Cap Value Fund (IEDAX) survives. Presumably at the same time, Voya Global Opportunities Fund but Voya Global Equity Dividend Fund (IAGEX) doesn’t.

With the retirement of Matthew E. Megargel, Wellington Management’s resulting decision to discontinue its U.S. multi-cap core equity strategy. That affects some funds subadvised by Wellington.

William Blair Commodity Strategy Long/Short Fund (WCSNX)has closed and will liquidate on July 24, 2014. It’s another of the steadily shrinking cadre of managed futures funds, a “can’t fail” strategy backed by scads of research, modeling and backtested data. Oops.

In Closing . . .

A fund manager shared this screen cap from his browser:

It appears that T. Rowe is looking over us! I guess if I had to pick someone to be sitting atop up, they’d surely make the short list.  The manager speculates that Price might have bought the phrase “Mutual Fund Observer” as one they want to associate with in Google search results.  Sort of affirming if true, but no one knows for sure.

See ya in August!

 

By David Snowball

Dear friends,

Dear friends,

Well, we’ve done it again. Augustana just launched its 154^th set of graduates in your direction. Personally, it’s my 29^th set of them. I think you’ll enjoy their company, if not always the quality of their prose. They’re good kids and we’ve spent an awful lot of time teaching them to ask questions more profound than “how much does it pay?” or “would you like fries with that?”  We’ve tried, with some success, to explain to them that leadership flows from service, that words count, that deeds count, and that other people count.

They are, on whole, a work well begun. The other half is up to you and to them.

As for me and my colleagues, two months to recoup and then 714 more chances to make a difference.

All the noise, noise, noise, noise!

Here’s my shameful secret: I have no idea of why global stock markets at all-time highs nor when they will cease to be there. I also don’t know quite what investors are doing or thinking, much less why. Hmmm … also pretty much confused about what actions any of it implies that I should take.

I spent much of the month of May paying attention to questions like the ones implied above and my interim conclusion is that that was not a good use of my time. There are about 300 million Americans who need to make sense out of their world and about 57,000 Americans paid to work as journalists and four times that many public relations specialists who are charged with telling them what it all means. And, sadly, there’s a news hole that can never be left unfilled; that is, if you have a 30 minute news program (22.5 minutes plus commercials), you need to find 22.5 minutes worth of something to say even when you think there’s nothing to say.

And so we’re inundated with headlines like these from the May issues of The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times (noted as NYT):

Investors Abandon Riskier Assets (WSJ, May 16, C1) “Investors stepped up their retreat from riskier assets …”   Except when they did the opposite four pages later:

Higher-Yielding Bank Debt Draws Interest (WSJ, May 16, C4) “Investors are scooping up riskier bonds sold by banks …”

Small Stocks Fuel a Run to Records (WSJ, May 13, C1) but then again Smaller Stocks Slammed in Selloff (WSJ, May 21, C1)

The success of “safe” strategies is encourage folks to pursue unsafe ones. Bonds Flip Scripts on Risk, Reward (WSJ, May 27, C1) “Bonds perceived as safe have produced better returns than riskier ones for the first time since 2010… in response, many investors are doubling down on riskier debt.”And so Riskier Fannie Bonds Are Devoured (WSJ, May 21, C1).

Market Loses Ground as Investors Seek Safety (NYT, May 14) “The stock market fell back from record levels on Wednesday as investors decided it was better to play it safe… ‘There’s some internal self-correction and rotation going on beneath the surface,’ said Jim Russell, a regional investment director at U.S. Bank.”  But apparently that internal self-correction self-corrected within nine days because Investors Show Little Fear (WSJ, May 23, C1) “Many traders say they detect little fear in the market lately.  They cite a financial outlook that is widely perceived to pose little risk of an economic or market downturn: near-record stock prices, low interest rates, steady if unspectacular U.S. growth and expansive if receding Federal Reserve support for the economy and financial markets.”

And so the fearless fearful are chucking money around:

Penny Stocks Fuel Big-Dollar Dreams (WSJ, May 23, C1) “Investors are piling into the shares of small, risky companies at the fastest clip on record, in search of investments that promise a chance of outsize returns.  Investors are buying up so-called penny stocks … at a pace that far eclipses the tech boom of the 1990s.”  The author notes that average trading volume is up 40% over last year which was, we’ll recall, a boom year for stocks.

Investors Return to Emerging World (WSJ, May 29, C1) “Investors are settling in for another ride in emerging markets … The speed with which investors appear to have forgotten losses of 30% in some markets has been startling.”

Searching for Yield, at Almost Any Price (NYT, May 1) “Fixed-income investors trying to increase their income essentially have two options. One is to extend maturities. The other is to reduce credit quality. There are risks to both. The prices of long-term bonds fall sharply when interest rates go up. Lower-quality bonds are more likely to default.  These days, lower quality, rather than longer maturities, seems to be more popular. Money has poured into mutual funds that invest in bank loans — often low-quality ones. To a lesser extent, it has also gone into high-yield mutual funds that buy bonds rated below investment grade, known as junk bonds to those who are dubious of them.”

So, all of this risk-chasing means that it’s Time to Worry About Stock Market Bubbles (NYT, May 6) “Relative to long-term corporate earnings – and more in a minute on why that measure is important – stocks have been more expensive only three times over the past century than they are today, according to data from Robert Shiller, a Nobel laureate in economics. Those other three periods are not exactly reassuring, either: the 1920s, the late 1990s and in the prelude to the 2007 financial crisis.” … Based on history, stocks look either very expensive or somewhat expensive right now. Mr. Shiller suggests that the most likely outcome may be worse returns in coming years than the market has delivered over recent decades – but still better than the returns of any other investment class.”  Great. Worst except for all the others.

Good news, though: there’s no need to worry about stock market bubbles as long as people are worrying about stock market bubbles. That courtesy of the Leuthold Group, which argues that bubbles are only dangerous once we’ve declared that there is no bubble but only a new, “permanently high plateau.”

Happily, our Republican colleagues in the House agree and seem to have decided that none of the events of 2007-08 actually occurred. Financial Crisis, Over and Already Forgotten (NYT, May 22) “Michael S. Barr, a law professor at the University of Michigan who was an assistant Treasury secretary when the financial crisis was at its worst, is working on a book titled Five Ways the Financial System Will Fail Next Time. The first of them, he says, is ‘amnesia, willful and otherwise,’ regarding the causes and consequences of the crisis. Let’s hope the others are not here yet [since a]mnesia was on full view this week.”

Wait!  Wait!  Josh Brown is pretty sure that they did occur, might well re-occur and probably still won’t get covered right:

Okay can we be honest for a second?

The similarities between now and the pre-crisis era are f**king sickening at this point.

There, I said it.  

 (After a couple paragraphs and one significant link.)

To recap – Volatility is nowhere to be found – not in currencies, in fixed income or in equities. Complacency rules the day as investors and institutions gradually add more risk, using leverage and increasingly exotic vehicles to reach for diminishing returns in an aging bull market. This as economic growth – led by housing and consumer spending – stalls out and the Fed removes stimulus that never really worked in the first place.

And once again, the media is oblivious for the most part, fixated as it is on a French economist and the valuations of text messaging startups.

(Second Verse, Same as the First, 05/29/14)

You wouldn’t imagine that those of us who try to communicate for a vocation might argue that you need to read (watch and listen) less, rather than more but that is the position that several of us tend toward.

Tadas Viskanta , proprietor of the very fine Abnormal Returns blog, calls for “a news diet” in his book, Abnormal Returns: Winning Strategies from the Frontlines of the Investment Blogosphere (2012).  He argues:

A media diet, as practiced by Nassim Taleb, is a conscious effort to decrease the amount of media we consume. Most of what we consume is “empty calories.” Most of it has little information value and can only serve to crowd out other more interesting and informative sources.

That’s all consistent with Barry Ritzholz’s argument that the stuff which makes great and tingly headlines – Black Swans, imminent crashes, zombie apocalypses – aren’t what hurts the average investor most. We’re hurt most, he says during a presentation at the FPA NorCal Conference in 2014, by the slow drip, drip, drip of mistakes: high expenses, impulsive trading and performance chasing. None of which is really news.

Josh Brown, who writes under the moniker The Reformed Broker at a blog of the same name, disagrees.  One chapter of this new book The Clash of the Financial Pundits (2014)is entitled “The Myth of the Media Diet.”  Brown argues that we have no more ability to consistently abstain from news than we have to consistently abstain from sugary treats.  In his mind, the effort of suppressing the urge in the first place just leads to cheating and then a return, unreformed, to our original destructive habits: “A true media diet virtually assures an overreaction to market volatility and expert prognostication once the dieter returns to the flashing lights and headlines.”  He argues that we need to better understand the financial media in order to keep intelligently informed, rather than entirely pickled in the daily brew.

And Snowball’s take on it all?

I actually teach about this stuff for a living, from News Literacy to Communication and Emerging Technologies. My best reading of the research supports the notion that we’ve become victims of continuous partial attention. There are so many ways of reaching us and we’re so often judged by the speed of our response (my students tell me that five minutes is the longest you can wait before responding to text without giving offense), that we’re continually dividing our attention between the task at hand and a steady stream of incoming chatter. (15% of us have interrupted sex to take a cellphone call while a third text while driving.) It’s pervasive enough that there are now reports in the medical literature of sleep-texting; that is, hearing an incoming text while asleep, rousing just enough to respond and then returning to sleep without later knowing that any of this had happened. We are, in short, training ourselves to be distracted, unsure and unfocused.

Fortunately, we can also retrain ourselves to become more focused. Focus requires discipline; not “browsing” or “link-hopping,” but regular, structured attention. In general, I pay no attention to “the news” except during two narrow windows each day (roughly, the morning when I have coffee and read two newspapers and during evening commutes). During those windows, I listen to NPR News which – so far as I can determine – has the most consistently thoughtful, in-depth journalism around.

But beyond that, I do try to practice paying intense and undivided attention to the stuff that’s actually important: I neither take and make calls during my son’s ballgames, I have no browser open when my students come for advice, and I seek no distraction greater than jazz when I’m reading a book. 

It’s not smug self-indulgence, dear friends. It’s survival. I really want to embrace my life, not wander distractedly through it. For investors, that means making fewer, more thoughtful decisions and learning to trust that you’ve gotten it right rather than second-guessing yourself throughout the day and night.

How Good Is Your Fund Family?

Question: How many funds at Dodge & Cox beat their category average returns since inception?

Answer: All of them.

In the case of Dodge & Cox, “all” is five funds:  DODBX, DODFX, DODGX, DODIX, and DODWX. Since inception, or at least as far back as January 1962, through March 2014, each has beaten its category average.

Same is true for these families: First Eagle, Causeway, Marsico, and Westwood.

For purposes of this article, a “fund family” comprises five funds or more, oldest share class only, with each fund being three years or older.

Obviously, no single metric should be used or misused to select a fund. In this case, fund lifetimes are different. Funds can perform inconsistently across market cycles. Share class representing “oldest” can be different. Survivorship bias and category drift can distort findings. Funds can be mis-categorized or just hard to categorize, making comparisons less meaningful.

Finally, metrics based on historical performance may say nothing of future returns, which is why analysis houses (e.g., Morningstar) examine additional factors, like shareholder friendliness, experience, and strategy to identify “funds with the highest potential of success.”

In the case of Marsico, for example, its six funds have struggled recently. The family charges above average expense ratios, and it has lost some experienced fund managers and analysts. While Morningstar acknowledges strong fund performance within this family since inception, it gives Marsico a negative “Parent” rating.

Nonetheless, these disclaimers acknowledged, prudent investors should know, as part of their due diligence, how well a fund family has performed over the long haul.

So, question: How many funds at Pacific Life beat category average returns since inception?

Applying the same criteria as above, the sad truth is: None of them.

PL funds are managed by Pacific Life Fund Advisors LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pacific Life Insurance Company of Newport Beach, CA. Here from their web-site:

Got that?

Same sad truth for these families: AdvisorOne, Praxis, Integrity, Oak Associates, Arrow Funds, Pacific Financial, and STAAR.

In the case of Oak Associates, its seven funds have underperformed against their categories by 2.4% every year for almost 15 years! (They also experience maximum drawdown of -70.0% on average, or 13.1% worse than their categories.) Yet it proudly advertises recent ranking recognition by US News and selection to Charles Schwab’s OneSource. Its motto: “A Focus on Growth.”

To be clear, my colleague Professor Snowball has written often about the difficulties of beating benchmark indices for those funds that actually try. The headwinds include expense ratios, loads, transaction fees, commissions, and redemption demands. But the lifetime over- and under-performance noted above are against category averages of total returns, which already reflect these headwinds.

Overview. Before presenting performance results for all fund families, here’s is an overall summary, which will put some of the subsequent metrics in context:

It remains discouraging to see half the families still impose front load, at least for some share classes – an indefensible and ultimately shareholder unfriendly practice. Three quarters of families still charge shareholders a 12b-1 fee. All told shareholders pay fund families $12.3 billion every year for marketing. As David likes to point out, there are more funds in the US today than there are publically traded US companies. Somebody must pay to get the word out.

Size. Fidelity has the most number of funds. iShares has the most ETFs. But Vanguard has the largest assets under management.

Expense. In last month’s MFO commentary, Edward Studzinski asked: “It Costs How Much?”

As a group, fund families charge shareholders $83.3 billion each year for management fees and operating costs, which fall under the heading “expense ratio.” ER includes marketing fees, but excludes transaction fees, loads, and redemption fees.

It turns out that no fund family with an average ER above 1.58% ranks in the top performance quintile, as defined below, and most families with an average ER above 2.00 end up in the bottom quintile.

While share class does not get written about very often, it helps reveal inequitable treatment of shareholders for investing in the same fund. Typically, different share classes charge different ERs depending on initial investment amount, load or transaction fee, or association of some form. American has the largest number of share classes per fund with nearly five times the industry average.

Rankings. The following tables summarize top and bottom performing families, based on the percentage of their funds with total returns that beat category averages since inception:

As MFO readers would expect, comparison of top and bottom quintiles reveals the following tendencies:

• Top families charge lower ER, 1.06 versus 1.45%, on average
• Fewer families in top quintile impose front loads, 21 versus 55%
• Fewer families in top quintile impose 12b-1 fees, 64 versus 88%

For this sample at least, the data also suggests:

• Top families have longer tenured managers, if slightly, 9.6 versus 8.2 years
• Top families have fewer share classes, if slightly (1.9 versus 2.3 share class ratio, after 6 sigma American is removed as an outlier; otherwise, just 2.2 versus 2.3)

The complete set of metrics, including ER, AUM, age, tenure, and rankings for each fund family, can be found in MFO Fund Family Metrics, a downloadable Google spreadsheet. (All metrics were derived from Morningstar database found in Steel Mutual Fund Expert, dated March 2014.)

A closer look at the complete fund family data also reveals the following:

Some fund families, like Oakmark and Artisan, have beaten their category averages by 3-4% every year for more than 10 years running, which seems quite extraordinary. Whether attributed to alpha, beta, process, people, stewardship, or luck…or all the above. Quite extraordinary.

While others, frankly too many others, have done just the opposite. Honestly, it’s probably not too hard to figure out why.

31May14/Charles

Good news for Credit Suisse shareholders

CS just notified its shareholders that they won’t be sharing a cell with company officials.

On May 19, 2014, the Department of Justice nailed CS for conspiracy to commit tax fraud. At base, they allowed US citizens to evade taxes by maintaining illegal foreign accounts on their behalf. CS pled guilty to one criminal charge, which dents the otherwise universal impulse “to neither admit nor deny” wrongdoing. In consequence, they’re going to make a substantial contribution to reducing the federal budget deficit. CS certainly admits to wrong-doing, they have agreed to pay “over $1.8 billion” to the government, to ban some former officials, and to “undertake certain remedial actions.” The New York Times reports that the total settlement will end up around $2.6 billion dollars. The Economist calls it $2.8 billion.

Critics of the settlement, including Senator John McCain of Arizona, were astonished that the bank was not required to turn over the names of the tax cheats nor were “any officers, directors or key executives individually accountable for wrongdoing.” Comparable action against UBS, another Swiss bank with a presence in the US mutual fund market, in 2009 forced them to disclose the identities of 4700 account holders. The fact that CS seems intent to avoid discovering the existence of wrongdoing (the Times reports that the firm “did not retain certain documents, failed to interview potentially culpable bankers before they left the firm, and did not start an internal inquiry” for a long while after they had reason to suspect a crime), some argue that the penalties should have been more severe and more targeted at senior management.

If you want to get into the details, the Times also has a nice online archive of the legal documents in the case.

Here’s the good news part: CS reports that “The recent settlements … do not involve the Funds or Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC, Credit Suisse Asset Management Limited or Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC [and] will not have any material impact on the Funds or on the ability of the CS Service Providers to perform services for the Funds.” Of course the fact that CSAM is tied to a criminal corporation would impede their ability to run US funds except for a “temporary exemptive order” from the SEC “to permit them to continue serving as investment advisers and principal underwriters for U.S.-registered investment companies, such as the Funds. Due to a provision in the law governing the operation of U.S.-registered investment companies, they would otherwise have become ineligible to perform these activities as a result of the plea in the Plea Agreement.”

If the SEC makes permanent its temporary exemptive order, then CSAM could continue to manage the funds albeit with the prospect of somewhat-heightened regulatory interest in their behavior. If the commission does not grant permanent relief, the house of cards will begin to tumble.

Which is to say, the SEC is going to play nice and grant the exemption.

One other bit of good news for CS and its shareholders: at least you’re not BNP Paribas which was hoping to get off with an $8 billion slap on the wrist but might actually be on the hook for $10 billion in connection with its assistance to tax dodgers.

Another argument for a news diet: Reuters on the end of the world

A Reuter’s story of May 28 reads, in its entirety:

BlackRock CEO says leveraged ETFs could ‘blow up’ whole industry

May 28 (Reuters) – BlackRock Inc Chief Executive Larry Fink said on Wednesday that leveraged exchange-traded funds contain structural problems that could “blow up” the whole industry one day.

Fink runs a company that oversees more than $4 trillion in client assets, including nearly $1 trillion in ETF assets.

“We’d never do one (a leveraged ETF),” Fink said at Deutsche Bank investment conference in New York. “They have a structural problem that could blow up the whole industry one day.”

Didja notice anything perhaps missing from that story?  You know, places where the gripping narrative might have gotten just a bit thin?

How about: WHAT DOES “BLOW UP” EVEN MEAN? WHAT INDUSTRY EXACTLY?  Or WHY?

Really, guy, you claim to be covering the end of the world – or of the investment industry or ETF industry or something – and the best you could manage was 75 words that skipped, oh, every essential element of the story?

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds.  “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve. 

Dodge & Cox Global Bond (DODLX): Dodge & Cox, which has been helping the rich stay rich since the Great Depression, is offering you access to the world’s largest asset class, international bonds.  Where their existing Income fund (DODIX) is domestic and centered on investment-grade issues, Global Bond is a converted limited partnership that can go anywhere and shows a predilection for boldness.

RiverNorth/Oaktree High Income (RNOTX): “high income” funds are often just high-yield bond funds with a handful of dividend stocks tossed in for flavor. RiverNorth and Oaktree promise a distinctive and principled take on the space: they’re allocating resources tactically between three very distinct high-income asset classes. Oaktree will pursue their specialty in senior loan and high-yield debt investing while RiverNorth continues to exploit inefficiency and volatility with their opportunistic closed-end fund strategy. They are, at base, looking for investors rational enough to profit from the irrationality of others.

Lookin’ goooood!

As you’ve noticed, the Observer’s visual style is pretty minimalist – there are no flashing lights, twirling fonts, or competing columns and there’s pretty minimal graphic embellishment.  We’re shooting for something that works well across a variety of platforms (we know that a fair chunk of you are reading this on your phone or tablet while a brave handful are relying on dial-up connections).

From time to time, fund companies commission more visually appealing versions of those reprints.  When they ask for formatted reprints, two things happen: we work with them on what are called “compliance edits” so that they don’t run afoul of FINRA regulations and, to a greater or lesser extent, our graphic design team (well, Barb Bradac is pretty much the whole team but she’s really good) works to make the profiles more visually appealing and readable.

Those generally reside on the host companies’ websites, but we thought it worthwhile to share some of the more recent reprints with folks this month.  Each of the thumbnails opens into a full .pdf file in a separate tab.

A sample of recent reprints:

Beck, Mack & Oliver	Tributary Balanced	Evermore Global Value
Intrepid Income	Guinness Atkinson Inflation Managed Dividend	RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value

And what about the other hundred profiles?

We’ve profiled about a hundred funds, all of which are accessible under the Funds tab at the top of the page. Through the kind of agency of my colleague Charles, there’s also a monthly update for every profiled fund in his MFO Dashboard, which he continues to improve. If you want an easy, big picture view, check out the Dashboard – also on the Funds page. 

Elevator Talk: David Bechtel, Principal, Barrow All-Cap Core (BALAX / BALIX)

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you. That’s about the number of words a slightly manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half. In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site. Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share. These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more.

Barrow All-Cap Core has the unusual distinction of sporting a top tier five year record despite being less than one year old. The secret is that the fund began life as a private partnership at the end of 2008. It was designed as a public equity vehicle run by private equity investors.

Their argument is that they understand both value and business prospects in ways that are fundamentally different than typical stock investors do. Combining both operating experience with a record of buying entire companies, they’re used to different metrics and different perspectives.

While you might be tempted to dismiss that as “big talk,” two factors might moderate your skepticism. First, their portfolio – typically about 200 names – really is way different from their competitors’. While Morningstar benchmarks them against the large-value group (a style box in which Barrow places just 5% of their money), the fund nearly reversed the size profile of its peers: it has about 20% in large caps, 30% in mid caps and 50% in small caps. Its peer group has about 80% in large caps. The entire portfolio is invested in six sectors, with effectively zero exposure to the four others (including financials and tech). By almost any measure (long-term earnings growth, level of corporate debt, free cash flow generation), their portfolio is substantially higher-quality than its peers. Second, the strategy’s performance – primarily as a private partnership, lately as a mutual fund – has been absolutely first tier: top 3% since inception 12/31/08 and in the top 20% in every calendar year since inception. Overall they’ve earned about 20% annually, better than both the S&P 500 and its large-value peers.

BALAX is managed by Nicholas Chermayeff, formerly of Morgan Stanley’s Principal Investment Group, and Robert F. Greenhill, who co-founded Barrow Street Advisors LLC, the fund’s advisor, after a stint at Goldman Sachs’ Whitehall Funds. Both are Harvard graduates (unlike some of us). The Elevator Talk itself, though, was provided by Yale graduate David Bechtel, a Principal of Barrow Street Advisors LLC, the fund’s advisor, who serves on its Investment Committee, and advises on the firm’s business development activities. He is a Founder and Managing Member of Outpost Capital Management LLC which structures and manages investments in the natural resources and financial services sectors. Mr. Bechtel offered just a bit more than 200 words to explain Barrow’s distinctiveness:

We are, first and foremost, private equity investors. Since Barrow Street was founded in 1997, we have invested and managed hundreds of millions in private market opportunities. The public equity strategy (US stocks only) used in Barrow All-Cap was funded by our own capital in 2008.

We launched this strategy and the fund to meet what we viewed as a market need. We take a private equity approach to security selection. We are not a “value” manager – selecting stocks based on low p/e, etc. – nor a pure “quality” manager – buying blue chips at any price. We look for very high quality companies whose shares are temporarily trading at a discount.

We look at value and quality the way a control investor in a business would. We emphasize cash flow, sales growth per unit of capital, operating margins, and we like companies that reinvest in their businesses. That gives us a very good feeling that not only is the management team interested in growing their business, but also that the business itself is good at generating cash.

On the valuation side, we’re looking for firms that are “momentarily” trading well-below intrinsic value. The general idea is to look at total enterprise value – equity market cap plus debt and preferred stock minus cash on the books – which controls for variations on capital structures, leverage, etc.

We’re trying to differentiate by combining our private equity approach to quality and value into one strategy at the security selection level. And, we are just as dedicated to portfolio diversification to help our investors better weather market volatility. It’s a portfolio without compromises. We think that’s very unusual in the mutual fund universe.

The fund has both institutional and retail share classes. The retail class (BALAX) has a $2500 minimum initial investment. Expenses are 1.41% with about $22 million in assets. The institutional share class (BALIX) is $250,000 and 1.16%. Here’s the fund’s homepage. The content there is modest but useful. 

Funds in Registration

Funds currently in registration with the SEC will generally be available for purchase some time in July, 2014. Our dauntless research associate David Welsch tracked down 12 new no-load funds in registration this month. While there are no immediately tantalizing registrants, there are two flexible bond funds being launched by well-respected small fund families (Weitz Core Plus Income and William Blair Bond Fund) plus the conversion of a pretty successful private options-hedged equity strategy (V2 Hedged Equity Fund, though I would prefer that we not name our investments after the Nazi “Vengeance Weapon 2”).

All of the new registrants are available on the June Funds in Registration page.

Manager Changes

The manager change story-of-the-month comes from S&P Capital IQ. While the report is not publicly available, its conclusion is widely reported: “Of 6,185 U.S. equity mutual funds tracked by Rosenbluth’s firm, more than a thousand of them, or 16.3%, have experienced a manager change since February 2011.” Oddly, the journalists reporting on the story including Brendan Conaway at Barron’s and the Mutual Fund Wire staff, don’t seem to ask the fundamental question: how often does it matter?  They do point to do instances cited by Rosenbluth (Janus Contrarian and Fidelity Growth & Income) where the manager change was worth noting, but don’t ask how typical those cases are.

A far more common pattern, however, is that what’s called a “fund manager change” is actually a partial shuffle of an existing management team. For example, our May “manager changes” feature highlighted 52 manager changes but 36 of those (70% of the total) were partial changes. Example would be New Covenant Growth Fund (NCGFX) where one of the 17 members of the management team departed, Fidelity Series Advisor Growth Opportunities Fund (FAOFX) where there’s a long-term succession strategy or a bunch of the Huntington funds where no one left but a new co-manager was added to the collection.

Speaking of manager changes, Chip this month tracked down 57 sets of them.

Updates: the Justin Frankel/Josh Brown slapfest over liquid alts

Josh Brown, the above-named “reformed broker,” ran a piece in mid-May entitled Brokers, Liquid Alts and the Fund that Never Goes Up. He discusses the fate of Andrew Lo and ASG Diversifying Strategies Fund (DSFAX):

Dr. Andrew Lo vehicle called ASG Diversifying Strategies Fund. The idea was that Dr. Lo, perhaps one of the most brilliant quantitative scientists and academicians in finance (MIT, Harvard, all kinds of awards, PhDs out the ass, etc), would be incorporating a variety of approaches to manage the fund using all asset classes, derivatives and trading methodologies that he and his team saw fit to apply.

What actually did happen was this: Andy Lo, maybe one of the smartest men in the history of finance, managed to invent a product that literally cannot make money in any environment. It’s an extraordinarily rare accomplishment; I don’t think you could go out and invent something that always loses money if you were actually attempting to.

Brown’s argument is less with liquid alts as an arena for investing, and more with the brokers who continue to push investors into a clearly failed strategy.

Justin Frankel, probably the only RiverPark manager that we haven’t spoken with and co-manager of RiverPark Structural Alpha Fund (RSAFX), quickly rushed to the barricades to defend Alt-land from the barbarian horde (and, in doing so, responded to an argument that Brown wasn’t actually making). He published his defense on, of all things, his Tumblr page:

The Wall Street machine has a long history of favoring institutions over individuals, and the ultra-high net worth over the mass affluent. After all, finance is a service industry, and it is those larger clients that pay the lion’s share of fees.

Liquid Alternatives are simply hedge fund strategies wrapped in a mutual fund format … From a practical standpoint, investors should view these strategies as a way to diversify either bond or stock holdings in order to provide non-correlated returns to their investment portfolios, cushion portfolios against downside risks, and improve risk-adjusted returns.

Individual investors have become more sophisticated consumers of financial products. Liquid Alternatives are not just a democratization of the alternative investing landscape. They represent an evolution in how investors can gain access to strategies that they could never invest in before.

Frankel’s argument is redolent of Morty Schaja’s stance, that RiverPark is bringing hedge fund strategies to the “mass affluent” though with a $1000 minimum, they’re available to the mass mass, too.

Both pieces, despite their possibly excessive fraternity, are worth reading.

Briefly Noted . . .

Manning and Napier is adding options to the funds in their Pro-Blend series. Effective on July 14, 2014, the funds will gain the option of writing (which is to say, say selling) options on securities and pursuing a managed futures (a sort of asset-class momentum) strategy. And since the Pro-Blend funds are used in Manning & Napier’s target-date retirement funds, the strategy changes ripple into them, too.

This month, most especially, I’m drawing on the great good work of The Shadow in tracking down the changes below. “Go raibh mile maith agaibh as bhur gcunamh” big guy! Thanks, too, to the folks on the discussion board for their encouragement during the disruptions caused by my house move this month.

 

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Donald P. Carson, formerly the president of an Atlanta-based investment holding company and now a principal at Ansley Securities, joined the Board of The Cook & Bynum Fund (COBYX) in April and has already made an investment in the fund in the range of $100,001 – $500,000.  Two things are quite clear from the research: (1) having directors – as distinct from managers – invested in a fund improves its risk-return profile and (2) it’s relatively rare to see substantial director investment in a fund.  The managers are deeply invested in the fund and it’s great that their directors are, too.

The Osterweis funds (Osterweis, Strategic Income, Strategic Investment and Institutional Equity) will all, effective June 30 2014 drop their 30-day, 2.0% redemption fees.  I’m always ambivalent about eliminating such fees, since they discourage folks from trading in and out of funds, but most folks cheer the flexibility so we’re willing to declare it “a small win.”  

Effective May 16, 2014, the minimum initial investment on the institutional class of the RiverPark funds (Large Growth, RiverPark/Wedgewood Fund, Short Term High Yield, Long/Short Opportunity, RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value, Structural Alpha Fund and Strategic Income) were all reduced from $1,000,000 to $100,000.   Of greater significance to many of us, the expense ratios were reduced for Short Term High Yield (from 1.25% to 1.17% on RPHYX and from 1.00% to 0.91% on RPHIX) and RiverPark/Wedgewood (from 1.25% to 1.05% on RPCFX and from 1.00% to 0.88% on RWGIX).

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Effective on July 8, 2014, Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund (FBDIX) will close to new investors. It’s a fund for thrill seekers – it invests in very, very growth-y midcap biotech firms which are (ready for this?) really volatile. The fund’s returns have averaged about 12% over the past decade – 115 bps better than its peers – but the cost has been high: a beta of 1.77 and a standard deviation nearly 50% about the Specialty-Health group norm. That hasn’t been enough to determine $1.3 billion in investment from flowing in.

Morningstar’s been having real problems with their website this month.  During the last week of the month, some fund profiles were completely unavailable while, in other cases, clicking on the link to one fund would take you to the profile of another. I assume something similar is going on here, since the MPT data for this biotech stock fund benchmarks it against “BofAML Convertible Bonds All Qualities.”

Update: One of the Corporate Communication folks at Morningstar reached out in response to my comment on their site stability which itself was triggered mostly by the vigorous thread on the point. Ms. Spelhaug writes: “Hope you’re well. I saw your column mentioning issues you’ve experienced with the Quote pages on Morningstar.com. I wanted to let you know that we’re aware that there have been some issues and have been in the process of retiring the system that’s causing the problems.”

Effective as of May 30, 2014, the investor class of Samson STRONG Nations Currency Fund (SCRFX) closed its “Investor” class to new investors. On that same day, those shares were re-designated as Institutional Class shares. Given the fund’s parlous performance (down about 8% since inception compared to a peer group that’s down about 0.25%), the closure might be prelude to …. uhhh, further action.

T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (PRWCX) will close to new investors on June 30, 2014. Traditionally famous for holding convertible securities, the fund’s fixed-income exposure is almost entirely bonds now with a tiny sliver of convertibles. That reflects the manager’s judgment that converts are way overpriced. The equity part of the portfolio targets blue chips, though the orientation has slowly but surely shifted toward growthier stocks over the years.

The fund is bloated at over $20 billion in assets but it’s sure hard to criticize. It’s posted peer-beating returns in 11 of the past 12 years, including all five years since crossing the $10 billion in AUM threshold. It’s particularly impressive that the fund has outperformed Prospector Capital Appreciation (PCAFX), which is run by Richard Howard, PRWCX’s long-time manager, over the past seven years. While I’m generally reluctant to recommend large funds, much less large funds that are about to close, this one really does warrant a bit of attention on your part.

All classes of the Wells Fargo Advantage Discovery Fund (WFDAX) are closed to new investors. The $3.2 billion fund has posted pretty consistently above average returns, but also consistently above average risks.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective July 1, 2014, the AllianzGI Structured Alpha Fund (AZIAX) will change its name to the AllianzGI Structured Return Fund. Its investment objective, principal investment strategies, management fee and operating expenses change as well. The plan is to write exchange-traded call options or FLEX call options (i.e. listed options that are traded on an exchange, but with customized strike prices and expiration dates) to generate income and some downside protection. The choice strikes me as technical rather than fundamental, since the portfolio is already comprised of 280 puts and calls. The most significant change is a vast decrease in the fund’s expense ratio, from 1.90% for “A” shares down to 1.15%.

Crow Point Hedged Global Equity Income Fund (CGHAX) has been rechristened Crow Point Defined Risk Global Equity Income Fund. The Fund’s investment objective, policies and strategies remain unchanged.

Hansberger International Growth (HIGGX/HITGX) is in the process of becoming one of the Madison (formerly Mosaic) Funds. I seem to have misread the SEC filing last month and reported that they’re becoming part of the Madison Fund (singular) rather than Madison Funds (plural). The management team is responsible for about $4 billion in mostly institutional assets. They’re located in, and will remain in, Toronto. This will be Madison’s second international fund, beside Madison NorthRoad International (NRIEX) whose managers finish their third solid year at the helm on June 30^th.

Effective June 4 2014, the Sustainable Opportunities (SOPNX) fund gets renamed the Even Keel Multi-Asset Managed Risk Fund. The Fund’s investment objective, policies and strategies remain unchanged. Given the fund’s modest success over its first two years, I suppose there are investors who might have preferred keeping the name and shifting the strategy.

The Munder Funds are in the process of becoming Victory funds. Munder Capital Management, Munder’s advisor, got bought by Victory Capital Management, so the transition is sensible and inevitable. Victory will create a series of “shell” funds which are “substantially similar, if not identical” to existing Munder funds, then merge the Munder funds into them. This is all pending shareholder approval.

Touchstone Core Bond Fund has been renamed Touchstone Active Bond Fund (TOBAX). The numbers on the fund are a bit hard to decipher – by some measures, lots of alpha, by others

Effective on or about July 1, 2014, Transamerica Diversified Equity (TADAX) will be renamed Transamerica US Growth and the principal investment strategy will be tweaked to require 80% U.S. holdings. Roughly speaking, TADAX trailed 90% of its peers during manager Paul Marrkand’s first calendar year. The next year it trailed 80%, then 70% and so far in 2014, 60%.  Based on that performance, I’d put it on your buy list for 2019.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

On May 29, 2014 (happy birthday to me, happy birthday to me …), the tiny and turbulent long/short AllianzGI Redwood Fund (ARRAX) was liquidated and dissolved.

The Giralda Fund (GDAIX) liquidates its “I” shares on June 27, 2014 but promises that you can swap them for “I” shares of Giralda Risk-Managed Growth Fund (GRGIX) if you’d really like.

Harbor Target Retirement 2010 Fund (HARFX) has changed its asset allocation over time in accordance with its glide path and its allocation is now substantially similar to that of Harbor Target Retirement Income Fund, and so 2010 is merging into Retirement Income on Halloween.  Happily, the merger will not trigger a tax bill.

In mid-May, 2014, Huntington suspended sales of the “A” and institutional shares of its Fixed Income Securities, Intermediate Government Income, Mortgage Securities, Ohio Tax-Free, and Short/Intermediate Fixed Income Securities funds.

On May 16, 2014, the Board of Trustees of Oppenheimer Currency Opportunities Fund (OCOAX) approved a plan to liquidate the Fund on or about August 1, 2014.  Since inception, the fund offered its investors the opportunity to turn $100 into $98.50 which a fair number of them inexplicably accepted.

At the recommendation of LSV Asset Management, the LSV Conservative Core Equity Fund (LSVPX) will cease operations and liquidate on or about June 13, 2014. Morningstar has it rated as a four-star fund and its returns have been in the top decile of its large-value peer group over the past five years, which doesn’t usually presage elimination. As the discussion board’s senior member Ted puts it, “With only $15 Million in AUM, and a minimum investment of $100,000 hard to get off the ground in spite of decent performance.”

Turner All Cap Growth Fund (TBTBX) is slated to merge into Turner Midcap Growth Fund (TMGFX) some time in the fall of 2014. Since I’ve never seen the appeal of Turner’s consistently high-volatility funds, I mostly judge nod and mumble about tweedle-dum and …

Wilmington’s small, expensive, risky, underperforming Large-Cap Growth Fund (VLCPX) and regrettably similar Large-Cap Value Fund (VEINX) have each been closed to new investors and are both being liquidated around June 20th.

In Closing . . .

The Morningstar Investment Conference will be one of the highlights of June for us. A number of folks responded to our offer to meet and chat while we’re there, and we’re certainly amenable to the idea of seeing a lot more folks while we’re there.

I don’t tweet (despite Daisy Maxey’s heartfelt injunction to “build my personal brand”) but I do post a series of reports to our discussion board after each day at the conference. If you’re curious and can’t be in Chicago, please to feel free to look in on the board.

Finally, thanks to all those who continue to support the Observer – with their ideas and patience, as much as with their contributions and purchases. It’s been a head-spinning time and I’m grateful to all of you as we work through it.

Just a quick reminder that we’re going to clean our email list. We’ve got two targets, addresses that make absolutely no sense and folks who haven’t opened one of our emails in a year or more.

We’ll talk soon!

By David Snowball

Dear friends,

It’s been that kind of month. Oh so very much that kind of month. In addition to teaching four classes and cheering Will on through 11 baseball games, I’ve spent much of the past six weeks buying a new (smaller, older but immaculate) house and beginning to set up a new household. It was a surprisingly draining experience, physically, psychologically and mentally. Happily I had the guidance and support of family and friends throughout, and I celebrated the end of April with 26 signatures, eight sets of initials, two attorneys, one large and one moderately-large check, and the arrival of a new set of keys and a new garage door clicker. All of which slightly derailed my focus on the world of funds. Fortunately the indefatigable Charles came to the rescue with …

The Existential Pleasures of Engineering Beta

Mebane Faber is a quant.

He is a student of financial markets, investor behavior, trend-following, and market bubbles. He pursues absolute return, value, and momentum strategies. And, he likes companies that deliver cash to shareholders.

He recognizes alpha is elusive, so instead focuses on engineering beta, which promises a more pragmatic and enduring reward.

In a field full of business majors and MBAs, he holds degrees in engineering and biology.

He distills a wealth of financial literature, research, and conditions into concise and actionable investing advice, shared through books, his blog, and lectures.

Given low-cost ETFs and mutual funds available today, he thinks people generally should no longer need to hire advisors, or “brokers back in the day,” at 1-2% fees to tell them how to allocate buy-and-hold portfolios. “It kind of borderlines on criminal,” he tells Michael Covel in a recent interview, since such advisors “do not do enough to justify their fees.”

He is a portfolio manager and CIO of Cambria Investment Management, L.P., which he co-founded along with Eric Richardson in 2006. It is located in El Segundo, CA.

His down-to-earth demeanor is at once confident and refreshingly approachable. He cites philosopher Henry David Thoreau: “There is no more fatal blunderer than he who consumes the greater part of his life getting his living.”

The Paper. Mebane (pronounced “meb-inn”) started his career as biotech equity analyst during the genome revolution and internet bubble. While at University of Virginia, he attended an advanced seminar in security analysis taught by the renowned hedge fund manager John Griffin of Blue Ridge Capital. In fulfillment of the Chartered Market Technician program, Mebane drafted a paper that became the basis for “A Quantitative Approach To Tactical Asset Allocation,” published in the Journal of Wealth Management in 2007.

The paper originally included the words “market timing,” but he soon discovered that to a lot of people, the phrase comes with “enormous emotional baggage” and “can immediately shut-down all synapses in their brains.” Similar to Ed Thorp’s experience with his first academic paper on winning at blackjack, Mebane had to change the title to get it published. (It continues to stimulate synapses, as discussed in David’s July 2013 commentary, “Timing Method Performance Over Ten Decades” and periodically on the MFO discussion board.)

He attributes the paper’s ultimate popularity to 1) its simple presentation and explanation of the compelling results, and 2) the fortuitous timing of the publication itself – just before the financial meltdown of 2008/9. Practitioners of the method during that period were rewarded with a maximum drawdown of only -2% through versus -51% for the S&P 500.

The Books. There are three. All insightful, concise, and well-received:

• The first published by Wiley in 2009, entitled “The Ivy Portfolio: How to Invest Like the Top Endowments and Avoid Bear Markets.”
• The second, self-published in 2013, entitled “Shareholder Yield: A Better Approach to Dividend Investing.”
• The third, also self-published and just released, “Global Value: How to Spot Bubbles, Avoid Market Crashes, and Earn Big Returns in the Stock Market.”

As summarized above, each contains straight-forward strategies that investors can follow on their own using publically available information. That said, each also forms the basis of ETFs launched by Cambria Investment Management.

The First Fund. Last December, Mebane tweeted “Diversification was deworseification in 2013.” To understand what he meant, just compare US stock return against just about all other asset classes – it trounced them. Several all-asset strategies have underperformed during the current bull market, as seen in the comparison below, including AdvisorShares Cambria Global Tactical ETF Fund (GTAA). GTAA was Cambria’s first ETF, launched in November 2010, as a sub-advisor through ETF house AdvisorShares, and based on the strategy outlined in “The Ivy Portfolio.”

If it helps, Mebane is in good company. Rob Arnott’s all asset and John Hussman’s total return strategies have not received much love lately either. In fact, since GTAA’s inception, the “generic” all-asset allocation of US stocks, foreign stocks, bonds, REITs, and broad commodities has underperformed US equity index by 40% and traditional 60/40 balanced index by 15%.

GTAA’s actual portfolio currently shows more than 50 holdings, virtually all ETFs. Looking back, the fund has held substantial cash at times, approaching 40% in mid-2013…”assuming a defensive posture and utilizing cash as an alternative to its long positions.”

Market volatility has likely hurt GTAA as well. Its timing strategy, shown to thrive in trending markets, can struggle with short-term gyrations, which have been present in commodity, foreign equity, and real estate markets during this time. Finally, AdvisorShares’ high expense ratio, even after waivers, only adds to the headwind. At the 3.5-year mark, GTAA remains at $36M assets under management (AUM).

The New Funds. Cambria has since launched three other ETFs, based on the strategies outlined in Mebane’s two new books, but this time the funds were kept in-house to have “control over the process and charge reasonable fees.” Each fund invests in some 100 companies with capitalizations over $200M. And, each has quickly attracted AUM, rather remarkably given the proliferation of ETFs today. They are:

GVAL is the newest and actually tracks to a Cambria-developed index, maintained daily. It focuses on companies that trade 1) below their assessed intrinsic value, and 2) in countries with the most undervalued markets determined by parameters like CAPE, as depicted in earlier figure. These days, Mebane believes that means outside the US. “We certainly don’t think the [US] market is in a bubble, rather, valuations will be a headwind. There are much better opportunities abroad.”

SYLD is actively managed and focuses primarily on US companies that exhibit strong characteristics of returning free cash flow to their shareholders; specifically, “shareholder yield,” which comprises dividend payments, share buybacks, and debt pay-down. FYLD seeks the same types of companies, but in developed foreign countries and it passively tracks to Cambria’s FYLD index.

Mebane believes that these are the first ETFs to incorporate the shareholder yield strategy. And, based on their reception in the crowded ETF market, he seems pretty pleased: “I certainly think alpha is possible…lots of jargon across smart beta, alpha, etc., but beating a market cap index is a great first step.” Morningstar’s Samuel Lee noted them among best new ETFs of 2013. Approaching its first year, SYLD is certainly off to a strong start:

Interestingly, none of these three ETFs employ explicit draw-down control or trend-following, like GTAA, although GVAL does “start moving to cash if markets don’t pass an absolute valuation filter … no sense in buying what is cheapest when everything is expensive,” Mebane explains. SYLD too has the discretion to take the entire portfolio to “Temporary Defensive Positions.”

When asked if his approach to risk management is changing, given the incorporation of more traditional strategies, he asserts that he’s “still a firm believer in trend-following and future funds will have trend components.” (Other funds in pipeline at Cambria include Global Momentum ETF and Value and Momentum ETF).

Mebane remains one of the largest shareholders on record among the portfolio managers at AdvisorShares. His overall skin-in-the-game? “100% of my investable net worth is in our funds and strategies.”

The Blog. mebfaber.com (aka “World Beta”) started in November 2006. It is a pleasant blend of perspective, opinion, results from his and other’s research – quantitative and factual, images, and references. He shares generously on both personal and professional levels, like in the recent posts “My Investing Mentor” and “How to Start an ETF.”

There is a great reading list and blogroll. There are sources for data, references, and research papers. It’s free, with occasional plugs, but no annoying pop-ups. For the more serious investors, fund managers, and institutions, he offers a premium subscription to “The Idea Farm.”

He once wrote actively for SeekingAlpha, but stopped in 2010, explaining: “I find the quality control of the site is poor, and the respect for authors to be low. Also, [it] becomes a compliance risk and headache.”

He strikes me as having the enviable ability to absorb enormous about of information, from past lessons to today’s water-hose of publications, blogs, tweets, and op-eds, then distill it all down to chart a way forward. Asked whether this comes naturally or does he use a process, he laughs: “I would say it comes unnaturally and painfully!”

29Apr14/Charles

It Costs How Much?

by Edward Studzinski

A democracy is a government in the hands of men of low birth, no property, and vulgar entitlements.

Aristotle

One of the responses I received to last month’s diatribe about mutual fund fees was that the average mutual fund investor did not object to them because they were unseen. They painlessly and invisibly disappeared every quarter. The person who pointed this out noted that lawyers charged a bill for services rendered, as did accountants. Why then, should not a quarterly mutual fund statement show the gross amount invested at the beginning of the period, the investment appreciation or depreciation, and then the deduction of fees to arrive at a net amount invested at the end of the period ? Not a bad idea. But one that has been resisted (or gutted) at every turn by the industry and one that the regulators have never felt strongly enough to move forward on.

But do clients truly understand what they are giving up or what they are actually paying? Charlie Ellis, in an article in the current issue of the Financial Analysts Journal would argue that they do not. He goes on to make the case that the enormity of the fees as a percentage makes the 2% and 20% that many hedge funds charge seem reasonable in comparison. His rationale is thus. Assume an S&P 500 Index Fund achieves in a year a total return of 36% and charges investment management fees of 5 basis points (0.05%). Assume your other investment is Mick the Bookie’s Select Investment Fund which had a total return of 41% over the same period and charges 85 basis points (0.85%). Your incremental return is 500 basis points (5%) for which you paid an extra 80 basis points (0.80%). Ellis would argue, and I believe correctly so, that your incremental fee for achieving that excess return was SIXTEEN PER CENT. And don’t forget that the money that went into the account to begin with was already your money that you had earned.

So, one question that I hear coming is – the outside trustees or directors have to approve fees annually and they wouldn’t do it if it was not fair and reasonable, especially given the returns. Answer #1 – eighty per cent of the time the active manager does not beat the benchmark and achieve an excess return. Answer #2 – the 20% of the time when the active manager beats the return, it is not on a sustainable basis, but rather almost random. Answer #3 – rarely does the investor actually get a benchmark beating return because he or she moves their investments too frequently to even achieve the performance numbers advertised by the investment management firm. Answer #4 – all too rarely do the outside trustees or directors have an aligned vested interest in the fee question (a) because in most instances they have at best a de minimis investment in the fund or funds that they are overseeing and (b) oddly enough the outside trustees or directors often have more of a vested interest in the success of the investment management company. Growth and profitability there will lead to increases in their fees.

So you say, I must be getting something of value for the incremental fees at those times when the investment returns don’t justify the added expense? Well, sadly, if recent history is any guide, the kinds of things you have gotten for such excess incremental fees include things like vicarious interests in yachts and sports cars; race horses in Lexington, Kentucky; and multiple homes and pent houses on the lake front in the greater Chicago area. I could go on and on in a similar vein. Rather than outperforming benchmarks or making money for investors, the primary goal has morphed to the creation and accumulation of substantial personal wealth, often to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

To paraphrase Don Corleone in that scene in New York City where he says to the heads of the Five Families, “How did we let things go so far?” I don’t have a good answer for that. I suspect that the painlessness of fee extraction explains part of it. Having had the present administration in Washington serving in the role of defender of Middle Class America, one has to wonder why they have allowed the savings and investments of the Middle Class to effectively be clipped by dollars and cents every month. What has happened is one of the great hidden wealth transfers in our society, similar to what happens when hackers get into a bank computer and start skimming fractions of cents from millions of transactions. It is not solely the administration’s fault however, as neither the regulators nor the courts have wanted to clean up the fee mess. Everyone really wants to believe that there is a Santa Claus, or more appropriately, a Horatio Alger ending to the story.

One might hope that financial publications such as Morningstar, would through their media outlets as well as their conferences, address the subject of fees and their excessive nature. Certainly when they first started with their primary conference at the Grand Hyatt at Illinois Center in Chicago, there was a decided tilt to the content and substance that favored and indeed championed the small investor. However, since then in terms of content the current big Morningstar conference here has taken on more of an industry tilt or bias.

Why do I keep harping on this subject? For this reason – mutual fund investors cannot negotiate their own fees. Institutional investors can, and corporate and endowment investors do just that, every day. And often, their fee agreements with the investment manager will have a “most favored nation” clause, which means if someone else in the institutional world with a similar amount of assets negotiates a lower fee agreement with that investment firm the existing clients get the benefit of it. If you sit in enough presentations from fund managers, it becomes obvious that, public industry statements notwithstanding, in many instances the mutual fund business (and the small investor) is being used as the cash cow that subsidizes the institutional business.

Remember, expenses matter as they lessen the compounding ability of your investment. That in turn keeps the investment from growing as much as it should have over a period of time. With interest rates and tax rates where they are, it is hard enough to compound at a required rate to meet future accumulation targets without having even further degradation occur from the impact of high fees. Rule Number One of investing is “Don’t lose money” and Rule Number Two is “Don’t forget Rule Number One.” However, Rule Number Three is “Keep the expenses low to maximize the compounding effect.”

From Russia, with Love

While journalist Brett Arends bravely offered to explain “Why I’m going to invest in the Russian stock market” – roughly, Russian stocks are cheap and Putin couldn’t be that crazy, right? – a whole series of Russia-oriented funds have amended their statements of principal risks to include potential financial warfare:

SSgA Emerging Markets (SSEMX)

In response to recent political and military actions undertaken by Russia, the United States and European Union have instituted numerous sanctions against certain Russian officials and Bank Rossiya. These sanctions, and other intergovernmental actions that may be undertaken against Russia in the future, may result in the devaluation of Russian currency, a downgrade in the country’s credit rating, and a decline in the value and liquidity of Russian stocks. These sanctions could result in the immediate freeze of Russian securities, impairing the ability of the Fund to buy, sell, receive or deliver those securities. Retaliatory action by the Russian government could involve the seizure of U.S. and/or European residents’ assets and any such actions are likely to impair the value and liquidity of such assets. Any or all of these potential results could push Russia’s economy into a recession. These sanctions, and the continued disruption of the Russian economy, could have a negative effect on the performance of funds that have significant exposure to Russia, including the Fund.

SPDR BofA Merrill Lynch Emerging Markets Corporate Bond ETF (EMCD) uses the same language, apparently someone was sharing drafts.

iShares MSCI Russia Capped ETF (ERUS) posits similar concerns:

The United States and the European Union have imposed economic sanctions on certain Russian individuals and a financial institution. The United States or the European Union could also institute broader sanctions on Russia. These sanctions, or even the threat of further sanctions, may result in the decline of the value and liquidity of Russian securities, a weakening of the ruble or other adverse consequences to the Russian economy. These sanctions could also result in the immediate freeze of Russian securities, impairing the ability of the Fund to buy, sell, receive or deliver those securities. Sanctions could also result in Russia taking counter measures or retaliatory actions which may further impair the value and liquidity of Russian securities.

ING Russia Fund (LETRX) adds the prospect that they might not be able to honor redemption requests:

… the sanctions may require the Fund to freeze its existing investments in Russian companies, prohibiting the Fund from selling or otherwise transacting in these investments. This could impact the Fund’s ability to sell securities or other financial instruments as needed to meet shareholder redemptions. The Fund could seek to suspend redemptions in the event that an emergency exists in which it is not reasonably practicable for the Fund to dispose of its securities or to determine the value of its net assets.

I’ve continued my regular investments in two diversified emerging markets funds whose managers have earned my trust: Andrew Foster at Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX) and Robert Gardiner at Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities (GPEOX). I don’t think I have nearly the expertise needed to run toward that particular fire, nor to know when it’s gotten too hot. I wish Mr. Arends well, but would advise others to consider finding a manager whose experience and judgment is tested and true.

Here’s my rule of thumb: Avoid rules of thumb at all costs

The folks on our discussion board have posted links to two “rule of thumb” articles about investing. Just a quick word on why they’re horrifying.

Rule One: You need to invest $82.28 a day! 

The story comes from USA Today, by way of Lifehacker. “Want to live well in old age? You’d better get cracking: $82.28 a day to be exact.”

That’s $29,000 a year. Cool! That’s just $1000 more than the average per capita income in the US! In fairness, though, it’s just 54% of the median family income: $53,046. So here’s the advice: if you’re living paycheck-to-paycheck, remember to set aside 54% of your income. BankRate.com, by the way, advises you to invest 10%. Why 10%? Presumably because it’s a nice round number.

Rule Two: Your age should be your bond allocation!

More of the same: where to put it? Your bond allocation should be equal to your age, which Lifehacker shares from Bankrate.com. But why is this a good rule of thumb? Like “remember to drink eight glasses of water each day,” it’s catchy and memorable but I’ve seen no research that validates it.

Forbes magazine places it #1 on its list of “10 Terrible Pieces of Investment Advice.” Fund companies flatly reject it in their own retirement planning products. The target-date 2030 funds are designed for folks about 50; that is, people who might retire in 15 years or so. If this advice were sound, some or all of those funds would have 50% in bonds. They don’t. T. Rowe Price Retirement 2030 is 16% bonds, American Funds is 10%, Fidelity is 12%, TIAA-CREF is 21% and Vanguard 20%. JPMorgan (23%) and BlackRock (30-33%) seem to represent the high end.

Especially at the end of a three decade bull market in bonds, we owe it to ourselves and our readers to be particularly thoughtful about quick ‘n’ easy advice.

I’m sorry, they paid Gabelli what?

The folks are MFWire did a nice, nearly snarky story on The Mario’s most recent payday. (I’m Sorry, They Paid Gabelli What?). I’ll share the intro and suggest that you read one of the two linked stories:

Mario Gabelli made $85 million in salary in 2013.

That’s one eighth the global domestic product of Somoa.

According to USA Today, the GAMCO founder, chief executive and investment officer was paid not only $85 million last year, but his three-year total compensation came to over $215 million.

No wonder he looks like that.

Morningstar Goes on Autopilot

On April 23^rd, Morningstar’s Five-Star Investor feature trumpeted “9 Core Funds That Beat the Market,” which they might reasonably have subtitled “Small funds need not apply.”

Morningstar highlights nine funds in the article, with assets up to $101 billion. Those are drawn from a list of 28 that made the cut. Of those 28, one has under a billion in assets.

The key to making the cut: Morningstar must designate it a “core” fund, a category for which there are no hard-and-fast rules. They’re generally large cap and generally diversified, but also fairly large. There’s only one free-standing fund with under $250 million in assets that they think of as “core.”

There are a lot of “core” funds under $250 million but that occurs only when they’re part of a target-date suite: Fidelity Retirement 2090 might have only $12 in it but it becomes “core” because the whole Fido series is core.

Morningstar’s implied judgments (“we don’t trust anyone over 30 or with under a billion in assets”) might be fair, but would be fairer if more explicit.

They followed that up with a list of 4 Medalist Ideas for Long-Short Strategies.”Some of the funds we like in this area are Robeco Boston Partners Long/Short Equity, Robeco Boston Partners Research Fund, MainStay Marketfield, and Wasatch Long/Short.”

I’d describe those as Long-Closed, Recently-Closed, Bloated (they had $1 billion three years ago and $21 billion today; trailing 12 month performance is exactly mediocre which might be a blip or might be the effects of the $11 billion they picked up last year) and Very Solid, respectively.

Russel Kinnel finished the month by asking “How Bloated is your Fund?” He calculates a “bloat ratio” which “tries to find out how much a fund trades and how liquid its holdings are. It multiplies turnover by the average day’s trading volume of a fund’s holdings (asset-weighted).” At base, Russel’s assumption is that the only cost of bloat is a loss of the ability to trade quickly in and out of stocks.

With due respect, that seems silly. As assets grow, fund managers necessarily target the sorts of stocks that they can trade and begin avoiding the ones that they can’t. If your fund’s size constrains you to invest mostly in stocks worth $10 billion or more (the upper end of the mid-cap range), your investable universe is just 420 stocks. You may trade those 420 effectively, but you’re not longer capable of benefiting from the 6360 stocks at below $10 billion.

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds. Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds. “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve.

Martin Focused Value (MFVRX): it’s easy for us to get stodgy as we age; to become sure that whatever we did back then is quite exactly what we should be doing today. Frank Martin, who has been doing this stuff for 40 years, could certainly be excused if he did stick with the tried and true. But he hasn’t. There’s clear evidence that this absolute value equity investor has been grappling with new ideas and new evidence, and they’ve led him to construct his portfolio around the notion of “an antifragile dumbbell” (with insights credited to Nassim Talib). His argument, as much as his fund, are worth your attention.

Conference Call Upcoming

We’re toying with the possibility of talking with Dr. Ian Mortimer (Oxford, no less) and Matt Page of Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators (IWIRX), which targets investments in firms that are demonstrably engaged in creative thinking and are demonstrably beginning from it. They appear to be the single best performer in Lipper’s global growth category and we know from our work on Guinness Atkinson Inflation-Managed Dividend (GAINX) that they’re awfully bright and articulate. Both of their funds have small asset bases, distinctive and rigorous disciplines and splendid performance. The hang-up is the time difference between here and London; our normal nighttime slot (7:00 Eastern) would be midnight for them. Hmmm … we’ll work on it.

Launch Alert

It says something regrettable about the industry that Morningstar reports 156 new funds since mid-March, of which 153 are new share classes of older funds, one is Artisan Global High Income (ARTFX) and two aren’t terribly interesting. We’ll keep looking… Found another worth noting, just launched 4/28: Whitebox Tactical Income (WBIVX/WBINX).

Funds in Registration

Funds currently in registration with the SEC will generally be available for purchase around the end of June, 2014. Our dauntless research associate David Welsch tracked down 17 new no-load funds in registration this month. There are several intriguing possibilities:

Catalyst added substantially to their collection of quirky funds (uhhh … Small Cap Insider Buying (CTVAX) might be a decent example) with the registration of five more funds, of which three (Catalyst Absolute Total Return, Catalyst/Stone Beach Income Opportunity and Catalyst/Groesbeck Aggressive Growth Funds) will be sub-advised by folks with strong documented performance records.

LSV GLOBAL Managed Volatility Fund will follow the recent vogue for investing in low-volatility stocks. The fund gains credibility from the pedigree of its managers (“L” is a particularly renowned academic who was one of the path-breaking researchers in behavioral finance) and by the strength of the other four LSV funds (all three of the rated funds have earned four stars, though tend toward high volatility).

North Star Bond Fund will invest primarily in the bonds, convertible securities and (potentially) equities issued by small cap companies. I’m not sure that I know of any other fund with that specialization. The management team includes North Star’s microcap and opportunistic equity managers. Their equity funds have had very solid performance in not-quite three years of operation (though I’m a bit puzzled by Morningstar’s assignment of the North Star Opportunity fund to the “aggressive allocation” category given its high stock exposure). In any case, this strikes me as an interesting idea and we’re apt to follow up in the months after launch.

All of the new registrants are available on the May Funds in Registration page.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 52 sets of fund manager changes. The most intriguing of those include the exit of Stephen and Samuel Lieber, Alpine Woods founders and Alpine Small Cap’s founding managers, from Alpine Small Cap (ADIAX) and Chuck McQuaid’s long-anticipated departure from Columbia Acorn (ACRNX).

Active share updates

“Active share” is a measure of the degree to which a fund’s portfolio differs from what’s in its benchmark index. Researchers have found that active share is an important predictor of a fund’s future performance. Highly active fund are more like to outperform their benchmarks than are index funds (which should never outperform the index itself) or “closet index” funds which charge for active management but really only play around the edges of an indexed portfolio.

In March, we began publishing a list of active share data for as many funds as we could. And the same time, we asked folks to share data for any funds that we’d missed. We’re maintaining a master list of all funds, which you can get to by clicking on our Resources tab:

Each month we try to update our list with new funds submitted by our readers. This month folks shared seven more data reports:

Fund	Ticker	Active share	Benchmark	Stocks
LG Masters International	MSILX	89.9	MSCI EAFE	90
LG Masters Smaller Companies	MSSFX	98.2	Russell 2000	52
LG Masters Equity	MSEFX	84.2%	Russell 3000	85
Third Avenue Value	TAVFX	98.1	MSCI World	37
Third Avenue International Value	TAVIX	97.0	MSCI World ex US	34
Third Avenue Small Cap Value	TASCX	94.3	Russell 2000 Value	37
Third Avenue Real Estate	TAREX	91.1	FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed	31

Thanks to jlev, one of the members of the Observer’s discussion community and Mike P from Litman Gregory for sharing these leads with us. Couldn’t do it without you!

The return of Jonathan Clements

Jonathan Clements had an interesting valedictory column when he left The Wall Street Journal. He said he had about three messages for his readers and he’d repackaged them into 1008 columns: “Forget spending more money at the mall — and instead spend more time with friends. Your bank account may still be skimpy, but your life will be far, far richer.”

Apparently he’s found either a fourth message to share, or renewed passion for the first three, because he returned to the Journal in April. Oddly, his work appears only on Sundays and only online; he doesn’t even use a Dow Jones email address. When I asked him about the plan, he noted:

I didn’t want a fulltime position with the WSJ again, at least not at this juncture. The column gives a little variety to my week. But most of my time is currently devoted to a new personal-finance book. The book is a huge undertaking, and it wouldn’t be possible if I was fulltime at the WSJ.

He’s written several really solid columns (on the importance of saving even in a zero-interest environment and on the role of dividend funds in a retirement portfolio) and has a useful website that shares personal finance resources and works to dispel the rumor that he’s an accomplished writer of erotica. (Really.)

On whole, I’m glad he’s back.

MFO in the news!

Indeed

The English-language version of the article by Javier Espinosa, “Travel Guide: Do Acronyms Aid ‘Emerging’ Investing?” ran on April 7^th but lacked the panache of the Malay version.

MFO on the road

For those of you interested in dropping by and saying “hi,” we’ll be present at a couple conferences this summer.

 

I’ve been asked to provide the keynote address at the Cohen Client Conference, August 20 – 21, 2014. The conference, in Milwaukee, is run by Cohen Fund Audit Services. This will be Cohen’s third annual client conference. Last year’s version, in Cleveland OH, drew about 100 clients from 23 states.

Cohen offers the conference as a way of helping fund professionals – directors, compliance officers, tax and accounting guys, operating officers and the occasional curious hedge fund manager –develop both professional competence and connections within the fund community. Which is to say, the Cohen folks promised that there would be both serious engagement – staff presentations, panels by industry experts, audience interaction – and opportunities for fellowshipping. (My first, unworthy impulse is to drive a bunch of compliance officers over to Horny Goat Brewing, buy a round or two, then get them to admit that they’re making stuff up as they go.)

The good and serious folks at Cohen want to offer fund professionals help with fund operations, accounting, governance, tax, legal and compliance updates, and sales, marketing and distribution best practices.

And they want me to say something interesting and useful for 45 minutes or so. Hmmm … so here’s a request for assistance. Many of you folks work in the industry (I don’t) and all of you know the sorts of stuff I talk about. What do you think I could say that would most help someone trying to be a good fund trustee or operations professional? Drop me a line through this link, please!

For more information about the conference itself, you can contact

Chris Bellamy, 216-649-1701 or cbellamy@cohenfund.com or

Megan Howell, 216-774-1145 or mhowell@cohenfund.com.

They’d love to hear from you. So would I.

We’ll also spend three full days in and around the Morningstar Investment Conference, June 18 – 20, in Chicago. We try to divide our time there into thirds: interviewing fund managers and talking to fund reps, listening to presentations by famous guys, and building our network of connections by spending time with readers, friends and colleagues. If you’d like to connect with us somewhere in the bowels of McCormick Place, just let me know.

Briefly Noted . . .

Interesting developments in the neighborhood of Gator Focus Fund and Gator Opportunities Fund. At the end of February, Brad W. Olecki and Michael Parks resigned from their positions as Trustees of the Trust. No new Trustees have been appointed. On the same date Andres Sandate resigned from his position as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Trust.

Do recall that, for reasons that continue to elude me, ING Funds have been rebranded as Voya Funds.

LS Opportunity Fund (LSOFX) just reclassified itself from “diversified” to “non-diversified.” It’s not clear why or what effect that will have on its 100 stock portfolio.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

IMS Capital Management is reorganizing three of its funds (IMS Capital Value,Strategic Income Fund, and Dividend Growth funds) into a new series of the 360 funds. I’m guessing they’ll be rebranded and the advisor is guessing that the reorganization will result in lower administration, fund accounting and transfer agency costs.” With luck, those savings will be passed along to investors.

Effective immediately, the Leader Total Return Fund (LCTRX) has discontinued the redemption fee.

Vanguard has decreased, generally by one basis point, the expense ratios on seven of its ETFs include Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND), Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (VEA), Vanguard Value ETF (VTV), Vanguard Growth ETF (VUG), Vanguard Small-Cap ETF (VB) and a couple others

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

First Eagle Overseas Fund (SGOVX) will close to new investors on May 9, 2014. Good fund but with $15 billion in AUM, its best days might be in the past.

Grandeur Peak Global Reach (GPROX) closed on April 30^th. That closure was the subject of our first mid-month alert to readers, which we sent to 4800 of you about 10 days before the closure was effective. We heard back from four readers who said that the information was useful to them. My hope is that we didn’t overly annoy the other 99.9% of recipients.

On May 9, 2014, the Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund (WAFMX) will close to new investors. Wasatch avers that it “takes fund capacity very seriously. We monitor assets in each of our funds carefully and commit to shareholders to close funds before asset levels rise to a point that would alter our intended investment strategy.” At $1.2 billion with investments in Nigeria, Kuwait and Kenya, it seems like a prudent move for a fund with top decile returns. (Thanks to JimJ on the Observer’s discussion board for timely notice of the closing.)

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Bridgehampton Value Strategies Fund (BVSFX) is being rebranded as the Tocqueville Alternative Strategies Fund. Same management and a “substantially similar” strategy but lower expenses for investors. The change becomes effective on June 27, 2014. Looks like a pretty decent fund.

The Board of John Hancock Rainier Growth Fund decided to axe Rainier and hire Baillie Gifford to manage it. As of mid-April, it was rechristened as JHancock Select Growth Fund (RGROX).

 Neuberger Berman Dynamic Real Return Fund (NDRAX) becomes Neuberger Berman Inflation Navigator Fund on June 2.

Hansberger International Growth Fund is being reorganized into the Madison Fund.

On June 2, 2014, Neuberger Berman International Select Fund changed its name from Neuberger Berman International Large Cap Fund. Two year record, slightly below-average returns and absolutely no investor interest.

Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Income Fund’s name has changed to Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Fund.

Effective on May 1, 2014, Parnassus Equity Income Fund (PRBLX) became Parnassus Core Equity Fund while Parnassus Workplace Fund (PARWX) became Parnassus Endeavor. There were no changes to management, strategy or fees.

Effective December 29, 2014, the T. Rowe Price Retirement Income Fund (TRRIX) will change its name to the T. Rowe Price Retirement Balanced Fund. It’s a really solid fund but with 40% of its portfolio in equities, it’s probably not what most folks think of as a “retirement income” fund.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Ever wonder why it’s “The Dustbin of History”? It’s Leon Trotsky’s dismissal of the Menshevik revolutionaries, who he saw as failed agents: “You are pitiful, isolated individuals. You are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on – in the dustbin of history!” It was in Russian, of course, so translations vary (occasional “the trash heap of history”) but the spirit is there.

CMG SR Tactical Bond Fund (CMGTX/CMGOX) liquidated on April 29, 2014. Nope, I’d never heard of it either.

The Board of Directors of Nomura Partners Funds approved the merger of The Japan Fund (NPJAX) into Matthews Japan (MJFOX), effective in late July, 2014. Japan Fund has sort of bounced from adviser to adviser over the years and is more the victim of Nomura’s decision to get out of the U.S. fund business than of crippling incompetence. The investors are getting a stronger fund with lower expenses, with the merger boosting MJFOX’s size by about 30%.

Morgan Stanley Institutional Total Emerging Markets Portfolio (MTEPX) will liquidate on May 30, 2014.

Principal intends to merge Principal Large Cap Value Fund I (PVUAX) into the Large Cap Value Fund III (PESAX). Shareholders are scheduled to rubbersta vote on the proposal at the end of May. Neither fund is particularly attractive, but the dying fund actually has the stronger record of the two.

On April 17, 2014, Turner’s Board of Trustees decided ed to close and liquidate the Turner Market Neutral Fund (TMNFX) on or about June 1, 2014. Three stars but also $3 million in assets. Sadly the performance was decent and steadily improving.

Vanguard continues with its surprising shakeup. It has decided to merge Vanguard Tax-Managed Growth and Income Fund (VTMIX) into Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFISX) on about May 16, 2014. Why surprising? VTMIX has over $3 billion in assets, 0.08% expenses, a “Gold” analyst rating and four stars, which are not usually characteristics associated with descendent funds. Vanguard is looking to lower investor expenses (by about three basis points in this case) and simplify their line-up. On an after-tax basis, it looks like investors will gain two basis points in returns.

World Commodity Fund (WCOMX) has closed and will liquidate on May 26, 2014. It’s got rather less than a million in the portfolio and has, over the course of its seven-and-a-half year life, managed to turn a $10,000 initial investment into $10,120 which averages out to rather less than 0.10% per year. That saddest part? That’s not nearly the worst record, at least over the past five years, in either the “natural resources equity” or “broad commodities” groups.

 

In Closing . . .

Thanks to folks who’ve been supporting MFO financially, with a special tip of the cap to Capt. Neel (thank you, sir) and the Right Reverend Rick (I’m guided here by Luke: “In every way and everywhere we accept this with all gratitude”).

Especially for the benefit of the 6000 first-time readers we see each month, if you’re inclined to support the Observer, the easiest way is to use the Observer’s Amazon link. The system is simple, automatic, and painless. We receive an amount equivalent to about 7% of the value of almost anything you purchase through our Amazon link (used books, Kindle downloads, groceries, sunscreen, power tools, pool toys …). You might choose to set it as a bookmark or, in my case, you might choose to have one of your tabs open in Amazon whenever you launch your browser. Some purchases generate a dime, some generate $10-12 and all help keep the lights on!

June: the month for income. With the return of summer turbulence and Janet Yellen’s insistent dovishness about rates, we thought we’d take some time to look at four new funds that promise high income and managed volatility:

Artisan High Income (ARTFX) run by former Ivy High Income manager Bryan Krug. The fund has drawn $76 million in its first six weeks.

Dodge & Cox Global Bond, which went live on May 1.

RiverNorth Oaktree High Income (RNOTX), which combines RiverNorth’s distinctive CEF strategy with Oaktree’s first-rate institutional income one.

(maybe) West Shore Real Asset Income (AWSFX) which combines an equity-oriented income strategy with substantial exposure to alternative investments. We’ve had a couple readers ask, and we’ve been trying to learn enough to earn an opinion but it’s a bit challenging.

We’ve also scheduled a conversation with the folks at Arrowpoint, adviser to the new Meridian Small Cap Growth Fund (MSGAX) which is run by former Janus Triton managers Brian Schaub and Chad Meade.

As ever.

By David Snowball

Dear friends,

I love language, in both its ability to clarify and to mystify.

Take the phrase “think outside the box.”  You’ve heard it more times than you’d care to count but have you ever stopped to wonder: what box are they talking about?  Maybe someone invented it for good reason, so perhaps you should avoid breaking the box?

In point of fact, it’s this box:

Here’s the challenge that lies behind the aphorism: link all nine dots using four straight lines or fewer, without lifting the pen and without tracing the same line more than once.  There are only two ways to accomplish the feat: (1) rearrange the dots, which is obviously cheating, and (2) work outside the box.  For example:

As we interviewed managers this month, Ed Studzinski, they and I got to talking about investors’ perspectives on the future.  In one camp there are the “glass half-full” guys. Dale Harvey of Poplar Forest Partners Fund (PFPFX) allowed, for example, that there may come a time to panic about the stock market, but it’s not now. He looks at three indicators and finds them all pretty green:

1. His ability to find good investment ideas.  He’s still finding opportunities to add positions to the fund.
2. What’s going on with the Fed? “Don’t fight the Fed” is an axiom for good reason, he notes.  They’ve just slowing the rate of stimulus, not slowing the economy.  You get plenty of advance notice when they really want to start applying the brakes.
3. What’s going on with investor attitudes?  Folks aren’t all whipped-up about stocks, though there are isolated “story” stocks that folks are irrational over.

Against those folks are the “glass half-empty” guys.  Some of those guys are calling the alarm; others stoically endure that leaden feeling in the pit of their stomachs that comes from knowing they’ve seen this show before and it never ends well. By way of illustration:

1. The Leuthold Group believes that large cap stocks are more than 25% overvalued, small caps much more than that, that there could be a substantial correction and that corrections overshoot, so a 40% drop is not inconceivable.
2. Jeremy Grantham of GMO places the market at 65% overvalued. Fortunately, according to a Barron’s interview, it won’t become “a true bubble” until it inflates 30% more and individual investors, still skittish, become “gung-ho.”
3. Mark Hulbert notes that “true insider” stock sales have reached their highest level in a quarter century.  Hulbert notes that insider selling isn’t usually predictive because the term “insider” encompasses both true insiders (directors, presidents, founders, operating officers) and legal insides (any investor who controls more than 5% of the stock).  It turns out that “true” insider selling is predictive of a stock market fall a couple quarters later.  He makes his argument in two similar, but not quite identical, articles in Barron’s and MarketWatch.  (Go read them.)

And me, you ask?  I guess I’m neither quite a glass half full nor a glass half empty sort of investor.  I’m closer to a “don’t drop the glass!” guy.  My non-retirement portfolio remains about where it always is (25% US stocks with a value bias, 25% international stocks with a small/emerging bias, 50% income) and it’s all funded on auto-pilot.  I didn’t lose a mint in ’08, I didn’t make a mint in ’13 and I spend more time thinking about my son’s average (the season starts in the first week of April and he’ll either be on the mound or at second) than about the Dow’s.

“Judge Our Performance Over a Full Market Cycle”

Uh huh! Be careful of what you wish for, Bub. Charles did just check your performance across full market cycles, and it’s not as pretty as you’d like. Here are his data-rich findings:

Ten Market Cycles

In response to the article In Search of Persistence, published in our January commentary, NumbersGirl posted the following on the MFO board:

I am not enamored of using rolling 3-year returns to assess persistence.

A 3-year time period will often be all up or all down. If a fund manager has an investing personality or philosophy then I would expect strong relative performance in a rising market to be negatively correlated with poor relative performance in a falling market, etc.

It seems to me that the best way to measure persistence is over 1 (or better yet more) market cycles.

There followed good discussion about pros and cons of such an assessment, including lack of consistent definition of what constitutes a market cycle.

Echoing her suggestion, fund managers also often ask to be judged “over full cycle” when comparing performance against their peers.

A quick search of literature (eg., Standard & Poor’s Surviving a Bear Market and Doug Short’s Bear Markets in the S&P since 1950) shows that bear markets are generally “defined as a drop of 20% or more from the market’s previous high.” Here’s how the folks at Steele Mutual Fund Expert define a cycle:

Full-Cycle Return: A full cycle return includes a consecutive bull and bear market return cycle.

Up-Market Return (Bull Market): A Bull market in stocks is defined as a 20% rise in the S&P 500 Index from its previous trough, ending when the index reaches its peak and subsequently declines by 20%.

Down-Market Return (Bear Market): A Bear market in stocks is defined as a 20% decline in the S&P 500 Index from its previous peak, and ends when the index reaches its trough and subsequently rises by 20%.

Applying this definition to the SP500 intraday price index indicates there have indeed been ten such cycles, including the current one still in process, since 1956:

The returns shown are based on price only, so exclude dividends. Note that the average duration seems to match-up pretty well with so-called “short term debt cycle” (aka business cycle) described by Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio in the charming How the Economic Machine Works – In 30 Minutes video.

Here’s break-out of bear and bull markets:

The graph below depicts the ten cycles. To provide some historic context, various events are time-lined – some good, but more bad. Return is on left axis, measured from start of cycle, so each builds where previous left off. Short-term interest rate is on right axis.

Note that each cycle resulted in a new all-time market high, which seems rather extraordinary. There were spectacular gains for the 1980 and 1990 bull markets, the latter being 427% trough-to-peak! (And folks worry lately that they may have missed-out on the current bull with its 177% gain.) Seeing the resiliency of the US market, it’s no wonder people like Warren Buffett advocate a buy-and-hold approach to investing, despite the painful -50% or more drawdowns, which have occurred three times over the period shown.

Having now defined the market cycles, which for this assessment applies principally to US stocks, we can revisit the question of mutual fund persistence (or lack of) across them.

Based on the same methodology used to determine MFO rankings, the chart below depicts results across nine cycles since 1962:

Blue indicates top quintile performance, while red indicates bottom quintile. The rankings are based on risk adjusted return, specifically Martin ratio, over each full cycle. Funds are compared against all other funds in the peer group. The number of funds was rather small back in 1962, but in the later cycles, these same funds are competing against literally hundreds of peers.

(Couple qualifiers: The mural does not account for survivorship-bias or style drift. Cycle performance is determined using monthly total returns, including any loads, between the peak-to-peak dates listed above, with one exception…our database starts Jan 62 and not Dec 61.)

Not unexpectedly, the result is similar to previous studies (eg., S&P Persistence Scorecard) showing persistence is elusive at best in the mutual fund business. None of the 45 original funds in four categories delivered top-peer performance across all cycles – none even came close.

Looking at the cycles from 1973, a time when several now well know funds became established, reveals a similar lack of persistence – although one or two come close to breaking the norm. Here is a look at some of the top performing names:

MFO Great Owls Mairs & Powers Balanced (MAPOX) and Vanguard Wellington (VWELX) have enjoyed superior returns the last three cycles, but not so much in the first. The reverse is true for legendary Fidelity Magellan (FMAGX).

Even a fund that comes about as close to perfection as possible, Sequoia (SEQUX), swooned in the late ‘90s relative to other growth funds, like Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX), resulting in underperformance for the cycle. The table below details the risk and return metrics across each cycle for SEQUX, showing the -30% drawdown in early 2000, which marked the beginning of the tech bubble. In the next couple years, many other growth funds would do much worse.

So, while each cycle may rhyme, they are different, and even the best managed funds will inevitably spend some time in the barrel, if not fall from favor forever.

We will look to incorporate full-cycle performance data in the single-ticker MFO Risk Profile search tool. As suggested by NumbersGirl, it’s an important piece of due diligence and risk cognizance for all mutual fund investors.

26Mar14/Charles

Celebrating one-star funds, part 2!

Morningstar faithfully describes their iconic star ratings as a starting place for additional research, not as a one-stop judgment of a funds merit.  As a practical matter investors do use those star ratings as part of a two-step research process:

Step One: Eliminate those one- and two-star losers

Step Two: Browse the rest

In general, there are worse strategies you could follow. Nonetheless, the star ratings can seriously misrepresent the merits of individual funds.  If a fund is fundamentally misfit to its category (in March we highlighted the plight of short-term high income funds within the high-yield peer group) or if a fund is highly risk averse, there’s an unusually large chance that its star rating will conceal more than it will reveal.  After a long statistical analysis, my colleague Charles concluded in last month’s issue that:

 A consequence of Morningstar’s methodology is that low volatility funds with below average returns can quite possibly be out-ranked by average volatility funds with average returns. Put another way, the methodology generally penalizes funds with high volatility more so than it rewards funds with low volatility.

The Observer categorizes funds differently: our Great Owl funds are those whose risk-adjusted returns are in the top 20% of their peer group for every measurement period longer than one year.  Our risk-adjustment is based on a fund’s Martin ratio which “excels at identifying funds that have delivered superior returns while mitigating drawdowns.”  At base, we’ve made the judgment that investors are more sensitive to the size of a fund’s drawdown – its maximum peak to trough loss – than to the background noise of day-to-day volatility.  As a result, we reward funds that provide good returns while avoiding disastrous losses.

For those interested in a second opinion, here’s the list of all one-star Great Owl funds:

• American Century One Choice 2035 A (ARYAX)
• Aquila Three Peaks High Income A (ATPAX)
• ASTON/River Road Independent Value (ARIVX)
• BlackRock Allocation Target Shares (BRASX)
• Dividend Plus Income (MAIPX)
• Fidelity Freedom Index 2000 (FGIFX)
• Intrepid Income (ICMUX)
• Invesco Balanced-Risk Retire 2030 (TNAAX)
• Invesco Balanced-Risk Retire 2040 (TNDAX)
• Invesco Balanced-Risk Retire 2050 (TNEAX)
• PIMCO 7-15 Year U.S. Treasury Index ETF (TENZ)
• PIMCO Broad U.S. Treasury Index ETF (TRSY)
• RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX)
• Schwab Monthly Income Max Payout (SWLRX)
• SEI New Jersey Municipal Bond A (SENJX)
• SPDR Nuveen S&P VRDO Municipal Bond (VRD)
• Symons Value (SAVIX)
• Weitz Nebraska Tax-Free Income (WNTFX)
• Wells Fargo Advantage Dow Jones Target 2015 (WFQEX)
• Wells Fargo Advantage Short Term High-Yield Bond (STHBX)

Are we arguing that the Great Owl metric is intrinsically better than Morningstar’s?

Nope.  We do want to point out that every rating system contains biases, although we somehow pretend that they’re “purely objective.”  You need to understand that the fact that a fund’s biases don’t align with a rater’s preferences is not an indictment of the fund (any more than a five-star rating should be taken as an automatic endorsement of it).

Still waiting by the phone

Last month’s celebration of one-star funds took up John Rekenthaler’s challenge to propose new fund categories which were more sensible than the existing assignments and which didn’t cause “category bloat.”

Amiably enough, we suggested short-term high yield as an eminently sensible possibility.  It contains rather more than a dozen funds that act much more like aggressive short-term bond funds than like traditional high-yield bond funds, a category dominated by high-return, high-volatility funds with much longer durations.

So far, no calls of thanks and praise from the good folks in Chicago.  (sigh)

How about another try: emerging markets allocation, balanced or hybrid?  Morningstar’s own discipline is to separate pure stock funds (global or domestic) from stock-bond hybrid funds, except in the emerging markets.  Almost all of the dozen or so emerging markets hybrid funds are categorized as, and benchmarked against, pure equity funds.  Whether that advantages or disadvantages a hybrid fund at any given point isn’t the key; the question is whether it allows investors to accurately assess them.  The hybrid category is well worth a test.

Who’s watching the watchers?

Presidio Multi-Strategy Fund (PMSFX) will “discontinue operations” on April 10, 2014.  It’s a weird little fund with a portfolio about the size of my retirement account.  This isn’t the first time we’ve written about Presidio.  Presidio shared a board with Caritas All-Cap Growth (CTSAX, now Goodwood SMIDcap Discovery).   In July 2013, the Board decided to liquidate Caritas.  In August they reconsidered and turned both funds’ management over to Brenda Smith.  At that time, I expressed annoyance with their limited sense of responsibility:

The alternative? Hire Brenda A. Smith, founder of CV Investment Advisors, LLC, to manage the fund. A quick scan of SEC ADV filings shows that Ms. Smith is the principal in a two person firm with 10 or fewer clients and $5,000 in regulated AUM.

At almost the same moment, the same Board gave Ms. Smith charge of the failing Presidio Multi-Strategy Fund (PMSFX), an overpriced long/short fund that executes its strategy through ETFs.

I wish Ms. Smith and her new investors all the luck in the world, but it’s hard to see how a Board of Trustees could, with a straight face, decide to hand over one fund and resuscitate another with huge structural impediments on the promise of handing it off to a rookie manager and declare that both moves are in the best interests of long-suffering shareholders.

By October, she was gone from Caritas but she’s stayed with Presidio to the bitter end which looks something like this:

This isn’t just a note about a tiny, failed fund.  It’s a note about the Trustees of your fund boards.  Your representatives.  Your voice.  Their failures become your failures.  Their failures cause your failures.

Presidio was overseen by a rent-a-board (more politely called “a turnkey board”); a group of guys who nominally oversee dozens of unrelated funds but who have stakes in none of them.  Here’s a quick snapshot of this particular board:

First Name	Qualification	Aggregate investment in the 23 funds overseen
Jack	Retired president of Brinson Chevrolet, Tarboro NC	$0
Michael	President, Commercial Real Estate Services, Rocky Mount, NC	0
Theo	Senior Partner, Community Financial Institutions Consulting, a sole proprietorship in Rocky Mount, NC	0
James	President, North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance, “the diversity partner of choice for Fortune 500 companies”	0
J Buckley	President, Standard Insurance and Realty, Rocky Mount NC	0

The Board members are paid $2,000 per fund overseen and meet seven times a year.  The manager received rather more: “For the fiscal year ended May 31, 2013, Presidio Capital Investments, LLC received fees for its services to the Fund in the amount of $101,510,” for managing a $500,000 portfolio.

What other funds do they guide?  There are 22 of them:

• CV Asset Allocation Fund (CVASX);
• Arin Large Cap Theta Fund (AVOAX) managed by Arin Risk Advisors, LLC;
• Crescent Large Cap Macro, Mid Cap Macro and Strategic Income Funds managed by Greenwood Capital Associates, LLC;
• Horizons West Multi-Strategy Hedged Income Fund (HWCVX, formerly known as the Prophecy Alpha Trading Fund);
• Matisse Discounted Closed-End Fund Strategy (MDCAX) managed by Deschutes Portfolio Strategies;
• Roumell Opportunistic Value Fund (RAMVX) managed by Roumell Asset Management, LLC;
• The 11 RX funds (Dynamic Growth, Dynamic Total Return, Non Traditional, High Income, Traditional Equity, Traditional Fixed Income, Tactical Rotation, Tax Advantaged, Dividend Income, and Premier Managers);
• SCS Tactical Allocation Fund (SCSGX) managed by Sentinel Capital Solutions, Inc.;
• Sector Rotation Fund (NAVFX) managed by Navigator Money Management, Inc.; and
• Thornhill Strategic Equity Fund (TSEQX) managed by Thornhill Securities, Inc.

Oh, wait.  Not quite.  Crescent Mid Cap Macro (GCMIX) is “inactive.”  Thornhill Strategic Equity (TSEQX)?  No, that doesn’t seem to be trading either. Can’t find evidence that CV Asset Allocation ever launched. Right, right: the manager of Sector Rotation Fund (NAVFX) is under SEC sanction for “numerous misleading claims,” including reporting on the performance of the fund for periods in which the fund didn’t exist.

The bottom line: directors matter. Good directors can offer a manager access to skills, perspectives and networks that are far beyond his or her native abilities.  And good directors can put their collective foot down on matters of fees, bloat and lackluster performance.

Every one of your funds has a board of directors and you really need to ask just three questions about these guys:

1. What evidence is there that the directors are bringing a meaningful skill set to their post?
2. What evidence is there that the directors have executed serious oversight of the management team?
3. What evidence is there that the directors have aligned their interests with yours?

You need to look at two documents to answer those questions.  The first is the Statement of Additional Information (SAI) which is updated every time the prospectus is.  The SAI lists the board members’ qualifications, compensation, the number of funds each director oversees and the director’s investment in each of them. Here’s a general rule: if they’re overseeing dozens of funds and investing in none of them, back away.  There are some very good funds that use what I refer to as rent-a-boards as a matter of administrative convenience and financial efficiency, but the use of such boards weakens a critical safeguard.  If the board isn’t deeply invested, you need to see that the management team is.

The second document is called the Renewal of Investment Advisory Contract.  Boards are legally required to document their due diligence and to explain to you, the folks who elected them, exactly what they looked at and what they concluded.  These are sometimes freestanding documents but they’re more likely included as a section of the fund’s annual report. Look for errant nonsense, rationalizations and wishful thinking.  If you find it, run away!  Here’s an example of the discussion of fees charged by a one-star fund that trails 96-98% of its peers but charges a mint:

Fee Rate and Profitability – The Trustees considered that the Fund’s advisory fee is the highest in its peer group, while its expense ratio is the second highest. The Trustees considered [the manager’s] explanation that several funds included in the Fund’s peer group are passive index funds, which have extremely low fees because, unlike the Fund, they are not actively managed. The Trustees also considered [the] explanation that the growth strategy it uses to manage the Fund is extremely expensive and labor intensive because it involves reviewing and evaluating 8,000+ stocks four times a year.

Here’s the argument that the board bought: the fund has some of the highest fees in its industry but that’s okay because (1) you can’t expect us to be as cheap as an index fund and (2) we work hard, apparently unlike the 98% of funds that outperform us or charge less.

If you had an employee who was paid more and produced less than anyone else, what would you do?  Then ask: “and why didn’t my board do likewise?”

It’s The Money, Stupid!

By Edward Studzinski

“To be clever enough to get a great deal of money, one must be stupid enough to want it.”

G.K. Chesterton

There is a repetitive scene in the movie “Shakespeare in Love” – an actor and a director are reading through one of young Master Shakespeare’s newest plays, with the ink still drying.  The actor asks how a particular transition is to be made from one scene to the next.  The answer given is, “I don’t know – it’s a mystery.”  Much the same might be said for the process of setting and then regularly reviewing, mutual fund fees. One of my friends made the Long March with Morningstar’s Joe Mansueto from a cave deep in western China to what should now be known now as Morningstar Abbey in Chicago. She used to opine about how for commodity products like equity mutual funds, in a world of perfect competition if one believed economic theory as taught at the University of Chicago, it was rather odd that the clearing price for management fees, rather than continually coming down, seemed mired at one per cent. That comment was made almost twenty years ago. The fees still seem mired there.

One argument might be that you get what you pay for. Unfortunately many actively-managed equity funds that charge that approximately one per cent management fee lag their benchmarks. This presents the conundrum of how index funds charging five basis points (which Seth Klarman used to refer to as “mindless investing”) often regularly outperform the smart guys charging much more. The public airing of personality clashes at bond manager PIMCO makes for interesting reading in this area, but is not necessarily illuminating. For instance, allegedly the annual compensation for Bill Gross is $200M a year. However, much of that is arguably for his role in management at PIMCO, as co-chief investment officer. Some of it is for serving on a daily basis as the portfolio manager for however many funds his name is on as portfolio manager. Another piece of it might be tied to his ownership interest in the business.

The issue becomes even more confusing when you have similar, nay even almost identical, funds being managed by the same investment firm but coming through different channels, with different fees. The example to contrast here again is PIMCO and their funds with multiple share classes and different fees, and Harbor, a number of whose fixed income products are sub-advised by PIMCO and have lower fees for what appear, to the unvarnished eye, to be very similar products often managed by the same portfolio manager. A further variation on this theme can be seen when you have an equity manager running his own firm’s proprietary mutual fund for which he is charging ninety basis points in management fees while his firm is running a sleeve of another equity mutual fund for Vanguard, for which the firm is being paid a management fee somewhere between twenty and thirty basis points, usually with incentives tied to performance. And while the argument is often made that the funds may have different investment philosophies and strategies and a different portfolio manager, there is often a lot of overlap in the securities owned (using  the same research process and analysts).

So, let’s assume that active equity management fees are initially set by charging what everyone else is charging for similar products. One can see by looking at a prospectus, what a competitor is charging. And I can assure you that most investment managers have a pretty good idea as to who their competitors are, even if they may think they really do not have competitors. How do the fees stay at the same level, especially as, when assets under management grow there should be economies of scale?

Ah ha!  Now we reach a matter that is within the purview of the Board of Trustees for a fund or fund group. They must look at the reasonableness of the fees being charged in light of a number of variables, including investment philosophy and strategy, size of assets under management, performance, etc., etc., etc.  And perhaps a principal underpinning driving that annual review and sign-off is the peer list of funds for comparison.

Probably one of the most important assignments for a mutual fund executive, usually a chief financial officer, is (a) making sure that the right consulting firm is hired to put together the peer list of similar mutual funds and (b) confirming that the consulting firm understands their assignment. To use another movie analogy, there is a scene early on in “Animal House” where during pledge week, two of the main characters visit a fraternity house and upon entering, are immediately sent to sit on a couch off in a corner with what are clearly a small group of social outliers. Peer group identification often seems to involve finding a similar group of outliers on the equivalent of that couch.

Given the large number of funds out there, one identifies a similar universe with similar investment strategies, similar in size, but mirabile dictu, the group somehow manages to have similar or inferior performance with similar or higher fees and expenses. What to do, what to do?  Well of course, you fiddle with the break points so that above a certain size of assets under management in the fund, the fees are reduced. And you never have to deal with the issue that the real money is not in the break points but in fees that are too high to begin with. Perish the thought that one should use common sense and look at what Vanguard or Dodge and Cox are charging for base fees for similar products.

There is another lesson to be gained from the PIMCO story, and that is the issue of ownership structure. Here, you have an offshore owner like Allianz taking a hands-off attitude towards their investment in PIMCO, other than getting whatever revenue or income split it is they are getting. It would be an interesting analysis to see what the return on investment to Allianz has been for their original investment. It would also be interesting to see what the payback period was for earning back that original investment. And where lies the fiduciary obligation, especially to PIMCO clients and fund investors, in addition to Allianz shareholders?  But that is a story for another time.

How is any of this to be of use to mutual fund investors and readers of the Observer. I am showing my age, but Vice President Hubert Humphrey used to be nick-named the “Happy Warrior.” One of the things that has become clear to me recently as David and I interview managers who have set up their own firms after leaving the Dark Side, LOOK FOR THE HAPPY WARRIORS. For them, it is not the process of making money. They don’t need the money. Rather they are doing it for the love of investing.  And if nobody comes, they will still do it to manage their own money.  Avoid the ones for whom the money has become an addiction, a way of keeping score. For supplementary reading, I commend to all an article that appeared in the New York Sunday Times on January 19, 2014 entitled “For the Love of Money” by Sam Polk. As with many of my comments, I am giving all of you more work to do in the research process for managing your money. But you need to do it if you serious about investing.  And remember, character and integrity always show through.

And those who can’t teach, teach gym (part 2)

Beginning in 1997, the iconically odd-looking Jim Jubak wrote the wildly-popular “Jubak’s Picks” column for MSN Money.  In 2010, he apparently decided that investment management looked awfully easy and so launched his own fund.

Which stunk.  Over the three years of its existence, it’s trailed 99% of its peers.   And so the Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved a Plan of Liquidation which authorizes the termination, liquidation and dissolution of the Jubak Global Equity Fund (JUBAX). The Fund will be T, L, and D’d on or about May 29, 2014. (It’s my birthday!)

Here’s the picture of futility, with Mr. Jubak on the blue line and mediocrity represented by the orange one:

Yup, $16 million in assets – none of it representing capital gains.

Mr. Jubak joins a long list of pundits, seers, columnists, prognosticators and financial porn journalists who have discovered that a facility for writing about investments is an entirely separate matter from any ability to actually make money.

Among his confreres:

Robert C. Auer, founder of SBAuer Funds, LLC, was from 1996 to 2004, the lead stock market columnist for the Indianapolis Business Journal “Bulls & Bears” weekly column, authoring over 400 columns, which discussed a wide range of investment topics.  As manager of Auer Growth (AUERX), he’s turned a $10,000 investment into $8500 over the course of six years.

Jonathan Clements left a high visibility post at The Wall Street Journal to become Director of Financial Education, Citi Personal Wealth Management.  Sounds fancy.  Frankly, it looks like was relegated to “blogger.”  Mr. Clements recently announced his return to journalism, and the launch of a weekly column in the WSJ.

John Dorfman, a Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal columnist, launched Dorfman Value Fund which finally became Thunderstorm Value Fund (THUNX). Having concluded that low returns, high expenses, a one-star rating, and poor marketing aren’t the road to riches, the advisor recommended that the Board close (on January 17, 2012) and liquidate (on February 29, 2012) the fund.

Ron Insana, who left CNBC in 2006 to form a hedge fund and returned to part-time punditry three years later.  He’s currently (March 28, 2014) prognosticating “a very nasty pullback” in the stock market.

Scott Martin, a contributor to FOX Business Network and a former columnist with TheStreet.com, co-managed Astor Long/Short ETF Fund (ASTLX) for one undistinguished year before moving on.

Steven J. Milloy, “lawyer, consultant, columnist, adjunct scholar,” managed the somewhat looney Free Enterprise Action Fund which merged with the somewhat looney $12 million Congressional Effect Fund (CEFFX), which never hired Mr. Milloy and just fired Congressional Effect Management.

Observer Fund Profiles

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds.  “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve.

During March, Bro. Studzinski and I contacted a quartet of distinguished managers whose careers were marked by at least two phases: successfully managing large funds within a fund complex and then walking away to launch their own independent firms.  We wanted to talk with them both about their investing disciplines and current funds and about their bigger picture view of the world of independent managers.

Our lead story in May carries the working title, “Letter to a Young Fund Manager.”  We are hoping to share some insight into what it takes to succeed as a boutique manager running your own firm.  Our hope is that the story will be as useful for folks trying to assess the role of small funds in their portfolio as it will be to the (admittedly few) folks looking to launch such funds.

As a preview, we’d like to introduce the four managers and profile their funds:

Evermore Global Value (EVGBX): David Marcus was trained by Michael Price, managed Mutual European and co-managed two other Mutual Series funds, then spent time investing in Europe before returning to launch this remarkably independent “special situations” fund.

Huber Equity Income (HULIX): Joe Huber designed and implemented a state of the art research program at Hotchkis and Wiley and managed their Value Opportunities fund for five years before striking out to launch his own firm and, coincidentally, launched two of the most successful funds in existence.

Poplar Forest Partners (PFPFX): Dale Harvey is both common and rare.  He was a very successful manager for five American Funds who was disturbed by their size.  That’s common.  So he left, which is incredibly rare.  One of the only other managers to follow that path was Howard Schow, founder of the PrimeCap funds.

Walthausen Select Value (WSVRX): John Walthausen piloted both Paradigm Value and Paradigm Select to peer-stomping returns.  He left in 2007 to create his own firm which advises two funds that have posted, well, peer stomping returns.

Launch Alert: Artisan High Income (ARTFX)

On March 19^th, Artisan launched their first fixed-income fund.  The plan is for the manager to purchase a combination of high-yield bonds and other stuff (technically: “secured and unsecured loans, including, without limitation, senior and subordinated loans, delayed funding loans and revolving credit facilities, and loan participations and assignments”). There’s careful attention given to the quality and financial strength of the bond issuer and to the magnitude of the downside risks. The fund might invest globally.

The Fund is managed by Bryan C. Krug.  For the past seven years, Mr. Krug has managed Ivy High Income (WHIAX).  His record there was distinguished, especially for his ability to maneuver through – and profit from – a variety of market conditions.  A 2013 Morningstar discussion of the fund observes, in part:

[T]he fund’s 26% allocation to bonds rated CCC and below … is well above the 15% of its typical high-yield bond peer. Recently, though, Krug has been taking a somewhat defensive stance; he increased the amount of bank loans to nearly 34% as of the end of 2012, well above the fund’s 15% target allocation … Those kinds of calls have allowed the fund to mitigate losses well–performance in 2011’s third quarter and May 2012 are ready examples–as well as to deliver strong results in a variety of other environments. That record and relatively low expenses make for a compelling case here.

$10,000 invested at the beginning of Mr. Krug’s tenure would have grown to $20,700 by the time of his departure versus $16,700 at his average peer. The Ivy fund was growing by $3 – 4 billion a year, with no evident plans for closure.  While there’s no evidence that asset bloat is what convinced Mr. Krug to look for new opportunities, indeed the fund continued to perform splendidly even at $11 billion, a number of other managers have shifted jobs for that very reason.

The minimum initial investment is $1000 for the Investor class and $250,000 for Advisor shares.  Expenses for both the Investor and Advisor classes are capped at 1.25%.

Artisan’s hiring standard has remained unchanged for decades: they interview dozens of management teams each year but hire only when they think they’ve found “category killers.” With 10 of their 12 rated funds earning four- or five-stars, they seem to achieve that goal.  Investors seeking a cautious but opportunistic take on high income investing really ought to look closer.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details.

Funds in registration this month are eligible to launch in late May or early June 2014 and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

This month David Welsch tracked down five funds in registration, the lowest totals since we launched three years ago.  Curious.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 43 sets of fund manager changes. The most intriguing of those include Amit Wadhwaney’s retirement from managing Third Avenue International Value (TAVIX) and Jim Moffett’s phased withdrawal from Scout International (UMBWX).

Updates

Our friends at RiverRoad Asset Management report that they have entered a “strategic partnership” with Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.  RiverRoad becomes AMG’s 30^th partner. The roster also includes AQR, Third Avenue and Yacktman.  As part of this agreement, AMG will purchase River Road from Aviva Investors.  Additionally, River Road’s employees will acquire a substantial portion of the equity of the business. The senior professionals at RiverRoad have signed new 10-year employment agreements.  They’re good people and we wish them well.

Even more active share.

Last month we shared a list of about 50 funds who were willing to report heir current active share, a useful measure that allows investors to see how independent their funds are of the index.  We offered folks the chance to be added to the list. A dozen joined the list, including folks from Barrow, Conestoga, Diamond Hill, DoubleLine, Evermore, LindeHanson, Pinnacle, and Poplar Forest. We’ve given our active share table a new home.

ARE YOU ACTIVE?  WOULD YOU LIKE SOMEONE TO NOTICE?

We’ve been scanning fund company sites, looking for active share reports. If we’ve missed you, we’re sorry. Help us correct the oversight  by sending us the link to where you report your active share stats. We’d be more than happy to offer a permanent home for the web’s largest open collection of active share data.

Briefly Noted . . .

For reasons unexplained, GMO has added a “purchase premium” (uhhh… sales load?) and redemption fee of between 8 and 10 basis points to three of its funds: GMO Strategic Fixed Income Fund (GMFIX), GMO Global Developed Equity Allocation Fund (GWOAX) and GMO International Developed Equity Allocation Fund (GIOTX).  Depending on the share class, the GMO funds have investment minimums in the $10 million – $300 million range.  At the lower end, that would translate to an $8,000 purchase premium.  At the high end, it might be $100,000.

Effective April 1, 2014, the principal investment strategy of the Green Century Equity Fund (GCEQX) will be revised to change the index tracked by the Fund, so as to exclude the stocks of companies that explore for, process, refine or distribute coal, oil or gas.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

The Board of Mainstay Marketfield Fund (MFLDX) has voted to slash the management fee (slash it, I say!) by one basis point! So, in compensation for a sales load (5.75% for “A” shares), asset bloat (at $21 billion, the fund has put on nearly $17 billion since being acquired by New York Life) and sagging performance (it still leads its long/short peer group, but by a slim margin), you save $1 – every year – for every $10,000 you invest.  Yay!!!!!

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Robeco Boston Partners Long/Short Research Fund (BPRRX)  closed on a day’s notice at the end of March, 2014 because of “a concern that a significant increase in the size of the Fund may adversely affect the implementation of the Fund’s strategy.”  The advisor long-ago closed its flagship Robeco Boston Partners Long/Short Equity (BPLEX) fund.  At the beginning of January 2014 they launched a third offering, Robeco Boston Partners Global Long/Short (BGLSX) which is only available to institutional investors.

Effective as of the close of business on March 28, 2014, Perritt Ultra MicroCap Fund (PREOX) closed to new investors.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

On March 31, Alpine Innovators Fund (ADIAX) became Alpine Small Cap Fund.  It also ceased to be an all-cap growth fund oriented toward stocks benefiting from the “innovative nature of each company’s products, technology or business model.”  It was actually a pretty reasonable fund, not earth-shattering but decent.  Sadly, no one cared.  It’s not entirely clear that they’re going to swarm on yet another small-blend fund.  The upside is that the new managers have a stint with Lord Abbett Small Cap Blend Fund

Effective on or about April 28, 2014, BNY Mellon Small/Mid Cap Fund‘s (MMCIX) name will be changed to BNY Mellon Small/Mid Cap Multi-Strategy Fund and they’ll go all multi-manager on you.

Effective March 21, 2014, the ticker for the Giant 5 Total Investment System changed from FIVEX to CASHX. Cute.  The board had previously approved replacement of the phrase “Giant 5” with “Index Funds” (no, really), but that hasn’t happened yet.

At the end of April, 2014, Goldman Sachs has consented to modestly shorten the names of some of their funds.

They still don’t fit on one line.

Johnson Disciplined Mid-Cap Fund (JMDIX) is slated to become Johnson Opportunity on May 1, 2014.  At that point, it won’t be restricted to investing in mid-cap stocks anymore.  Good thing, too, since they’re only … how to say this? Intermittently excellent at that discipline.

On May 5, Laudus Mondrian Global Fixed Income Fund (LMGDX) becomes Laudus Mondrian Global Government Fixed Income Fund.  It’s already 90% in government bonds, so the change is mostly symbolic.  At the same time, Laudus Mondrian International Fixed Income Fund (LIFNX) becomes Laudus Mondrian International Government Fixed Income Fund.  It, too, invests now in government bonds.

Effective March 17, 2014, Mariner Hyman Beck Fund (MHBAX) was renamed the Mariner Managed Futures Strategy Fund.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Effective on or about May 16, 2014, AllianzGI Disciplined Equity Fund (ARDAX) and AllianzGI Dynamic Emerging Multi-Asset Fund (ADYAX) will be liquidated and dissolved. The former is tiny and mediocre, the latter tinier and worse.  Hasta!

Avatar Capital Preservation Fund (ZZZNX), Avatar Tactical Multi-Asset Income Fund (TAZNX), Avatar Absolute Return Fund (ARZNX) and Avatar Global Opportunities Fund (GOWNX) – pricey funds-of-ETFs – ceased operations on March 28, 2014.

Epiphany FFV Global Ecologic Fund (EPEAX) has closed to investors and will be liquidated on April 28, 2014.

Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund (GNIAX) is being merged “with and into” the Goldman Sachs Asia Equity Fund (GSAGX). The SEC filing mumbled indistinctly about “the second quarter of 2014” as a target date.

The $200 million Huntington Fixed Income Securities Fund (HFIIX) will be absorbed by the $5.6 billion Federated Total Return Bond Fund (TLRAX), sometime during the second quarter of 2014.  The Federated fund is pretty consistently mediocre, and still the better of the two.

On March 17, 2014, Ivy Asset Strategy New Opportunities Fund merged into Ivy Emerging Markets Equity Fund (IPOAX, formerly Ivy Pacific Opportunities Fund). On the same day, Ivy Managed European/Pacific Fund merged into Ivy Managed International Opportunities Fund (IVTAX).  (Run away!  Go buy a nice index fund!)

The $2 billion, four-star Morgan Stanley Focus Growth Fund (OMOAX) is merging with $1.3 billion, four-star Morgan Stanley Institutional Growth (MSEGX) at the beginning of April, 2014.  They are, roughly speaking, the same fund.

Parametric Currency Fund (EAPSX), $4 million in assets, volatile and unprofitable after two and a half years – closed on March 25, 2014 and was liquidated a week later.

Pax World Global Women’s Equality Fund (PXWEX) is slated to merged into a newly-formed Pax Global Women’s Index Fund.

On February 25, 2014, the Board of Trustees of Templeton Global Investment Trust on behalf of Templeton Asian Growth Fund approved a proposal to terminate and liquidate Templeton Asian Growth Fund (FASQX). The liquidation is anticipated to occur on or about May 20, 2014. I’m not sure of the story.  It’s a Mark Mobius production and he’s been running offshore versions of this fund since the early 1990s.  This creature, launched about four years ago, has been sucky performance and negligible assets.

Turner Emerging Markets Fund (TFEMX) is being liquidated on or about April 15, 2014.  Why? “This decision was made after careful consideration of the Fund’s asset size, strategic importance, current expenses and historical performance.”  Historical performance?  What historical performance?  Turner launched this fund in August of 2013.  Right.  After six months Turner pulled the plug.  Got long-term planning there, guys!

In Closing . . .

Happy anniversary to us all.  With this issue, the Observer celebrates its third anniversary.  In truth, we had no idea of what we were getting into but we knew we had a worthwhile mission and the support of good people.

We started with a fairly simple, research-based conviction: bloated funds are not good investments.  As funds swells, their investible universes contract, their internal incentives switch from investment excellence to avoiding headline risk, and their reward systems shift to reward asset growth and retention.  They become timid, sclerotic and unrewarding.

To be clear, we know of no reason which supports the proposition that bigger is better, most especially in the case of funds that place some or all of their portfolios in stocks.  And yet the industry is organized, almost exclusively, to facilitate such beasts.  Independent managers find it hard to get attention, are disadvantaged when it comes to distribution networks, and have almost no chance of receiving analyst coverage.

We’ve tried to be a voice for the little guy.  We’ve tried to speak clearly and honestly about the silly things that you’re tempted into doing and the opportunities that you’re likely overlooking.  So far we’ve reached over 300,000 readers who’ve dropped by for well over a million visits.  Which is pretty good for a site with neither commercial endorsements or pictures of celebrities in their swimwear.

In the year ahead, we’ll try to do better.  We’re taking seriously our readers’ recommendation.  One recommendation was to increase the number of fund profiles (done!) and to spend more time revisiting some of the funds we’ve previously written about (done!).  As we reviewed your responses to “what one change could we make to better serve you” question, several answers occurred over and over:

1. People would like more help in assembling portfolios, perhaps in form of model portfolios or portfolio templates.  A major goal for 2014, then, is working more with our friends in the industry to identify useful strategies for allowing folks to identify their own risk/return preferences and matching those to compatible funds.  We need to be careful since we’re not trained as financial advisors, so we want to offer models and illustrations rather than pretend to individual advice.
2. People would like more guidance on the resources already on-site.  We’ve done a poor job in accommodating the fact that we see about 10,000 first-time visitors each month.  As a result, people aren’t aware that we do maintain an archive of every audio-recording of our conference calls (check the Funds tab, then Featured Funds), and do have lists of recommended books (Resources -> Books!) and news sources (Best of the Web).  And so one of our goals for the year ahead is to make the Observer more transparent and more easily navigable.
3. Many people have asked about mid-month updates, at least in the case of closures or other developments which come with clear deadlines.  We might well be able to arrange to send a simple email, rarely more than once a month, if something compelling breaks.
4. Finally, many people asked for guidance for new investors.

Those are all wonderfully sensible suggestions and we take them very seriously.  Our immediate task is to begin inventorying our resources and capabilities; we need to ask “what’s the best we can do with what we’ve got today?” And “how can we work to strengthen our organizational foundation, so that we can help more?”

Those are great questions and we very much hope you join us as we shape the answers in the year ahead.

Finally, I’ll note that I’m shamefully far behind in extending thanks to the folks who’ve contributed to the Observer – by check or PayPal – in the past month.  I’ve launched on a new (and terrifying) adventure in home ownership; I spent much of the past month looking at houses in Davenport with the hopes of having a place by May 1.  I’m about 250 sets of signatures and initials into the process, with just one or two additional pallets of scary-looking forms to go!  Pray for me.

And thanks to you all.

By David Snowball

Dear friends,

It’s not a question of whether it’s coming.  It’s just a question of whether you’ve been preparing intelligently.

There’s an old joke about the farmer with the leaky roof that never gets fixed.  When the sun’s out, he never thinks about the leak and when it’s raining, he can’t get up there to fix it anyway.  And so the leak continues.

Our investments likewise: people who are kicking themselves for not having 100% equity exposure in March 2009 and 200% exposure in January 2013 have been pulling money steadily from boring investments and adding them to stocks.  The domestic stock market has seen its 13^th consecutive month of inflows and the S&P 500 closed February at its highest nominal level ever.

I mention this now because the sun has been shining so brightly.  March 9, 2014 marches the five-year anniversary of the current bull market.  In those five years, a $10,000 investment in the S&P500 would have grown to $30,400.  The same amount invested in the NASDAQ on March 9 would have grown to $35,900. The last remnants of the ferocious bear markets of 2000-02 and 2007-09 have faded from the ratings.  And investors really want a do-over.  All the folks hiding under their beds in 2009 and still peering out from under the blankies in 2011 feel cheated and they want in on the action, and they want it now.

Hence inflows into an overpriced market.

Our general suggestion is to learn from the past, but not to live there.  Nothing we do today can capture the returns of the past five years for us.  Sadly, we still can damage the next five.  To help build a strong prospects for our future, we’re spending a bit of time this month talking about hedging strategies – ways to get into a pricey market without quite so much heartache – and cool funds that might be better positioned for the next five than you’d otherwise find.

And, too, we get to celebrate the onset of spring!

The search for active share

It’s much easier to lose in investing than to win.  Sometimes we lose because we’re offered poor choices and sometimes we lose because we make poor ones.  Frankly, it doesn’t take many poor choices to trash the best laid plans.

Winning requires doing a lot of things right.  One of those things is deciding whether – or to what extent – your portfolio should rely on actively and passively managed funds.  A lot of actively managed funds are dismal but so too are a lot of passive products: poorly constructed indexes, trendy themes, disciplines driven by marketing, and high fees plague the index and EFT crowd.

If you are going to opt for active management, you need to be sure that it’s active in more than name alone.  As we’ve shown before, many active managers – especially those trying to deploy billions in capital – offer no advantage over a broad market index, and a lot of disadvantages. 

One tool for measuring the degree to which your manager is active is called, appropriately enough, “active share.”  Active share measures the degree to which your fund’s holdings differ from its benchmark’s.  The logic is simple: you can’t beat an index by replicating it and if you can’t beat it, you should simply buy it.

The study “How Active Is Your Manager” (2009) by Cremers and Petajitso concluded that “Funds with high active share actually do outperform their benchmarks.” The researchers originally looked at an ocean of data covering the period from 1990 to 2003, then updated it through 2009.  They found that funds with active share of at least 90% outperformed their benchmarks by 1.13% (113 basis points per year) after fees. Funds with active share below 60% consistently underperformed by 1.42 percentage points a year, after accounting for fees.

Some researchers have suggested that the threshold for active share needs to be adjusted to account for differences in the fund’s investment universe: a fund that invests in large to mega-cap names should have an active share north of 70%, midcaps should be above 80% and small caps above 90%. 

So far, we’ve only seen research validating the 60% and 90% thresholds though the logic of the step system is appealing; of the 5008 publicly-traded US stocks, there are just a few hundred large caps but several thousand small and micro-caps.

There are three problems with the active share data.  We’d like to begin addressing one of them and warn you of the other two.

Problem One: It’s not available.  Morningstar has the data but does not release it, except in occasional essays. Fund companies may or may not have it, but almost none of them share it with investors. And journalists occasionally publish pieces that include an active share chart but those tend to be an idiosyncratic, one-time shot of a few funds. Nuts.

Problem Two: Active share is only as valid as the benchmark used. The calculation of active share is simply a comparison between a fund’s portfolio and the holdings in some index. Pick a bad index and you get a bad answer. By way of simple illustration, the S&P500 stock index has an active share of 100 (woo hoo!) if you benchmark it against the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.

Fund companies might have the same incentive and the same leverage with active share providers that the buyers of bond ratings did: bond issuers could approach three ratings agencies and say “tell me how you’ll rate my bond and I’ll tell you whether we’re paying for your rating.” A fund company looking for a higher active share might simply try several indexes until they find the one that makes them look good. Here’s the warning: make sure you know what benchmark was used and make sure it makes sense.

Problem Three: You can compare active share between two funds only if they’ve chosen to use the same benchmark. One large cap might have an active share of 70 against the Mergent Dividend Achievers Index while another has a 75 against the Russell 1000 Value Index. There’s no way, from that data, to know whether one fund is actually more active than the other. So, look for comparables.

To help you make better decisions, we’ve begun gathering publicly-available active share data released by fund companies.  Because we know that compact portfolios are also correlated to higher degrees of independence, we’ve included that information too for all of the funds we could identify.  A number of managers and advisors have provided active share data since our March 1^st launch.  Thanks!  Those newly added funds appear in italics.

Fund	Ticker	Active share	Benchmark	Stocks
Artisan Emerging Markets (Adv)	ARTZX	79.0	MSCI Emerging Markets	90
Artisan Global Equity	ARTHX	94.6	MSCI All Country World	57
Artisan Global Opportunities	ARTRX	95.3	MSCI All Country World	41
Artisan Global Value	ARTGX	90.5	MSCI All Country World	46
Artisan International	ARTIX	82.6	MSCI EAFE	68
Artisan International Small Cap	ARTJX	97.8	MSCI EAFE Small Cap	45
Artisan International Value	ARTKX	92.0	MSCI EAFE	50
Artisan Mid Cap	ARTMX	86.3	Russell Midcap Growth	65
Artisan Mid Cap Value	ARTQX	90.2	Russell Value	57
Artisan Small Cap	ARTSX	94.2	Russell 2000 Growth	68
Artisan Small Cap Value	ARTVX	91.6	Russell 2000 Value	103
Artisan Value	ARTLX	87.9	Russell 1000 Value	32
Barrow All-Cap Core Investor	BALAX	92.7	S&P 500	182
Diamond Hill Select	DHLTX	89	Russell 3000 Index	35
Diamond Hill Large Cap	DHLRX	80	Russell 1000 Index	49
Diamond Hill Small Cap	DHSIX	97	Russell 2000 Index	68
Diamond Hill Small-Mid Cap	DHMIX	97	Russell 2500 Index	62
DoubleLine Equities Growth	DLEGX	88.9	S&P 500	38
DoubleLine Equities Small Cap Growth	DLESX	92.7	Russell 2000 Growth	65
Driehaus EM Small Cap Growth	DRESX	96.4	MSCI EM Small Cap	102
FPA Capital	FPPTX	97.7	Russell 2500	28
FPA Crescent	FPACX	90.3	Barclays 60/40 Aggregate	50
FPA International Value	FPIVX	97.8	MSCI All Country World ex-US	23
FPA Perennial	FPPFX	98.9	Russell 2500	30
Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators	IWIRX	99	MSCI World	28
Guinness Atkinson Inflation Managed Dividend	GAINX	93	MSCI World	35
Linde Hansen Contrarian Value	LHVAX	87.1 *	Russell Midcap Value	23
Parnassus Equity Income	PRBLX	86.9	S&P 500	41
Parnassus Fund	PARNX	92.6	S&P 500	42
Parnassus Mid Cap	PARMX	94.9	Russell Midcap	40
Parnassus Small Cap	PARSX	98.8	Russell 2000	31
Parnassus Workplace	PARWX	88.9	S&P 500	37
Pinnacle Value	PVFIX	98.5	Russell 2000 TR	37
Touchstone Capital Growth	TSCGX	77	Russell 1000 Growth	58
Touchstone Emerging Markets Eq	TEMAX	80	MSCI Emerging Markets	68
Touchstone Focused	TFOAX	90	Russell 3000	37
Touchstone Growth Opportunities	TGVFX	78	Russell 3000 Growth	60
Touchstone Int’l Small Cap	TNSAX	97	S&P Developed ex-US Small Cap	97
Touchstone Int’l Value	FSIEX	87	MSCI EAFE	54
Touchstone Large Cap Growth	TEQAX	92	Russell 1000 Growth	42
Touchstone Mid Cap	TMAPX	96	Russell Midcap	33
Touchstone Mid Cap Growth	TEGAX	87	Russell Midcap Growth	74
Touchstone Mid Cap Value	TCVAX	87	Russell Midcap Value	80
Touchstone Midcap Value Opps	TMOAX	87	Russell Midcap Value	65
Touchstone Sands Capital Select	TSNAX	88	Russell 1000 Growth	29
Touchstone Sands Growth	CISGX	88	Russell 1000 Growth	29
Touchstone Small Cap Core	TSFAX	99	Russell 2000	35
Touchstone Small Cap Growth	MXCAX	90	Russell 2000 Growth	81
Touchstone Small Cap Value	FTVAX	94	Russell 2000 Value	75
Touchstone Small Cap Value Opps	TSOAX	94	Russell 2000 Value	87
William Blair Growth	WBGSX	83	Russell 3000 Growth	53

*        Linde Hansen notes that their active share is 98 if you count stocks and cash, 87 if you look only at the stock portion of their portfolio.  To the extent that cash is a conscious choice (i.e., “no stock in our investable universe meets our purchase standards, so we’ll buy cash”), count both makes a world of sense.  I just need to find out how other investors have handled the matter.

Who’s not on the list? 

A lot of firms, some of whose absences are in the ironic-to-hypocritical range. Firms not choosing to disclose active share include:

BlackRock – which employs Anniti Petajisto, the guy who invented active share, as a researcher and portfolio manager in their Multi-Asset Strategies group. (They do make passing reference to an “active share buyback” on the part on one of their holdings, so I guess that’s partial credit, right?)

Fidelity – whose 5 Tips to Pick a Winning Fund tells you to look for “stronger performers [which are likely to] have a high ‘active share’”.  (They do reprint a Reuters article ridiculing a competitor with a measly 56% active share, but somehow skip the 48% for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth, 47% for Growth & Income, the 37% for MegaCap Stock or the under 50% for six of their Strategic Advisers funds). (per the Wall Street Journal, Is Your Fund a Closet Index Fund, January 14, 2014).

Oakmark – which preens about “Harris Associates and Active Share” without revealing any.

Are you active?  Would you like someone to notice?

We’ve been scanning fund company sites for the past month, looking for active share reports. If we’ve missed you, we’re sorry. Help us correct the oversight  by sending us the link to where you report your active share stats. We’d be more than happy to offer a permanent home for the web’s largest open collection of active share data.

Does Size Matter?

By Edward Studzinski

“Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

                    Nietzsche

One of the more interesting consequences of the performance of equities in 2013 is the ramp-up of the active investment management marketing machines to explain why their performance in many instances lagged that of inexpensive index funds. This has resulted in a manure storm media blitz with terms and phrases such as “stock picker’s market” or “active share” or “concentrated portfolios.” 

“Stock picker’s market” is generally a euphemism for active management. That is, why you should pay me 100 basis points for investing in a subset of the S&P 500, rather than pay Vanguard or some other index fund provider 5 basis points for their product. One of the rationales I used to regularly hear to justify active management fees was that the active manager will know when to get out of the market and when to get back in, whereas the small investor will always go in and out at the wrong time. The period of 2008-2009 puts paid to that argument when one looks at maximum drawdown numbers.  The question it raises however is whether the time horizon most investment managers and investors use is far too short. I think it clearly is and that rather than three years or three to five years, we should be thinking of ten years at a minimum.  Unfortunately, given personnel turnover in many investment organizations, it is difficult for the investing public to know or understand that the people who gave a fund its long-term performance, looking in the rear-view mirror, are not the ones doing the analysis or selecting the investments going forward. And if they are, often their time and attention is pulled in many other directions.  This is why I now, sitting on an endowment investment committee, appreciate why an integral part of the investment consultant’s report covers stability of personnel and succession planning at current firms invested in as well as firms proposed for consideration. Of course, if you are the average retail investor, you are far better off to focus on your risk tolerance, true time horizon, and asset allocation, again making use of low cost index products if you are not going to spend the time and effort to replicate the work of the consultants used by endowments and pension funds.

I am going to leave it to others to discuss “active share.”  I do think the question of “concentrated portfolios” is worth a few thoughts.  I once asked a friend of mine, at a large East Coast fund complex, how he managed to keep track of the two hundred or so stocks in his fund portfolio. His answer was illuminating.  He said that his firm had a very large research department and prided itself on its selection and training of analysts.  Politically then, over time he had to use an idea or two from everyone or every area. His preference would have been to have a much more concentrated portfolio.  I will refer to that then as the “ark” approach to investment management. Other firms, such as Longleaf, have tended from the get-go to have truly concentrated portfolios, say somewhere between twenty to twenty five stocks, given that the benefits of diversification run-out at a certain number of securities. Their rationale has been that rarely, when you are building a portfolio from the bottom up based on what are the most undervalued ideas, do ideas number thirty to forty have the same expected return potential as ideas number one to ten. (That is even more the case with the S&P 500 hitting new all time highs now).

There is another way to look at this which I think makes it more understandable for the average person.  In 2006, Huber Capital Managed LLC performed a study, looking at value-oriented investors, entitled “Limited Assets Under Management is a Competitive Advantage.”   The study assumed an equal weighted portfolio of 2.5% positions (forty stocks) to show how the investable universe of securities shrank at certain asset levels. It looked at the Russell 1000 Value Index and the Russell 2000 Value Index. The conclusion of the study was that as assets under management grew, portfolio managers faced increasingly unpleasant choices. One choice of course was to shrink the investment universe, what I have referred to in the past as the rule limiting investments to securities that can be bought or sold in five days average trading volume.

Another alternative was to increase the number of stocks held in the portfolio. You can see whether your manager has done this by going back five or ten years and looking at annual reports.  When the fund was $5B in asset size, did it own thirty stocks? Do you really believe that with the fund at $10B or $15B in asset size, that it has found another twenty or thirty undervalued stocks?  Look also to see if the number of research analysts has increased materially. Are roughly the same number of analysts covering more names? 

The third choice was to make the fund very concentrated or even non-diversified by SEC standards, with individual positions greater than five per cent. That can work, but it entails taking on career risk for the analysts and fund managers, and enterprise risk for the management company. A fund with $10B in assets under management has available only 50% of the investable set of stocks to invest in, assuming it is going to continue to focus on liquidity of the investment as an implicit criteria. That is why you see more and more pension funds, endowments, and family office managers shifting to low-cost index or ETF vehicles for their large cap investments. The incremental return is not justified by the incremental fee over the low-cost vehicle. And with a long-term time horizon, the compounding effect of that fee differential becomes truly important to returns.

My thanks to Huber Capital Manangement LLC for doing this study, and to Long Short Advisors for making me aware of it in one of their recent reports. Both firms are to be commended for their integrity and honesty. They are truly investment managers rather than asset gatherers. 

On the impact of fund categorization: Morningstar’s rejoinder

Morningstar’s esteemed John Rekenthaler replied to MFO’s February commentary on categorization, although officially “his views are his own.” His February 5 column is entitled How Morningstar Categorizes Funds.

Snowball’s gloss: John starts with a semantic quibble (Charles: “Morningstar says OSTFX is a mid-cap blend fund,” John: “Morningstar does not say what a fund is,” just what category it’s been assigned to), mischaracterizes Charles’s article as “a letter to MFO” (which I mention only because he started the quibble-business) and goes on to argue that the assignment of OSTFX to its category is about as reasonable a choice as could be made. Back to Charles:

Mr. R. uses BobC’s post to frame an explanation of what Morningstar does and does not do with respect to fund categorization. In his usual thoughtful and self-effacing manner, he defends the methodology, while admitting some difficulty in communicating. Fact is, he remains one of Morningstar’s best communicators and Rekenthaler Report is always a must read.

I actually agree with his position on Osterweis. Ditto for his position on not having an All Cap category (though I suspect I’m in the minority here and he actually admits he may be too). He did not address the (mis-)categorization of River Park Short Term High Yield Fund (RPHYX/RPHIX, closed). Perhaps because he is no longer in charge of categorization at Morningstar.

The debate on categorization is never-ending, of course, as evidenced by the responses to his report and the many threads on our own board. For the most part, the debate remains a healthy one. Important for investors to understand the context, the peer group, in which prospective funds are being rated.

In any case and as always, we very much appreciate Mr. Rekenthaler taking notice and sharing his views.

Snowball’s other gloss: geez, Charles is a lot nicer than I am. I respect John’s work but frankly I don’t really tingle at the thought that he “takes notice.” Well, except maybe for that time at the Morningstar conference when he swerved at the last minute to avoid crashing into me. I guess there was a tingle then.

Snowball’s snipe: at the sound of Morningstar’s disdain, MFWire did what MFWire does. They raised high the red-and-white banner, trumpeting John’s argument and concluding with a sharp “grow up, already!” I would have been much more impressed with them if they’d read Charles’s article beforehand. They certainly might have, but there’s no evidence in the article that they felt that need.

One of the joys of writing for the Observer is the huge range of backgrounds and perspectives that our readers bring to the discussion. A second job is the huge range of backgrounds and perspectives that my colleagues bring. Charles, in particular, can hear statistics sing. (He just spent a joyful week in conference studying discounted cash-flow models.) From time to time he tries, gently, to lift the veil of innumeracy from my eyes. The following essay flows from our extended e-mail exchanges in which I struggled to understand the vastly different judgments of particular funds implied by different ways of presenting their risk-adjusted statistics. 

We thought some of you might like to overhear that conversation.  

Morningstar’s Risk Adjusted Return Measure

Central to any fund rating system is the performance measure used to determine percentile rank order. MFO uses Martin ratio, as described Rating System Definitions. Morningstar developed its own risk adjusted return (MRAR), which Nobel Laureate William Sharpe once described as a measure that “…differs significantly from more traditional ones such as various forms of the Sharpe ratio.” While the professor referred to an earlier version of MRAR, the same holds true today.

Here is how Morningstar describes MRAR on its Data FAQ page: Morningstar adjusts for risk by calculating a risk penalty for each fund based on “expected utility theory,” a commonly used method of economic analysis. Although the math is complex, the basic concept is relatively straightforward. It assumes that investors are more concerned about a possible poor outcome than an unexpectedly good outcome and that those investors are willing to give up a small portion of an investment’s expected return in exchange for greater certainty. A “risk penalty” is subtracted from each fund’s total return, based on the variation in its month-to-month return during the rating period, with an emphasis on downward variation. The greater the variation, the larger the penalty. If two funds have the exact same return, the one with more variation in its return is given the larger risk penalty.

For the curious and mathematically inclined, the detailed equations are well documented in The Morningstar Rating Methodology. The following figure illustrates how MRAR behaves for three hypothetical funds over a 3 year period ending Dec 2013:

Each fund in the illustration delivers the same total return, but with varying levels of volatility. The higher the volatility, the lower the risk adjusted return. Fund 0 delivers consistent returns every month with zero volatility; consequently, it receives the highest MRAR, which in this case is the fund’s annualized total return minus the risk-free T-Bill (i.e., it’s the annualized “excess” return).

Morningstar computes MRAR for all funds over equivalent periods, and then percentile ranks them within their respective categories to assign appropriate levels, 1 star for those funds in the lowest group and the coveted 5 star rating for the highest.

It also computes a risk measure MRisk and performs a similar ranking to designate “low” to “high” risk funds within each category. MRisk is simply the difference between the annualized excess return of the fund and its MRAR.

The following figure provides further insight into how MRAR behaves for funds of varying volatility. This time, fund total returns have been scaled to match their category averages, again for the 3 year period ending Dec 2013. The figure includes results from several categories showing MRAR versus the tradition volatility measure, annualized standard deviation.

Once again we see that funds with higher volatility generally receive lower MRARs and that the highest possible MRAR is equal to a fund’s annualized excess return, which occurs at zero standard deviation.

A consequence of Morningstar’s methodology is that low volatility funds with below average returns can quite possibly be out-ranked by average volatility funds with average returns. Put another way, the methodology generally penalizes funds with high volatility more so than it rewards funds with low volatility, since with the latter the benefit is “capped.”

This behavior is different from other risk adjusted return measures based on say Sharpe ratio, as can be seen in the figure below. Here the same funds from above are plotted against Sharpe, but now funds with low volatility are rewarded handsomely, even if they have below average total returns.

Revisiting the Morningstar risk measure MRisk, one finds another observation: it appears to correlate rather satisfactorily against a simple function based on standard deviation (up to about 30% for funds of positive total return without load):

Which means that Morningstar’s risk adjusted return can be estimated from the following:

This simple approximation may come in handy, like when David wonders: “Why do RPHIX and ICMYX, which have superior 3 year Sharpe ratios, rate a very inferior 1 star by Morningstar?” He can use the above calculation to better understand, as illustrated here:

While both do indeed have great 3 year Sharpe ratios – RPHIX is highest of any US fund – they both have below average total returns relative to their current peer group, as represented by say VWEHX, a moderate risk and average returning high yield bond “reference” fund.

Their low volatilities simply get no love from Morningstar’s risk adjusted return measure.

27Feb2014/Charles

Celebrating one-starness

I was having a nice back-channel conversation with a substantially frustrated fund manager this week. He read Charles’s piece on fund categorization and wrote to express his own dismay with the process. He’s running a small fund. It hit its three-year mark and earned five stars. People noticed. Then Morningstar decided to recategorize the fund (into something he thinks he isn’t). And it promptly became one star. And, again, people – potential investors – noticed, but not in a good way.

Five to one, with the stroke of a pen? It happens, but tends not to get trumpeted. After all, it rather implies negligence on Morningstar’s part if they’ve been labeling something as, say, a really good conservative allocation fund for years but then, on further reflection, conclude that it’s actually a sucky high-yield bond or preferred stock fund.

Here’s what Morningstar’s explanation for such a change looks like in practice:

Morningstar Alert

Osterweis Strategic Income Fund OSTIX

12-03-13 01:00 PM

Change in Morningstar Fund Star Rating: The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 4 stars to 2 stars. For details, go to http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Fund/RatingsAndRisk.asp?Symbol=OSTIX.

Sadly, when you go to that page there are no details that would explain an overnight drop of that magnitude. On the “performance” page, you will find the clue:

I don’t have an opinion on the appropriateness of the category assignment but it would be an awfully nice touch, given the real financial consequences of such a redesignation, if Morningstar would take three sentences to explain their rationale at the point that they make the change.

Which got me to thinking about my own favorite one-star fund (RiverPark Short Term High Yield RPHYX and RPHIX, which is closed) and Charles’s favorite one-shot stat on a fund’s risk-adjusted returns (its Sharpe ratio).

And so, here’s the question: how many funds have a higher (i.e., better) Sharpe ratio than does RPHYX?

And, as a follow-up, how many have a Sharpe ratio even half as high as RiverPark’s?

That would be “zero” and “seven,” respectively, out of 6500 funds.

Taking up Rekenthaler’s offer

In concluding his response to Charles’s essay, John writes:

A sufficient critique is one that comes from a fund that truly does not behave like others in its category, that contains a proposal for a modification to the existing category system, that does not lead to rampant category proliferation, and that results in a significantly closer performance comparison between the fund and its new category. In such cases, Morningstar will consider the request carefully–and sometimes make the suggested change.

Ummm … short-term high-yield? In general, those are funds that are much more conservative than the high-yield group. The manager at RiverPark Short-Term High Yield (RPHYX) positions the fund as a “cash management” account. The managers at Intrepid Income (ICMYX) claim to be “absolute return” investors. Wells Fargo Advantage Short-Term High-Yield Bond (STHBX) seems similarly positioned. All are one-star funds (as of February 2014) when judged against the high-yield universe.

“Does not behave like others in its category” but “results in a significantly closer performance comparison [within] its new category.” The orange line is the high-yield category. That little cluster of parallel, often overlapping lines below it are the three funds.

“Does not lead to rampant category proliferation.” You mean, like creating a “preferred stock” category with seven funds? That sort of proliferation? If so, we’re okay – there are about twice as many short-term high-yield candidates as preferred stock ones.

I’m not sure this is a great idea. I am pretty sure that dumping a bunch of useful, creative funds into this particular box is a pretty bad one.

Next month’s unsought advice will highlight emerging markets balanced (or multi-asset) funds. We’re up to a dozen of them now and the same logic that pulled US balanced funds out of the equity category and global balanced funds out of the international equity category, seems to be operating here.

Two things you really should read

In general, most writing about funds has the same problem as most funds do: it’s shallow, unoriginal, unreflective. It contributes little except to fill space and get somebody paid (both honorable goals, by the way). Occasionally, though, there are pieces that are really worth some of our time, thought and reflection. Here are two.

I’m not a great fan of ETFs. They’ve always struck me as trading vehicles, tools for allowing hedge funds and others to “make bets” rather than to invest. Chuck Jaffe had a really solid piece entitled “The growing case against ETFs” (Feb. 23, 2014) that makes the argument that ETFs are bad for you. Why? Because the great advantage of ETFs are that you can trade them all day long. And, as it turns out, if you give someone a portfolio filled with ETFs that’s precisely – and disastrously – what they do.

The Observer was founded on the premise that small, independent, active funds are the only viable alternative to a low-cost indexed portfolio. As funds swell, two bad things happen: their investable universe shrinks and the cost of making a mistake skyrockets, both of which lead to bad investment choices. There’s a vibrant line of academic research on the issue. John Rekenthaler began dissecting some of that research – in particular, a recent study endorsing younger managers and funds – in a four-part series of The Rekenthaler Report. At this writing, John had posted two essays: “Are Young Managers All That?” (Feb. 27, 2014) and “Has Your Fund Become Too Large, Or Is Industry Size the Problem?” (Feb. 28, 2014).  The first essay walks carefully through the reasons why older, larger funds – even those with very talented managers – regress. To my mind, he’s making a very strong case for finding capacity-constrained strategies and managers who will close their funds tight and early. The second picks up an old argument made by Charles Ellis in his 1974 “The Loser’s Game” essay; that the growth and professionalization of the investment industry is so great that no one – certainly not someone dragging a load – can noticeably outrun the crowd. The problem is less, John argues, the bloat of a single fund as the effect of “$3 trillion in smart money chasing the same ideas.”  

Regardless of whether you disdain or adore ETFs, or find the industry’s difficulties located at the level of undisciplined funds or an unwieldy industry, you’ll come away from these essays with much to think about.

RiverPark Strategic Income: Another set of ears

I’m always amazed by the number of bright and engaging folks who’ve been drawn to the Observer, and humbled by their willingness to freely share some of their time, insights and experience with the rest of us. One of those folks is an investor and advisor named “Mark” who is responsible for extended family money, a “multi-family office” if you will. He had an opportunity to spend some time chatting with David Sherman in mid-January as he contemplated a rather sizeable investment in RiverPark Strategic Income (RSIVX) for some family members who would benefit from such a strategy. Herewith are some of the reflections he shared over the course of a series of emails with me.

Where he’s coming from

Mark wrote that to him it’s important to understand the “context” of RSIVX. Mr. Sherman manages private strategies and hedge fund monies at Cohanzick Management, LLC. He cut his teeth at Leucadia National (whose principal Ian Cumming is sometimes referred to as Canada’s Warren Buffett) and is running some sophisticated and high entry strategies that have big risks and big rewards. His shop is not as large as some, sure, but Mr. Sherman seems to prefer it that way.

Some of what Mr. Sherman does all day “informs” RSIVX. He comes across an instrument or an idea that doesn’t fit in one strategy but may in another. It has the risk/reward characteristics that he wants for a particular strategy and so he and his team perform their due diligence on it. More on that later.

Where he is

RSIVX only exists, according to Mr. Sherman, because it fills a need. The need is for an annuity like stream of income at a rate that “his mother could live off” and he did not see such a thing in the marketplace. (In 2007 you could park money at American Express Bank in a jumbo CD at 5.5%. No such luck today.) He saw many other total return products out there in the high yield space where an investor can get a bit higher returns than what he envisions. But some of those returns will be from capital appreciation, i.e., returns from in essence trading. Mr. Sherman did not want to rely on that. He wants a lower duration portfolio (3-4 years) that he can possibly but not necessarily hold to get nice, safe, relatively high coupons from. As long as his investor has that timeframe, Mr. Sherman believes he can compound the money at 6-8% annually, and the investor gets his money back plus his return.

Shorter timeframes, because of impatience or poor timing choices, carry no such assurances. It’s not a CD, it’s not a guaranteed annuity from an insurer, but it’s what is available and what he is able to get for an investor.

How? Well, one inefficiency he hopes to exploit is in the composition of SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond (JNK) and iShares High Yield Corporate Bond (HYG). He doesn’t believe they reflect the composition of high yield space accurately with their necessary emphasis on the most liquid names. He will play in a different sandbox with different toys. And he believes it’s no more risky and thinks it is less so. In addition, when the high yield market moves, especially down, those names move fast.

Mark wrote that he asked David whether the smoothness of his returns exhibited in RPHYX and presumably in RSIVX in the future was due or would be due to a laddering strategy that he employed. He said that it was not – RSIVX’s portfolio was more of a barbell presently- and he did not want to be pigeonholed into a certain formula or strategy. He would do whatever it took to produce the necessary safe returns and that may change from time to time depending upon the market.

What changing interest rates might mean

What if rates fall? If rates fall then, sure, the portfolio will have some capital appreciation. What if rates rise? Well, every day and every month, David said, the investor will grind toward the payday on the shorter duration instruments he is holding. Mark-to-market they will be “worth” less. The market will be demanding higher interest rates and what hasn’t rolled off yet will not be as competitive as the day he bought them. The investor will still be getting a relatively high 6-8% return and as opportunities present themselves and with cash from matured securities and new monies the portfolio will be repopulated over time in the new interest rate environment. Best he can do. He does not intend to play the game of hedging. 

Where he might be going

Mark said he also asked about a higher-risk follow-on to RSIVX. He said that David told him that if he doesn’t have something unique to bring that meets a need, he doesn’t want to do it. He believes RPHYX and RSIVX to be unique. He “knew” he could pull off RPHYX, that he could demonstrate its value, and then have the credibility to introduce another idea. That idea is the Strategic Income Fund.

He doesn’t see a need for him to step out on the spectrum right now. There are a hundred competitors out there and a lot of overlap. People can go get a total return fund with more risk of loss. Returns from them will vary a lot from year to year unless conditions are remarkably stable. This [strategy] almost requires a smaller, more nimble fund and manager. Here he is. Here it is. So the next step out isn’t something he is thinking [immediately] about, but he continually brings ideas to Morty.

Mark concludes: “We discussed a few of his strategies that had more risk. They are fascinating but definitely not vanilla or oatmeal and a few I had to write out by hand the mechanics afterward so I could “see” what he was doing. One of them took me about an hour to work through where the return came from and where it could go possibly wrong.

But he described it to me because working on it gave him the inspiration for a totally different situation that, if it came to pass, would be appropriate for RSIVX. It did, is much more vanilla and is in the portfolio. Very interesting and shows how he thinks. Would love to have a beer with this guy.”

Mark’s bottom line(s)

Mark wanted me to be sure to disclose that he and his family have a rather large position in RiverPark Strategic Income now, and will be holding it for an extended period assuming all goes well (years) so, yeah, he may be biased with his remarks. He says “the strategy is not to everyone’s taste or risk tolerance”. He holds it because it exactly fills a need that his family has.

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds. Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds. “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve.

Driehaus Emerging Markets Small Cap Growth (DRESX): There’s a lot to be said for EM small caps. They provide powerful diversification and performance benefits for a portfolio. The knock of them is that they’re too hot to handle. Driehaus’s carefully constructed, hedged portfolio seems to have cooled the handle by a lot.

Guinness Atkinson Inflation Managed Dividend (GAINX): It’s easy to agree that owning the world’s best companies, especially if you buy them on the cheap, is a really good strategy. GAINX approaches the challenge of constructing a very compact, high quality, low cost portfolio with quantitative discipline and considerable thought.

Intrepid Income (ICMUX): What’s not to like about this conservative little short-term, high-yield fund. It’s got it all: solid returns, excellent risk management and that coveted one-star rating! Intrepid, like almost all absolute value investors, is offering an object lesson on the important of fortitude in the face of frothy markets and serial market records.

RiverPark Gargoyle Hedged Value (RGHVX): The short story is this. Gargoyle’s combination of a compact, high quality portfolio and options-based hedging strategy has, over time, beaten just about every reasonable comparison group. Unless you anticipate a series of 20 or 30% gains in the stock market over the rest of the decade, it might be time to think about protecting some of what you’ve already made.

Elevator Talk: Ted Gardner, Salient MLP & Energy Infrastructure II (SMLPX)

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you. That’s about the number of words a slightly-manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half. In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site. Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share. These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more.

Master limited partnerships (MLPs) are an intriguing asset class which was, until very recently, virtually absent from both open-end fund and ETF portfolios.

MLPs are a form of business organization, in the same way corporations are a form of organization. Their shares trade on US exchanges (NYSE and NASDAQ) and they meet the same SEC security registration requirements as corporations do. They were created in the 1980s primarily as a tool to encourage increased energy production in the country and the vast majority of MLPs (75% or so) are in the energy sector.

MLPs are distinct from corporations in a number of ways:

• They’re organized around two groups: the limited partners (i.e., investors) and the general partners (i.e., managers). The limited partners provide capital and receive quarterly distributions.
• MLPs are required, by contract, to pay minimum quarterly distributions to their limited partners. That means that they produce very consistent streams of income for the limited partners.
• MLPs are required, by law, to generate at least 90% of their income from “qualified sources.” Mostly that means energy production and distribution.

The coolest thing about MLPs is the way they generate their income: they operate hugely profitable, economically-insensitive monopolies whose profits are guaranteed by law. A typical midstream MLP might own a gas or oil pipeline. The MLP receives a fee for every gallon of oil or cubic foot of gas moving through the pipe. That rate is set by a federal agency and that rate rises every year by the rate of inflation plus 1.3%. It doesn’t matter whether the price of oil soars or craters; the MLP gets its toll regardless. And it doesn’t really matter whether the economy soars or craters: people still need warm homes and gas to get to work. At worst, bad recessions eliminate a year’s demand rise but haven’t yet caused a net demand decrease. As the population grows and energy consumption rises, the amount moving through the pipelines rise and so does the MLPs income.

Those profits are protected by enormously high entry barriers: building new pipelines cost billions, require endless hearings and permits, and takes years. As a result, the existing pipelines function as de facto a regional monopoly, which means that the amount of material traveling through the pipeline won’t be driven down by competition for other pipelines.

Quick highlights of the benchmark Alerian MLP index:

• From inception through early 2013, the index returned 16% annually, on average.
• For that same period, it had a 7.1% yield which grew 7% annually.
• There is a low correlation – 50 – between the stock market and the index. REITs say at around 70 and utility stocks at 25, but with dramatically lower yield and returns.

Only seven of the 17 funds with “MLP” in their names have been around long enough to quality for a Morningstar rating; all seven are four- or five-star funds, measured against an “energy equity” peer group. Here’s a quick snapshot of Salient (the blue line) against the two five-star funds (Advisory Research MLP & Energy Income INFIX and MLP & Energy Infrastructure MLPPX) and the first open-end fund to target MLPs (Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP Alpha MLPAX):

The quick conclusion is that Salient was one of the best MLP funds until autumn 2013, at which point it became the best one. I did not include the Alerian MLP index or any of the ETFs which track it because they lag so far behind the actively-managed funds. Over the past year, for example, Salient has outperformed the Alerian MLP Index – delivering 20% versus 15.5%.

High returns and substantial diversification. Sounds perfect. It isn’t, of course. Nothing is. MLP took a tremendous pounding in the 2007-09 meltdown when credit markets froze and dropped again in August 2013 during a short-lived panic over changes in MLP’s favorable tax treatment. And it’s certainly possible for individual MLPs to get bid up to fundamentally unattractive valuations.

Ted Gardner is the co‐portfolio manager for Salient’s MLP Complex, one manifestation of which is SMLPX. He oversees and coordinates all investment modeling, due diligence, company visits, and management conferences. Before joining Salient he was both Director of Research and a portfolio manager for RDG Capital and a research analyst with Raymond James. Here are his 200 words on why you should consider getting into the erl bidness:

Our portfolio management team has many years of experience with MLP investing, as managers and analysts, in private funds, CEFs and separate accounts. We considered both the state of the investment marketplace and our own experiences and thought it might translate well into an open-end product.

As far as what we saw in the marketplace, most of the funds out there exist inside a corporate wrapper. Unfortunately C-Corp funds are subject to double taxation and that can create a real draw on returns. We felt like going the traditional mutual fund, registered investment company route made a lot of sense.

We are very research-intensive, our four analysts and I all have a sell side background. We take cash flow modeling very seriously. It’s a fundamental modeling approach, modeling down to the segment levels to understand cash flows. And, historically, our analysts have done a pretty good job at it.

We think we do things a bit differently than many investors. What we like to see is visible growth, which means we’re less yield-oriented than others might be. We typically like partnerships that have a strategic asset footprint with a lot of organic growth opportunities or those with a dropdown story, where a parent company drops more assets into a partnership over time. We tend to avoid firms dependent on third-party acquisitions for growth. And we’ve liked investing in General Partners which have historically grown their dividends at approximately twice the rate of the underlying MLPs.

The fund has both institutional and retail share classes. The retail classes (SMAPX, SMPFX) nominally carry sales loads, but they’re available no-load/NTF at Schwab. The minimum for the load-waived “A” shares is $2,500. Expenses are 1.60% on about $630 million in assets. Here’s the fund’s homepage, but I’d recommend that you click through to the Literature tab to grab some of the printed documentation.

River Park/Gargoyle Hedged Value Conference Call Highlights

On February 12th we spoke for an hour with Alan Salzbank and Josh Parker, both of the Gargoyle Group, and Morty Schaja, CEO of RiverPark Funds. Here’s a brief recap of the highlights:

Alan handles the long portfolio. Josh, a securities lawyer by training, handles the options portfolio. He’s also an internationally competitive bridge player (Gates, Buffett, Parker…) and there’s some reason to believe that the habits of mind that make for successful bridge play also makes for successful options trading. They have 35 and 25 years of experience, respectively, and all of the investment folks who support them at Gargoyle have at least 20 years of experience in the industry. Morty has been investigating buy-write strategies since the mid-1980s and he described the Gargoyle guys as “the team I’ve been looking for for 25 years.”

The fund combines an unleveraged long portfolio and a 50% short portfolio, for a steady market exposure of 50%. The portfolio rebalances between those strategies monthly, but monitors and trades its options portfolio “in real time” throughout the month.

The long portfolio is 80-120 stocks, and stock selection is algorithmic. They screen the 1000 largest US stocks on four valuation criteria (P/B, P/E, P/CF, P/S) and then assign a “J score” to each stock based on how its current valuation compares with (1) its historic valuation and (2) its industry peers’ valuation. They then buy the 100 more undervalued stocks, but maintain sector weightings that are close to the S&P 500’s.

The options portfolio is a collection of index call options. At base, they’re selling insurance policies to nervous investors. Those policies pay an average premium of 2% per month and rise in value as the market falls. That 2% is a long-term average, during the market panic in the fall of 2008, their options were generating 8% per month in premiums.

Why index calls? Two reasons: (1) they are systematically mispriced, and so they always generate more profit than they theoretically should. In particular, they are overpriced by about 35 basis points/month 88% of the time. For sellers, that means something like a 35 bps free lunch. And (2) selling calls on their individual stocks – that is, betting that the stocks in their long portfolio will fall – would reduce returns. They believe that their long portfolio is a collection of stocks superior to any index and so they don’t want to hedge away any of their upside.

And it works. Their long portfolio has outperformed the S&P 500 by an average of 5% per year for 15 years. The entire strategy has outperformed the S&P in the long-term and has matched its returns, with less volatility, in the shorter term. Throughout, it has sort of clubbed its actively-managed long-short peers. It also anticipates clubbing the emerging bevy of buy-write ETFs.

The guys identify two structural advantages they have over an ETF: (1) they buy stocks superior to those in broad indexes and (2) they manage their options portfolio moment by moment, while the ETF just sits and takes hits for 29 out of 30 days each month.

There’s evidence that they’re right. The ETFs are largely based on the CBOE S&P Buy-Write Index (BXM). Between 2000-12, the S&P 500 returned 24% and the BXM returned 52%; the options portion of the Gargoyle portfolio returned 110% while the long portfolio crushed the S&P.

Except not so much in 2008. The fund’s maximum drawdown was 48%, between 10/07 and 03/08. The guys attributed that loss to the nature of the fund’s long portfolio: it buys stocks in badly dented companies when the price of the stock is even lower than the company’s dents would warrant. Unfortunately in the meltdown, those were the stocks people least wanted to own so they got killed. The fund’s discipline kept them from wavering: they stayed 100% invested and rebalanced monthly to buy more of the stocks that were cratering. The payback comes in 2009 when they posted a 42% return against the S&P’s 26% and again in 2010 when they made 18% to the index’s 15%.

The managers believe that ’08 was exceptional, and note that the strategy actually made money from 2000-02 when the market suffered from the bursting of the dot-com bubble.

In general, the strategy fares poorest when the market has wild swings. It fares best in gently rising markets, since both the long and options portfolios can make money if the market rises but less than the strike price of the options – they can earn 2% a month on an option that’s triggered if the market rises by more than 1%. If the market rises but by less than 1%, they pay out nothing, pocket the 2% and pocket the capital appreciation from their long portfolio.

What’s the role of the fund in a portfolio? They view it as a substitute for a large-cap value investment; so if your asset allocation plan is 20% LCV, then you could profitably invest up to 20% of your portfolio in Gargoyle. For the guys, it’s 100% of their US equity exposure.

Morty Speaks!  The rationale for hedging a long-term portfolio.

The Gargoyle call sparked – here’s a surprise – considerable commentary on our discussion board. Some were impressed with Josh and Alan’s fortitude in maintaining their market exposure during the 2007-09 meltdown but others had a more quizzical response. “Expatsp” captured it this way: “Though this seems the best of the long/short bunch, I just don’t see the appeal of long/short funds for anyone who has a long-term horizon.”

There’s a great scene in Big Bang Theory where the brilliant but socially-inept Sheldon clears up a misunderstanding surrounding a comment he made about his roommate: “Ah, I understand the confusion. Uh, I have never said that you are not good at what you do. It’s just that what you do is not worth doing.” Same theme.

Morty Schaja, RiverPark’s president, is in an interesting position to comment on the question. His firm not only advises a pure long/short fund (RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity RLSFX) and a long hedged with options fund (RiverPark Gargoyle), but it also runs a very successful long-only fund (RiverPark Large Cap Growth RPXFX, which he describes as “our five-star secret weapon”).

With the obvious disclaimer that Morty has a stake in the success of all of the RiverPark funds (and the less-obvious note that he has invested deeply in each), we asked him the obvious question: Is it worth doing?

 

Since RiverPark is one of the very few investment advisors to offer the whole range of hedged funds, I asked Morty to share a quick snapshot of each to illustrate how the different strategies are likely to play out in various sets of market conditions.

Let’s start with the RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity Fund.

 

How does this compare with the RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund?

 

And finally, tell us about the new Structural Alpha Fund.

 

Is the Structural Alpha Fund an absolute return strategy?

Conference Call Upcoming

We haven’t scheduled a call for March. We only schedule calls when we can offer you the opportunity to speak with someone really interesting and articulate.  No one has reached that threshold this month, but we’ll keep looking on your behalf.

Conference call junkies might want to listen in on the next RiverNorth call, which focuses on the RiverNorth Managed Volatility Fund (RNBWX). Managed Volatility started life as RiverNorth Dynamic Buy-Write Fund. Long/short funds comes in three very distinct flavors, but are all lumped in the same performance category. For now, that works to the detriment of funds like Managed Volatility that rely on an options-based hedging strategy. The fund trails the long/short peer group since inception but has performed slightly better than the $8 billion Gateway Fund (GATEX). If you’re interested in the potential of an options-hedged portfolio, you’ll find the sign-up link on RiverNorth’s Events page.  The webcast takes place March 13, 2014 at 3:15 Central.

Launch Alert: Conestoga SMid Cap (CCSMX)

On February 28, 2014, Conestoga Mid Cap (CCMGX) ceased to be. Its liquidation was occasioned by negative assessments of its “asset size, strategic importance, current expenses and historical performance.” It trailed its peers in all seven calendar quarters since inception, in both rising and falling periods. With under $2 million in assets, its disappearance is not surprising.

Two things are surprising, however. First, its poor relative performance is surprising given the success of its sibling, Conestoga Small Cap (CCASX). CCASX is a four-star fund that received a “Silver” designation from Morningstar’s analysts. Morningstar lauds the stable management team, top-tier long-term returns, low volatility (its less volatile than 90% of its peers) and disciplined focus on high quality firms. And, in general, small cap teams have had little problem in applying their discipline successfully to slightly-larger firms.

Second, Conestoga’s decision to launch (on January 21, 2014) a new fund – SMid Cap – in virtually the same space is surprising, given their ability simply to tweak the existing fund. It smacks of an attempt to bury a bad record.

My conclusion after speaking with Mark Clewett, one of the Managing Directors at Conestoga: yeah, pretty much. But honorably.

Mark made two arguments.

1. Conestoga fundamentally mis-fit its comparison group. Conestoga targeted stocks in the $2 – 10 billion market cap range. Both its Morningstar peers and its Russell Midcap Growth benchmark have substantial investments in stocks up to $20 billion. The substantial exposure to those large cap names in a mid-cap wrapper drove its peer’s performance.

   The evidence is consistent with that explanation. It’s clear from the portfolio data that Conestoga was a much purer mid-cap play that either its benchmark or its peer group.

   Portfolio	Conestoga Mid Cap	Russell Mid-cap Growth	Mid-cap Growth Peers
   % large to mega cap	0	35	23
   % mid cap	86	63	63
   % small to micro cap	14	2	14
   Average market cap	5.1M	10.4M	8.4M

    By 2013, over 48% of the Russell index was stocks with market caps above $10 billion.

   Mark was able to pull the attribution data for Conestoga’s mid-cap composite, which this fund reflects. The performance picture is mixed: the composite outperformed its benchmark in 2010 and 2011, then trailed in 2013 and 2013. The fund’s holdings in the $2-5 billion and $5–10 billion bands sometimes outperformed their peers and sometimes trailed badly.

2. Tweaking the old fund would not be in the shareholders’ best interest.  The changes would be expensive and time-consuming. They would, at the same time, leave the new fund with the old fund’s record; that would inevitably cause some hesitance on the part of prospective investors, which meant it would be longer before the fund reached an economically viable size.

The hope is that with a new and more appropriate benchmark, a stable management team, sensible discipline and clean slate, the fund will achieve some of the success that Small Cap’s enjoyed.  I’m hopeful but, for now, we’ll maintain a watchful, sympathetic silence.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details.

Funds in registration this month are eligible to launch in late April or early May 2014 and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

This month David Welsch battled through wicked viruses and wicked snowstorms to track down eight funds in registration, one of the lowest totals since we launched three years ago.

The clear standout in the group is Dodge & Cox Global Bond, which the Dodge & Cox folks ran as “a private fund” since the end of December 2012.  It did really well in its one full year of operation – it gained 2.6% while its benchmark lost the same amount – and it comes with D&C’s signature low minimum, low expenses, low drama, team management.

Three other income funds are at least mildly interesting: Lazard Emerging Markets Income, Payden Strategic Income and Whitebox Unconstrained Income.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 50 sets of fund manager changes. The most intriguing of those include fallout from the pissing match at Pimco as Marc Seidner, an El-Erian ally, leaves to become GMO’s head of fixed-income operations.

Updates: The Observer here and there

I had a long conversation with a WSJ reporter which led to a short quotation in “Infrastructure funds are intriguing, but ….” The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 4 2014.  My bottom line was “infrastructure funds appear to be an incoherent mish-mash, with no two funds even agreeing on what sectors are worth including much less what stocks.  I don’t see any evidence of them adding value to a portfolio,” an observation prompted in part by T. Rowe Price’s decision to close their own Global Infrastructure fund. The writer, Lisa Ward, delicately quotes me as saying “you probably already own these same stocks in your other funds.” 

I was quoted as endorsing Artisan Global Small Cap (ARTWX) in Six promising new funds (though the subtitle might have been: “five of which I wouldn’t go near”), Kiplinger’s, Feb. 12 2014.  ARTWX draws on one of the most storied international management teams around, led by Mark Yockey.  The other funds profiled include three mutual funds and two ETFs.  The funds are Miller Income Opportunity (I’ve written elsewhere that “The whole enterprise leaves me feeling a little queasy since it looks either like Miller’s late-career attempt to prove that he’s not a dinosaur or Legg’s post-divorce sop to him”), Fidelity Event-Driven (FARNX: no record that Fido can actually execute with new funds anymore, much less with niche funds and untested managers), and Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility (VMVFX: meh – they work backward from a target risk level to see what returns they can generate).  The ETFs are two of the “smart beta” sorts of products, iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor (QUAL) and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market (FNDB). 

Finally, there was a very short piece entitled “Actively managed funds with low volatility,” in Bottom Line, Feb. 15 2014.  The publication is not online, at least not in an accessible form.  The editors were looking for funds with fairly well-established track records that have a tradition of low volatility.  I offered up Cook & Bynum Fund (COBYX, I’ve linked to our 2013 profile of them), FPA Crescent (FPACX, in which I’m invested) and Osterweis Fund (OSTWX).

Updates: Forbes discovers Beck, Mack & Oliver Partners (BMPEX)

Forbes rank a nice article on BMPEX, “Swinging at Strikes,” in their February 10, 2014 issue. Despite the lunacy of describing a $175 million fund as “puny” and “tiny,” the author turns up some fun facts to know and tell (the manager, Zac Wydra, was a premed student until he discovered that the sight of blood made him queasy) and gets the fund’s basic discipline right. Zac offers some fairly lively commentary in his Q4 shareholder letter, including a nice swipe at British haughtiness and a reflection on the fact that the S&P 500 is at an all-time high at the same time that the number of S&P 500 firms issuing negative guidance is near an all-time high.

Briefly Noted . . .

BlackRock has added the BlackRock Emerging Markets Long/Short Equity Fund (BLSAX) and the BlackRock Global Long/Short Equity Fund (BDMAX) as part of the constituent fund lineup in its Aggressive Growth, Conservative , Growth and Moderate Prepared Portfolios, and its Lifepath Active-Date series. Global has actually made some money for its investors, which EM has pretty much flatlined while the emerging markets have risen over its lifetime.  No word on a target allocation for either.

Effective May 1, Chou Income (CHOIX) will add preferred stocks to the list of their principal investments: “fixed-income securities, financial instruments that provide exposure to fixed-income securities, and preferred stocks.” Morningstar categorizes CHOIX as a World Bond fund despite the fact that bonds are less than 20% of its current portfolio and non-U.S. bonds are less than 3% of it.

Rydex executed reverse share splits on 13 of its funds in February. Investors received one new share for between three and seven old shares, depending on the fund.

Direxion will follow the same path on March 14, 2014 with five of their funds. They’re executing reverse splits on three bear funds and splits on two bulls.  They are: 

 

 SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Auxier Focus (AUXIX) is reducing the minimum initial investment for their Institutional shares from $250,000 to $100,000. Investor and “A” shares remain at $5,000. The institutional shares cost 25 basis points less than the others.

TFS Market Neutral Fund (TFSMX) reopened to new investors on March 1, 2014.

At the end of January, Whitebox eliminated its Advisor share class and dropped the sales load on Whitebox Tactical. Their explanation: “The elimination of the Advisor share class was basically to streamline share classes … eliminating the front load was in the best interest of our clients.” The first makes sense; the second is a bit disingenuous. I’m doubtful that Whitebox imposed a sales load because it was “in the best interest of our clients” and I likewise doubt that’s the reason for its elimination.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Artisan Global Value (ARTGX) closed on Valentine’s Day.

Grandeur Peak will soft close the Emerging Markets Opportunities (GPEOX) and hard close the Global Opportunities (GPGOX) and International Opportunities (GPIOX) strategies on March 5, 2014.

 Effective March 5, 2014, Invesco Select Companies Fund (ATIAX) will close to all investors.

Vanguard Admiral Treasury Money Market Fund (VUSSX) is really, really closed.  It will “no longer accept additional investments from any financial advisor, intermediary, or institutional accounts, including those of defined contribution plans. Furthermore, the Fund is no longer available as an investment option for defined contribution plans. The Fund is closed to new accounts and will remain closed until further notice.”  So there.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective as of March 21, 2014, Brown Advisory Emerging Markets Fund (BIAQX) is being changed to the Brown Advisory – Somerset Emerging Markets Fund. The investment objective and the investment strategies of the Fund are not being changed in connection with the name change for the Fund and the current portfolio managers will continue. At the same time, Brown Advisory Strategic European Equity Fund (BIAHX) becomes Brown Advisory -WMC Strategic European Equity Fund.

Burnham Financial Industries Fund has been renamed Burnham Financial Long/Short Fund (BURFX).  It’s a tiny fund (with a sales load and high expenses) that’s been around for a decade.  It’s hard to know what to make of it since “long/short financial” is a pretty small niche with few other players.

Caritas All-Cap Growth Fund has become Goodwood SMID Cap Discovery Fund (GAMAX), a name that my 13-year-old keeps snickering at.  It’s been a pretty mediocre fund which gained new managers in October.

Compass EMP Commodity Long/Short Strategies Fund (CCNAX) is slated to become Compass EMP Commodity Strategies Enhanced Volatility Weighted Fund in May. Its objective will change to “match the performance of the CEMP Commodity Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index.”  It’s not easily searchable by name at Morningstar because they’ve changed the name in their index but not on the fund’s profile.

Eaton Vance Institutional Emerging Markets Local Debt Fund (EELDX) has been renamed Eaton Vance Institutional Emerging Markets Debt Fund and is now a bit less local.

Frost Diversified Strategies and Strategic Balanced are hitting the “reset” button in a major way. On March 31, 2014, they change name, objective and strategy. Frost Diversified Strategies (FDSFX) becomes Frost Conservative Allocation while Strategic Balanced (FASTX) becomes Moderate Allocation. Both become funds-of-funds and discover a newfound delight in “total return consistent with their allocation strategy.” Diversified currently is a sort of long/short, ETFs, funds and stocks, options mess … $4 million in assets, high expense, high turnover, indifferent returns, limited protection. Strategic Balanced, with a relatively high downside capture, is a bit bigger and a bit calmer but ….

Effective on or about May 30, 2014, Hartford Balanced Allocation Fund (HBAAX) will be changed to Hartford Moderate Allocation Fund.

At the same time, Hartford Global Research Fund (HLEAX) becomes Hartford Global Equity Income Fund, with a so far unexplained “change to the Fund’s investment goal.” 

Effective March 31, 2014, MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (MHOAX) will change its name to MFS Global High Yield Fund.

In mid-February, Northern Enhanced Large Cap Fund (NOLCX) became Northern Large Cap Core Fund though, at last check, Morningstar hadn’t noticed. Nice little fund, by the way.

Speaking of not noticing, the folks at Whitebox have accused of us ignoring “one of the most important changes we made, which is Whitebox Long Short Equity Fund is now the Whitebox Market Neutral Equity Fund.” We look alternately chastened by our negligence and excited to report such consequential news.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

BCM Decathlon Conservative Portfolio, BCM Decathlon Moderate Portfolio and BCM Decathlon Aggressive Portfolio have decided that they can best serve their shareholders by liquidating.  The event is scheduled for April 14, 2014.

BlackRock International Bond Portfolio (BIIAX) has closed and will liquidate on March 14, 2014.  A good move given the fund’s dismal record, though you’d imagine that a firm with BlackRock’s footprint would want a fund of this name.

Pending shareholder approval, City National Rochdale Diversified Equity Fund (AHDEX) will merge into City National Rochdale U.S. Core Equity Fund (CNRVX) of the Trust. I rather like the honesty of their explanation to shareholders:

This reorganization is being proposed, among other reasons, to reduce the annual operating expenses borne by shareholders of the Diversified Fund. CNR does not expect significant future in-flows to the Diversified Fund and anticipates the assets of the Diversified Fund may continue to decrease in the future. The Core Fund has significantly more assets [and] … a significantly lower annual expense ratio.

Goldman Sachs Income Strategies Portfolio merged “with and into” the Goldman Sachs Satellite Strategies Portfolio (GXSAX) and Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund with and into the Goldman Sachs Asia Equity Fund (GSAGX) in mid-February.

Huntington Rotating Markets Fund (HRIAX) has closed and will liquidate by March 28, 2014.

Shareholders of Ivy Asset Strategy New Opportunities Fund (INOAX) have been urged to approve the merger of their fund into Ivy Emerging Markets Equity Fund (IPOAX).  The disappearing fund is badly awful but the merger is curious because INOAX is not primarily an emerging markets fund; its current portfolio is split between developed and developing.

The Board of Trustees of the JPMorgan Ex-G4 Currency Strategies Fund (EXGAX) has approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund on or about March 10, 2014.  The “strategies” in question appear to involve thrashing around without appreciable gain.

After an entire year of operation (!), the KKR Board of Trustees of the Fund approved a Plan of Liquidation with respect to KKR Alternative Corporate Opportunities Fund (XKCPX) and KKR Alternative High Yield Fund (KHYZX). Accordingly, the Fund will be liquidated in accordance with the Plan on or about March 31, 2014 or as soon as practicable thereafter. 

Loomis Sayles Mid Cap Growth Fund (LAGRX) will be liquidated on March 14^th, a surprisingly fast execution given that the Board approved the action just the month before.

On February 13, 2014, the shareholders of the Quaker Small Cap Growth Tactical Allocation Fund (QGASX) approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund. 

In Closing . . .

We asked you folks, in January, what made the Observer worthwhile.  That is, what did we offer that brought you back each month?  We poured your answers into a Wordle in hopes of capturing the spirit of the 300 or so responses.

Three themes recurred:  (1) the Observer is independent. We’re not trying to sell you anything.  We’re not trying to please advertisers. We’re not desperate to write inflated drivel in order to maximize clicks. We don’t have a hidden agenda. 

(2) We talk about things that other folks do not. There’s a lot of appreciation for our willingness to ferret out smaller, emerging managers and to bring them to you in a variety of formats. There’s also some appreciate of our willingness to step back from the fray and try to talk about important long-term issues rather than sexy short-term ones.

(3) We’re funny. Or weird. Perhaps snarky, opinionated, cranky and, on a good day, curmudgeonly.

And that helps us a lot.  As we plan for the future of the Observer, we’re thinking through two big questions: where should we be going and how can we get there? We’ll write a bit next time about your answer to the final question: what should we be doing that we aren’t (yet)?

We’ve made a couple changes under the hood to make the Observer stronger and more reliable.  We’ve completed our migration to a new virtual private server at Green Geeks, which should help with reliability and allow us to handle a lot more traffic.  (We hit records again in January and February.)  We also upgraded the software that runs our discussion board.  It gives the board better security and a fresher look.  If you’ve got a bookmarked link to the discussion board, we need you to reset your link to http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussions.  If you use your old bookmark you’ll just end up on a redirect page.  

In April we celebrate our third anniversary. Old, for a website nowadays, and so we thought we’d solicit the insights of some of the Grand Old Men of the industry: well-seasoned, sometimes storied managers who struck out on their own after long careers in large firms. We’re trying hard to wheedle our colleague Ed, who left Oakmark full of years and honors, to lead the effort. While he’s at that, we’re planning to look again at the emerging markets and the almost laughable frenzy of commentary on “the bloodbath in the emerging markets.”  (Uhh … Vanguard’s Emerging Market Index has dropped 8% in a year. That’s not a bloodbath. It’s not even a correction. It’s a damned annoyance. And, too, talking about “the emerging markets” makes about as much analytic sense as talking about “the white people.”  It’s not one big undifferentiated mass).  We’ve been looking at fund flow data and Morningstar’s “buy the unloved” strategy.  Mr. Studzinski has become curious, a bit, about Martin Focused Value (MFVRX) and the arguments that have led them to a 90% cash stake. We’ll look into it.

Please do bookmark our Amazon link.  Every bit helps! 

 As ever,

By David Snowball

Dear friends,

Given the intensity of the headlines, you’d think that Black Monday had revisited us weekly or, perhaps, that Smaug had settled his scaly bulk firmly atop our portfolios.  But no, the market wandered down a few percent for the month.  I have the same reaction to the near-hysterical headlines about the emerging markets (“rout,” “panic” and “sell-off” are popular headline terms). From the headlines, you’d think the emerging markets had lost a quarter of their value and that their governments were back to defaulting on debts and privatizing companies. They haven’t and they aren’t.  It makes you wonder how ready we are for the inevitable sharp correction that many are predicting and few are expecting.

Where are the customers’ yachts: The power of asking the wrong question

In 1940, Fred Schwed penned one of the most caustic and widely-read finance books of its time.  Where Are the Customers’ Yachts, now in its sixth edition, opens with an anecdote reportedly set in 1900 and popular on Wall Street in the 1920s.

An out-of-town visitor was shown the wonders of the New York financial district. When the party arrived at the Battery, one of his guides indicated some of the handsome ships riding at anchor. He said, “Look, those are the bankers’ and the brokers’ yachts.” The naïve visitor asked, “Where are the customer’s yachts?”

 

 

That’s an almost irresistibly attractive tale since it so quickly captures the essence of what we all suspect: finance is a game rigged to benefit the financiers, a sort of reverse Robin Hood scheme in which we eagerly participate. Disclosure of rampant manipulation of the London currency exchanges is just the most recent round in the game.

As charming as it is, it’s also fundamentally the wrong question.  Why?  Because “buying a yacht” was not the goal for the vast majority of those customers.  Presumably their goals were things like “buying a house” or “having a rainy day cushion,” which means the right question would have been “where are the customer’s houses?”

We commit the same fallacy today when we ask, “can your fund beat the market?”  It’s the question that drives hundreds of articles about the failure of active management and of financial advisors more generally.  But it’s the wrong question.  Our financial goals aren’t expressed relative to the market; they’re expressed in terms of life goals and objectives to which our investments might contribute.

In short, the right question is “why does investing in this fund give me a better chance of achieving my goals than I would have otherwise?”  That might redirect our attention to questions far more important than whether Fund X lags or leads the S&P500 by 50 bps a year.  Those fractions of a percent are not driving your investment performance nearly as much as other ill-considered decisions are.  The impulse to jump in and out of emerging markets funds (or bond funds or U.S. small caps) based on wildly overheated headlines are far more destructive than any other factor.

Morningstar calculates “investor returns” for hundreds of funds. Investor returns are an attempt to answer the question, “did the investors show up after the party was over and leave as things got dicey?”  That is, did investors buy into something they didn’t understand and weren’t prepared to stick with? The gap between what an investor could have made – the fund’s long-term returns – and what the average investor actually seems to have made – the investor returns – can be appalling.  T. Rowe Price Emerging Market Stock (PRMSX) made 9% over the past decade, its average investor made 4%. Over a 15 year horizon the disparity is worse: the fund earned 10.7% while investors were around for 4.3% gains.  The gap for Dodge & Cox Stock (DODGX) is smaller but palpable: 9.2% for the fund over 15 years but 7.0% for its well-heeled investors. 

My colleague Charles has urged me to submit a manuscript on mutual fund investing to John Wiley’s Little Book series, along with such classics as The Little Book That Makes You Rich and The Little Book That Beats the Market. I might. But if I do, it will be The Little Book That Doesn’t Beat the Market: And Why That’s Just Fine. Its core message will be this:

If you spend less time researching your investments than you spend researching a new kitchen blender, you’re screwed.  If you base your investments on a belief in magical outcomes, you’re screwed.  And if you think that 9% returns will flow to you with the smooth, stately grace of a Rolls Royce on a country road, you’re screwed.

But if you take the time to understand yourself and you take the time to understand the strategies that will be used by the people you’re hiring to provide for your future, you’ve got a chance.

And a good, actively managed mutual fund can make a difference but only if you look for the things that make a difference.  I’ll suggest four:

Understanding: do you know what your manager plans to do?  Here’s a test: you can explain it to your utterly uninterested spouse and then have him or her correctly explain it back?  Does your manager write in a way that draws you closer to understanding, or are you seeing impenetrable prose or marketing babble?  When you have a question, can you call or write and actually receive an intelligible answer?

Alignment: is your manager’s personal best interests directly tied to your success?  Has he limited himself to his best ideas, or does he own a bit of everything, everywhere?  Has he committed his own personal fortune to the fund?  Have his Board of Directors?  Is he capable of telling you the limits of his strategy; that is, how much money he can handle without diluting performance? And is he committed to closing the fund long before you reach that sad point?

Independence: does your fund have a reason to exist? Is there any reason to believe that you couldn’t substitute any one of a hundred other strategies and get the same results? Does your fund publish its active share; that is, the amount of difference between it and an index? Does it publish its r-squared value; that is, the degree to which it merely imitates the performance of its peer group? 

Volatility: does your manager admit to how bad it could get? Not just the fund’s standard deviation, which is a pretty dilute measure of risk. No, do they provide their maximum drawdown for you; that is, the worst hit they ever took from peak to trough.  Are the willing to share and explain their Sharpe and Sortino ratios, key measures of whether you’re getting reasonably compensated for the hits you’ll inevitable take?  Are they willing to talk with you in sharply rising markets about how to prepare for the sharply falling ones?

The research is clear: there are structural and psychological factors that make a difference in your prospects for success.  Neither breathless headlines nor raw performance numbers are among them.

Then again, there’s a real question of whether it could ever compete for total sales with my first book, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (total 20-year sales: 650 copies).

Absolute value’s sudden charm

Jeremy Grantham often speaks of “career risk” as one of the great impediments to investment success. The fact that managers know they’re apt to be fired for doing the right thing at the wrong time is a powerful deterrent to them. For a great many, “the right thing” is refusing to buy overvalued stocks. Nonetheless, when confronted by a sharply rising market and investor ebullience, most conclude that it’s “the wrong time” to act on principle. In short, they buy when they know  they probably shouldn’t.

A handful of brave souls have refused to succumb to the pressure. In general, they’re described as “absolute value” investors. That is, they’ll only buy stocks that are selling at a substantial discount to their underlying value; the mere fact that they’re “the best of a bad lot” isn’t enough to tempt them.

And, in general, they got killed – at least in relative terms – in 2013. We thought it would be interesting to look at the flip side, the performance of those same funds during January 2014 when the equity indexes dropped 3.5 – 4%.  While the period is too brief to offer any major insights, it gives you a sense of how dramatically fortunes can reverse.

THE ABSOLUTE VALUE GUYS

	Cash	Relative 2013 return	Relative 2014 return
ASTON River Road Independent Value ARIVX	67%	bottom 1%	top 1%
Beck, Mack & Oliver Partners BMPEX	18	bottom 3%	bottom 17%
Cook & Bynum COBYX	44	bottom 1%	top 8%
FPA Crescent FPACX *	35	top 5%	top 30%
FPA International Value FPIVX	40	bottom 20%	bottom 30%
Longleaf Partners Small-Cap LLSCX	45	bottom 23%	top 10%
Oakseed SEEDX	21	bottom 8%	top 5%
Pinnacle Value PVFIX	44	bottom 2%	top 3%
Yacktman YACKX	22	bottom 17%	top 27%

Motion, not progress

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.

                                                                                                         Ambrose Bierce

One of the joys of having entered the investment business in the 1980’s is that you came in at a time when the profession was still populated by some really nice and thoughtful people, well-read and curious about the world around them.  They were and are generally willing to share their thoughts and ideas without hesitation. They were the kind of people that you hoped you could keep as friends for life.  One such person is my friend, Bruce, who had a thirty-year career on the “buy side” as both an analyst and a director of research at several well-known money management firms. He retired in 2008 and divides his time between homes in western Connecticut and Costa Rica.

Here in Chicago in January, with snow falling again and the wind chill taking the temperature below zero, I see that Bruce, sitting now in Costa Rica, is the smart one.  Then I reflected on a lunch we had on a warm summer day last August near the Mohawk Trail in western Massachusetts.  We stay in touch regularly but this was the first time the two of us had gotten together in several years. 

The first thing I asked Bruce was what he missed most about no longer being active in the business.  Without hesitation he said that it was the people. For most of his career he had interacted daily with other smart investors as well as company management teams.  You learned how they thought, what kind of people they were, whether they loved their businesses or were just doing it to make money, and how they treated their shareholders and investors. Some of his best memories were of one-on-one meetings or small group dinners.  These were events that companies used to hold for their institutional shareholders.  That ended with the implementation of Regulation FD (full disclosure), the purpose of which was to eliminate the so-called whisper number that used to be “leaked” to certain brokerage firm analysts ahead of earnings reporting dates. This would allow those analysts to tip-off favored clients, giving them an edge in buying or selling a position. Companies now deal with this issue by keeping tight control on investor meetings and what can be said in them, tending to favor multi-media analyst days (timed, choreographed, scripted, and rehearsed events where you find yourself one of three hundred in a room being spoon-fed drivel), and earnings conference calls (timed, choreographed, scripted, and rehearsed events where you find yourself one of a faceless mass listening to reporting without seeing any body language).  Companies will still visit current and potential investors by means of “road shows” run by a friendly brokerage firm coincidentally looking for investment banking business.  But the exchange of information can be less than free-flowing, especially if the brokerage analyst sits in on the meeting.  And, to prevent accidental disclosure, the event is still heavily scripted.  It has however created a new sideline business for brokerage firms in these days of declining commission rates.  Even if you are a large existing institutional shareholder, the broker/investment bankers think you should pay them $10,000 – $15,000 in commissions for the privilege of seeing the management of a company you already own.  This is apparently illegal in the United Kingdom, and referred to as “pay to play” there.  Here, neither the SEC nor the compliance officers have tumbled to it as an apparent fiduciary violation.

Next I asked him what had been most frustrating in his final years. Again without hesitation he said that it was difficult to feel that you were actually able to add value in evaluating large cap companies, given how the regulatory environment had changed. I mentioned to him that everyone seemed to be trying to replace the on-site leg work part of fundamental analysis with screening and extensive earnings modeling, going out multiple years. Unfortunately many of those using such approaches appear to have not learned the law of significant numbers in high school chemistry. They seek exactitude while in reality adding complexity.  At the same time, the subjective value of sitting in a company headquarters waiting room and seeing how customers, visitors, and employees are treated is no longer appreciated.

Bruce, like many value investors, favors private market value as the best underpinning for security valuation. That is, based on recent transactions to acquire a comparable business, what was this one worth? But you need an active merger & acquisition market for the valuation not to be tied to stale inputs. He mentioned that he had observed the increased use of dividend discount models to complement other valuation work. However, he thought that there was a danger in a low interest-rate environment that a dividend discount model could produce absurd results. One analyst had brought him a valuation write-up supported by a dividend discount model. Most of the business value ended up being in the terminal segment, requiring a 15 or 16X EBITDA multiple to make the numbers work.  Who in the real world pays that for a business?  I mentioned that Luther King, a distinguished investment manager in Texas with an excellent long-term record, insisted on meeting as many company managements as he could, even in his seventies, as part of his firm’s ongoing due diligence. He did not want his investors to think that their investments were being followed and analyzed by “three guys and a Bloomberg terminal.”  And in reality, one cannot learn an industry and company solely through a Bloomberg terminal, webcasts, and conference calls. 

Bruce then mentioned another potentially corrupting factor. His experience was that investment firms compensate analysts based on idea generation, performance of the idea, and the investment dollars committed to the idea. This can lead to gamesmanship as you get to the end of the measurement period for compensation. E.g., we tell corporate managements they shouldn’t act as if they were winding up and liquidating their business at the end of a quarter or year. Yet, we incent analysts to act that way (and lock in a profitable bonus) by recommending sale of an idea much too early. Or at the other extreme, they may not want to recommend sale of the idea when they should. I mentioned that one solution was to eliminate such compensation performance assessments as one large West Coast firm is reputed to have done after the disastrous 2008 meltdown. They were trying to restore a culture that for eighty years had been geared to producing the best long-term compounding investment ideas for the clients. However, they also had the luxury of being independent.      

Finally I asked Bruce what tipped him over the edge into retirement. He said he got tired of discussions about “scalability.” A brief explanation is in order. After the dot-com disaster at the beginning of the decade, followed by the debacle years of 2008-2009, many investment firms put into place an implicit policy. For an idea to be added to the investment universe, a full investment position had to be capable of being acquired in five days average trading volume for that issue. Likewise, one had to also be able to exit the position in five days average trading volume. If it could not pass those hurdles, it was not a suitable investment. This cuts out small cap and most mid-cap ideas, as well as a number of large cap ideas where there is limited investment float. While the benchmark universe might be the S&P 500, in actuality it ends up being something very different. Rather than investing in the best ideas for clients, one ends up investing in the best liquid ideas for clients (I will save for another day the discussion about illiquid investments consistently producing higher returns long-term, albeit with greater volatility). 

From Bruce’s perspective, too much money is chasing too few good ideas. This has resulted in what we call “style drift”.  Firms that had made their mark as small cap or mid cap investors didn’t want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs by shutting off new money, so they evolved to become large cap investors. But ultimately that is self-defeating, for as the assets come in, you either have to shut down the flows or change your style by adding more and larger positions, which ultimately leads to under-performance.

I mentioned to Bruce that the other problem of too much money chasing too few good new ideas was that it tended to encourage “smart guy investing,” a term coined by a mutual friend of ours in Chicago. The perfect example of this was Dell. When it first appeared in the portfolios of Southeastern Asset Management, I was surprised. Over the next year, the idea made its way in to many more portfolios at other firms. Why? Because originally Southeastern had made it a very large position, which indicated they were convinced of its investment merits. The outsider take was “they are smart guys – they must have done the work.” And so, at the end of the day after making their own assessments, a number of other smart guys followed. In retrospect it appears that the really smart guy was Michael Dell.

A month ago I was reading a summary of the 2013 annual investment retreat of a family office investment firm with an excellent reputation located in Vermont. A conclusion reached was that the incremental value being provided by many large cap active managers was not justified by the fees being charged. Therefore, they determined that that part of an asset allocation mix should make use of low cost index funds. That is a growing trend. Something else that I think is happening now in the industry is that investment firms that are not independent are increasingly being run for short-term profitability as the competition and fee pressures from products like exchange traded funds increases. Mike Royko, the Chicago newspaper columnist once said that the unofficial motto of Chicago is “Ubi est meum?” or “Where’s mine?” Segments of the investment management business seemed to have adopted it as well. As a long-term value investor in New York recently said to me, short-termism is now the thing. 

The ultimate lesson is the basic David Snowball raison d’etre for the Mutual Fund Observer. Find yourself funds that are relatively small and independent, with a clearly articulated philosophy and strategy. Look to see, by reading the reports and looking at the lists of holdings, that they are actually doing what they say they are doing, and that their interests are aligned with yours. Look at their active share, the extent to which the holdings do not mimic their benchmark index. And if you cannot be bothered to do the work, put your investments in low cost index vehicles and focus on asset allocation.  Otherwise, as Mr. Buffet once said, if you are seated at the table to play cards and don’t identify the “mark” you should leave, as you are it.

Edward Studzinski    

Impact of Category on Fund Ratings

The results for MFO’s fund ratings through quarter ending December 2013, which include the latest Great Owl and Three Alarm funds, can be found on the Search Tools page. The ratings are across 92 fund categories, defined by Morningstar, and include three newly created categories:

Corporate Bond. “The corporate bond category was created to cull funds from the intermediate-term and long-term bond categories that focused on corporate bonds,” reports Cara Esser.  Examples are Vanguard Interm-Term Invmt-Grade Inv (VFICX) and T. Rowe Price Corporate Income (PRPIX).

Preferred Stock. “The preferred stock category includes funds with a majority of assets invested in preferred stock over a three-year period. Previously, most preferred share funds were lumped in with long-term bond funds because of their historically high sensitivity to long-term yields.” An example is iShares US Preferred Stock (PFF).

Tactical Allocation. “Tactical Allocation portfolios seek to provide capital appreciation and income by actively shifting allocations between asset classes. These portfolios have material shifts across equity regions and bond sectors on a frequent basis.” Examples here are PIMCO All Asset All Authority Inst (PAUIX) and AQR Risk Parity (AQRIX).

An “all cap” or “all style” category is still not included in the category definitions, as explained by John Rekenthaler in Why Morningstar Lacks an All-Cap Fund Category. The omission frustrates many, including BobC, a seasoned contributor to the MFO board:

Osterweis (OSTFX) is a mid-cap blend fund, according to M*. But don’t say that to John Osterweis. Even looking at the style map, you can see the fund covers all of the style boxes, and it has about 20% in foreign stocks, with 8% in emerging countries. John would tell you that he has never managed the fund to a style box. In truth he is style box agnostic. He is looking for great companies to buy at a discount. Yet M* compares the fund with others that are VERY different.

In fairness, according to the methodology, “for multiple-share-class funds, each share class is rated separately and counted as a fraction of a fund within this scale, which may cause slight variations in the distribution percentages.” Truth is, fund managers or certainly their marketing departments are sensitive to what category their fund lands-in, as it can impact relative ratings for return, risk, and price.

As reported in David’s October commentary, we learned that Whitebox Funds appealed to the Morningstar editorial board to have its Tactical Opportunities Fund (WBMIX) changed from aggressive allocation to long/short equity. WBMIX certainly has the latitude to practice long/short; in fact, the strategy is helping the fund better negotiate the market’s rough start in 2014. But its ratings are higher and price is lower, relatively, in the new category.

One hotly debated fund on the MFO board, ASTON/River Road Independent Small Value (ARIVX), managed by Eric Cinnamond, would also benefit from a category change. As a small cap, the fund rates a 1 (bottom quintile) for 2013 in the MFO ratings system, but when viewed as a conservative or tactical allocation fund – because of significant shifts to cash – the ratings improve. Here is impact on return group rank for a couple alternative categories:

Of course, a conservative tactical allocation category would be a perfect antidote here (just kidding).

Getting It Wrong. David has commented more than once about the “wildly inappropriate” mis-categorization of Riverpark Short Term High Yield Fund (RPHIX), managed by David Sherman, which debuted with just a single star after its first three years of operation. The MFO community considers the closed fund more of a cash alternative, suited best to the short- or even ultrashort-term bond categories, but Morningstar placed it in the high yield bond category.

Exacerbating the issue is that the star system appears to rank returns after deducting for a so-called “risk penalty,” based on the variation in month-to-month return during the rating period. This is good. But it also means that funds like RPHIX, which have lower absolute returns with little or no downside, do not get credit for their very high risk-adjusted return ratios, like Sharpe, Sortino, or Martin.

Below is the impact of categorization, as well as return metrics, on its performance ranking. The sweet irony is that its absolute return even beat the US bond aggregate index!

RPHIX is a top tier fund by just about any measure when placed in a more appropriate bond category or when examined with risk-adjusted return ratios. (Even Modigliani’s M2, a genuinely risk-adjusted return, not a ratio, that is often used to compare portfolios with different levels of risk, reinforces that RPHIX should still be top tier even in the high yield bond category.) Since Morningstar states its categorizations are “based strictly on portfolio statistics,” and not fund names, hopefully the editorial board will have opportunity to make things right for this fund at the bi-annual review in May.

A Broader View. Interestingly, prior to July 2002, Morningstar rated funds using just four broad asset-class-based groups: US stock, international stock, taxable bond, and municipal bonds. It switched to (smaller) categories to neutralize market tends or “tailwinds,” which would cause, for example, persistent outperformance by funds with value strategies.

A consequence of rating funds within smaller categories, however, is more attention goes to more funds, including higher risk funds, even if they have underperformed the broader market on a risk-adjusted basis. And in other cases, the system calls less attention to funds that have outperformed the broader market, but lost an occasional joust in their peer group, resulting in a lower rating.

Running the MFO ratings using only the four board legacy categories reveals just how much categorization can alter the ratings. For example, the resulting “US stock” 20-year Great Owl funds are dominated by allocation funds, along with a high number of sector equity funds, particularly health. But rate the same funds with the current categories (Great Owl Funds – 4Q2013), and we find more funds across the 3 x 3 style box, plus some higher risk sector funds, but the absence of health funds.

Fortunately, some funds are such strong performers that they appear to transcend categorization. The eighteen funds listed below have consistently delivered high excess return while avoiding large drawdown and end-up in the top return quintile over the past 20, 10, 5, and 3 year evaluation periods using either categorization approach:

 Roy Weitz grouped funds into only five equity and six specialty “benchmark categories” when he established the legacy Three Alarm Funds list. Similarly, when Accipiter created the MFO Miraculous Multi-Search tool, he organized the 92 categories used in the MFO rating system into 11 groups…not too many, not too few. Running the ratings for these groupings provides some satisfying results:

A more radical approach may be to replace traditional style categories altogether! For example, instead of looking for best performing small-cap value funds, one would look for the best performing funds based on a risk level consistent with an investor’s temperament. Implementing this approach, using Risk Group (as defined in ratings system) for category, identifies the following 20-year Great Owls:

Bottom Line. Category placement can be as important to a fund’s commercial success as its people, process, performance, price and parent. Many more categories exist today on which peer groups are established and ratings performed, causing us to pay more attention to more funds. And perhaps that is the point. Like all chambers of commerce, Morningstar is as much a promoter of the fund industry, as it is a provider of helpful information to investors. No one envies the enormous task of defining, maintaining, and defending the rationale for several dozen and ever-evolving fund categories. Investors should be wary, however, that the proliferation may provide a better view of the grove than the forest.

28Jan2014/Charles

Our readers speak!

And we’re grateful for it. Last month we gave folks an opportunity to weigh-in on their assessment of how we’re doing and what we should do differently. Nearly 350 of you shared your reactions during the first week of the New Year. That represents a tiny fraction of the 27,000 unique readers who came by in January, so we’re not going to put as much weight on the statistical results as on the thoughts you shared.

We thought we’d share what we heard. This month we’ll highlight the statistical results.  In March we’ll share some of your written comments (they run over 30 pages) and our understanding of them.

Who are you?

80% identified themselves as private investors, 18% worked in the financial services industry and 2% were journalists, bloggers and analysts.

How often do you read the Observer?

The most common answer is “I just drop by at the start of the month” (36%). That combines with “I drop by once every month, but not necessarily at the start”) (14%) to explain about half of the results. At the same time, a quarter of you visit four or more times every month. (And thanks for it!)

Which features are most (or least) interesting to you?

By far, the greatest number of “great, do more!” responses came under “individual fund profiles.” A very distant second and third were the longer pieces in the monthly commentary (such as Motion, Not Progress and Impact of Category on Fund Ratings) and the shorter pieces (on fund liquidations and such) in the commentary. Folks had the least interest in our conference calls and funds in registration.

Hmmm … we’re entirely sympathetic to the desire for more fund profiles. Morningstar has an effective monopoly in the area and their institutional biases are clear: of the last 100 fund analyses posted, only 13 featured funds with under one billion in assets. Only one fund launched since January 2010 was profiled. In response, we’re going to try to increase the number of profiles each month to at least four with a goal of hitting five or six. 

We’re not terribly concerned about the tepid response to the conference calls since they’re useful in writing our profiles and the audience for them continues to grow. If you haven’t tried one, perhaps it might be worthwhile this month?

And so, in response to your suggestion, here’s the freshly expanded …

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds. “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve. 

ASTON/River Road Long Short (ARLSX): measured in the cold light of risk-return statistics, ARLSX is as good as it gets. We’d recommend that interested parties look at both this profile and at the conference call highlights, below.

Artisan Global Small Cap (ARTWX): what part of “phenomenally talented, enormously experienced management team now offers access to a poorly-explored asset class” isn’t interesting to you?

Grandeur Peak Emerging Opportunities (GPEOX): ditto!

RiverNorth Equity Opportunity (RNEOX): ditto! Equity Opportunity is a redesigned and greatly strengthened version of an earlier fund.  This new edition is all RiverNorth and that is, for folks looking for buffered equity exposure, a really interesting option.

We try to think strategically about which funds to profile. Part of the strategy is to highlight funds that might do you well in the immediate market environment, as well as others that are likely to be distinctly out of step with today’s market but very strong additions in the long-run. We reached out in January to the managers of two funds in the latter category: the newly-launched Meridian Small Cap Growth (MSGAX) and William Blair Emerging Markets Small Cap (WESNX). Neither has responded to a request for information (we were curious about strategy capacity, for instance, and risk-management protocols). We’ll continue reaching out; if we don’t hear back, we’ll profile the funds in March with a small caution flag attached.

RiverNorth conference call, February 25 2014

RiverNorth’s opportunistic CEF strategy strikes us as distinctive, profitable and very crafty. We’ve tried to explain it in profiles of RNCOX and RNEOX. Investors who are intrigued by the opportunity to invest with RiverNorth should sign up for their upcoming webcast entitled RiverNorth Closed-End Fund Strategies: Capitalizing on Discount Volatility. While this is not an Observer event, we’ve spoken with Mr. Galley a lot and are impressed with his insights and his ability to help folks make sense of what the strategy can and cannot do.

Navigate over to http://www.rivernorthfunds.com/events/ for free registration.

Conference Call Highlights:  ASTON River Road Long/Short (ARLSX)

We spoke with Daniel Johnson and Matt Moran, managers for the River Road Long-Short Equity strategy which is incorporated in Aston River Road Long-Short Fund (ARLSX). Mike Mayhew, one of the Partners at Aston Asset, was also in on the call to answer questions about the fund’s mechanics. About 60 people joined in.

The highlights, for me, were:

the fund’s strategy is sensible and straightforward, which means there aren’t a lot of moving parts and there’s not a lot of conceptual complexity. The fund’s stock market exposure can run from 10 – 90% long, with an average in the 50-70% range. The guys measure their portfolio’s discount to fair value; if their favorite stocks sell at a less than 80% of fair value, they increase exposure. The long portfolio is compact (15-30), driven by an absolute value discipline, and emphasizes high quality firms that they can hold for the long term. The short portfolio (20-40 names) is stocked with poorly managed firms with a combination of a bad business model and a dying industry whose stock is overpriced and does not show positive price momentum. That is, they “get out of the way of moving trains” and won’t short stocks that show positive price movements.

the fund grew from $8M to $207M in a year, with a strategy capacity in the $1B – 1.5B range. They anticipate substantial additional growth, which should lower expenses a little (and might improve tax efficiency – my note, not theirs). Because they started the year with such a small asset base, the expense numbers are exaggerated; expenses might have been 5% of assets back when they were tiny, but that’s no longer the case. 

shorting expenses were boosted by the vogue for dividend-paying stocks, which  drove valuations of some otherwise sucky stocks sharply higher; that increases the fund’s expenses because they’ve got to repay those dividends but the managers believe that the shorts will turn out to be profitable even so.

the guys have no client other than the fund, don’t expect ever to have one, hope to manage the fund until they retire and they have 100% of their liquid net worth in it.

their target is “sleep-at-night equity exposure,” which translates to a maximum drawdown (their worst-case market event) of no more than 10-15%. They’ve been particularly appalled by long/short funds that suffered drawdowns in the 20-25% range which is, they say, not consistent with why folks buy such funds.

they’ve got the highest Sharpe ratio of any long-short fund, their longs beat the market by 900 bps, their shorts beat the inverse of the market by 1100 bps and they’ve kept volatility to about 40% of the market’s while capturing 70% of its total returns.

A lot of the Q&A focused on the fund’s short portfolio and a little on the current state of the market. The guys note that they tend to generate ideas (they keep a watchlist of no more than 40 names) by paging through Value Line. They focus on fundamentals (let’s call it “reality”) rather than just valuation numbers in assembling their portfolio. They point out that sometimes fundamentally rotten firms manage to make their numbers (e.g., dividend yield or cash flow) look good but, at the same time, the reality is that it’s a poorly managed firm in a failing industry. On the flip side, sometimes firms in special situations (spinoffs or those emerging from bankruptcy) will have little analyst coverage and odd numbers but still be fundamentally great bargains. The fact that they need to find two or three new ideas, rather than thirty or sixty, allows them to look more carefully and think more broadly. That turns out to be profitable.

Bottom Line: this is not an all-offense all the time fund, a stance paradoxically taken by some of its long-short peers.  Neither is it a timid little “let’s short an ETF or two and hope” offering.”  It has a clear value discipline and even clearer risk controls.  For a conservative equity investor like me, that’s been a compelling combination.

Folks unable to make the call but interested in it can download or listen to the .mp3 of the call, which will open in a separate window.

As with all of these funds, we have a featured funds page for ARLSX which provides a permanent home for the mp3 and highlights, and pulls together all of the best resources we have for the fund.

Would An Additional Heads Up Help?

Over 220 readers have signed up for a conference call mailing list. About a week ahead of each call, I write to everyone on the list to remind them of what might make the call special and how to register. If you’d like to be added to the conference call list, just drop me a line.

Conference Call Upcoming:  Joshua B. Parker and Alan Salzbank, RiverPark / Gargoyle Hedged Value

Josh Parker and Alan Salzbank, Co-Portfolio Managers of the RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund (RGHVX) and Morty Schaja, RiverPark’s CEO; are pleased to join us for a conference call scheduled for Wednesday, February 12 from 7:00 – 8:00 PM Eastern. We profiled the fund in June 2013, but haven’t spoken with the managers before.  

Why speak with them now?  Three reasons.  First, you really need to have a strategy in place for hedging the substantial gains booked by the stock market since its March 2009 low. There are three broad strategies for doing that: an absolute value strategy which will hold cash rather than overpriced equities, a long-short equity strategy and an options-based strategy. Since you’ve had a chance to hear from folks representing the first two, it seems wise to give you access to the third. Second, RiverPark has gotten it consistently right when it comes to both managers and strategies. I respect their ability and their record in bringing interesting strategies to “the mass affluent” (and me). Finally, RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund ranks as a top performing fund within the Morningstar Long/Short category since its inception 14 years ago. The Fund underwent a conversion from its former partnership hedge fund structure in April 2012 and is managed using the same approach by the same investment team, but now offers daily liquidity, low  minimums and a substantially lower fee structure for shareholders.

I asked Alan what he’d like folks to know ahead of the call. Here’s what he shared:

Alan and Josh have spent the last twenty-five years as traders and managers of options-based investment strategies beginning their careers as market makers on the option floor in the 1980’s. The Gargoyle strategy involves using a disciplined quantitative approach to find and purchase what they believe to be undervalued stocks. They have a unique approach to managing volatility through the sale of relatively overpriced index call options to hedge the portfolio. Their strategy is similar to traditional buy/write option strategies that offer reduced volatility and some downside protection, but gains an advantage by selling index rather single stock options. This allows them to benefit from both the systemic overpricing of index options while not sacrificing the alpha they hope to realize on their bottom-up stock picking, 

The Fund targets a 50% net market exposure and manages the option portfolio such that market exposure stays within the range of 35% to 65%. Notably, using this conservative approach, the Fund has still managed to outperform the S&P 500 over the last five years. Josh and Alan believe that over the long term shareholders can continue to realize returns greater than the market with less risk. Gargoyle’s website features an eight minute video “The Options Advantage” describing the investment process and the key differences between their strategy and a typical single stock buy-write (click here to watch video).

That call is scheduled for Wednesday, February 12, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern. We’ll provide additional details in our February issue.  

HOW CAN YOU JOIN IN?

If you’d like to join in, just click on register and you’ll be taken to the Chorus Call site. In exchange for your name and email, you’ll receive a toll-free number, a PIN and instructions on joining the call. If you register, I’ll send you a reminder email on the morning of the call.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details.

Funds in registration this month are eligible to launch in late March or early April 2014, and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

This month David Welsch celebrated a newly-earned degree from SUNY-Sullivan and still tracked down 18 no-load retail funds in registration, which represents our core interest.

Four sets of filings caught our attention. First, DoubleLine is launching two new and slightly edgy funds (the “wherever I want to go” Flexible Income Fund managed by Mr. Gundlach and an emerging markets short-term bond fund). Second, three focused value funds from Pzena, a well-respected institutional manager. Third, Scout Equity Opportunity Fund which will be managed by Brent Olson, a former Aquila Three Peaks Opportunity Growth Fund (ATGAX) manager. While I can’t prove a cause-and-effect relationship, ATGAX vastly underperformed its mid-cap growth peers for the decade prior to Mr. Olson’s arrival and substantially outperformed them during his tenure. 

Finally, Victory Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund will join the small pool of EM small cap funds. I’d normally be a bit less interested, but their EM small cap separate accounts have substantially outperformed their benchmark with relatively low volatility over the past five years. The initial expense ratio will be 1.50% and the minimum initial investment is $2500, reduced to $1000 for IRAs.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 39 sets of fund manager changes. The most intriguing of those include what appears to be the surprising outflow of managers from T. Rowe Price, Alpine’s decision to replace its lead managers with an outsider and entirely rechristen one of their funds, and Bill McVail’s departure after 15 years at Turner Small Cap Growth.

Updates

We noted a couple months ago that DundeeWealth was looking to exit the U.S. fund market and sell their funds. Through legal maneuvers too complicated for me to follow, the very solid Dynamic U.S. Growth Fund (Class II, DWUHX) has undergone the necessary reorganization and will continue to function as Dynamic U.S. Growth Fund with Noah Blackstein, its founding manager, still at the helm. 

Briefly Noted . . .

Effective March 31 2014, Alpine Innovators Fund (ADIAX) transforms into Alpine Small Cap Fund.  Following the move, it will be repositioned as a domestic small cap core fund, with up to 30% international.  Both of Innovator’s managers, the Liebers, are being replaced by Michael T. Smith, long-time manager of Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend Fund (LSBAX).  Smith’s fund had a very weak record over its last five years and was merged out of existence in July, 2013; Smith left Lord Abbett in February of that year.

Effective April 1, 2014, the principal investment strategy of the Green Century Equity Fund (GCEQX) will be revised to change the index tracked by the Fund, so as to exclude the stocks of companies that explore for, process, refine or distribute coal, oil or gas. 

The Oppenheimer Steelpath funds have decided to resort to English. It’s kinda refreshing. The funds’ current investment Objectives read like this:

The investment objective of Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP Alpha Fund (the “Fund” or “Alpha Fund”) is to provide investors with a concentrated portfolio of energy infrastructure Master Limited Partnerships (“MLPs”) which the Advisor believes will provide substantial long-term capital appreciation through distribution growth and an attractive level of current income.

As of February 28, it becomes:

The Fund seeks total return.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

The Board of Trustees of the Fund has approved an increase in the Congressional Effect Fund’s (CEFFX) expense cap from 1.50% to 3.00%. Since I think their core strategy – “go to cash whenever Congress is in session” – is not sensible, a suspicion supported by their 0.95% annual returns over the past five years, becoming less attractive to investors is probably a net good.

Driehaus Mutual Funds’ Board approved reductions in the management fees for the Driehaus International Discovery Fund (DRIDX) and the Driehaus Global Growth Fund (DRGGX) which became effective January 1, 2014.  At base, it’s a 10-15 bps drop. 

Effective February 3, 2014, Virtus Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund (HEMZX) will be open to new investors. Low risk, above average returns but over $7 billion in the portfolio. Technically that’s capped at “two cheers.”

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Effective February 14, 2014, American Beacon Stephens Small Cap Growth Fund (STSGX) will act to limit inflows by stopping new retirement and benefit plans from opening accounts with the fund.

Artisan Global Value Fund (ARTGX) will soft-close on February 14, 2014.  Its managers were just recognized as Morningstar’s international-stock fund managers of the year for 2013. We’ve written about the fund four times since 2008, each time ending with the same note: “there are few better offerings in the global fund realm.”

As of the close of business on January 28, 2014, the GL Macro Performance Fund (GLMPX) will close to new investments. They don’t say that the fund is going to disappear, but that’s the clear implication of closing an underperforming, $5 million fund even to folks with automatic investment plans.

Effective January 31, the Wasatch International Growth Fund (WAIGX) closed to new investors.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective February 1, 2014, the name of the CMG Tactical Equity Strategy Fund (SCOTX) will be changed to CMG Tactical Futures Strategy Fund.

Effective March 3, 2014, the name of the Mariner Hyman Beck Portfolio (MHBAX) has been changed to Mariner Managed Futures Strategy Portfolio.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

On January 24, 2014, the Board of Trustees approved the closing and subsequent liquidation of the Fusion Fund (AFFSX, AFFAX).

ING will ask shareholders in June 2014 to approve the merger of five externally sub-advised funds into three ING funds.   

Disappearing Portfolio	Surviving Portfolio
ING BlackRock Health Sciences Opportunities Portfolio	ING Large Cap Growth Portfolio
ING BlackRock Large Cap Growth Portfolio	ING Large Cap Growth Portfolio
ING Marsico Growth Portfolio	ING Large Cap Growth Portfolio
ING MFS Total Return Portfolio	ING Invesco Equity and Income Portfolio
ING MFS Utilities Portfolio	ING Large Cap Value Portfolio

 

The Board of Trustees of iShares voted to close and liquidate ten international sector ETFs, effective March 26, 2014.  The decedents are:  

• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Consumer Discretionary ETF (AXDI)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Consumer Staples ETF (AXSL)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Energy ETF (AXEN)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Financials ETF (AXFN)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Healthcare ETF (AXHE)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Industrials ETF (AXID)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Information Technology ETF (AXIT)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Materials ETF (AXMT)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Telecommunication Services ETF (AXTE) and
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Utilities ETF (AXUT)

The Nomura Funds board has authorized the liquidation of their three funds:

• Nomura Asia Pacific ex Japan Fund (NPAAX)
• Nomura Global Emerging Markets Fund (NPEAX)
• Nomura Global Equity Income Fund (NPWAX)

The liquidations will occur on or about March 19, 2014.

On January 30, 2014, the shareholders of the Quaker Akros Absolute Return Fund (AARFX) approved the liquidation of the Fund which has banked five-year returns of (0.13%) annually. 

The Vanguard Growth Equity Fund (VGEQX)is to be reorganized into the Vanguard U.S. Growth Fund (VWUSX) on or about February 21, 2014. The Trustees helpfully note: “The reorganization does not require shareholder approval, and you are not being asked to vote.”

Virtus Greater Asia ex Japan Opportunities Fund (VGAAX) is closing on February 21, 2014, and will be liquidated shortly thereafter.  Old story: decent but not stellar returns, no assets.

In Closing . . .

Thanks a hundred times over for your continued support of the Observer, whether through direct contributions or using our Amazon link.  I’m a little concerned about Amazon’s squishy financial results and the risk that they’re going to go looking for ways to pinch pennies. Your continued use of that program provides us with about 80% of our monthly revenue.  Thanks, especially, to the folks at Evergreen Asset Management and Gardey Financial Advisors, who have been very generous over the years; while the money means a lot, the knowledge that we’re actually making a difference for folks means even more.

The next month will see our migration to a new, more reliable server, a long talk with the folks at Gargoyle and profiles of four intriguing small funds.  Since you make it all possible, I hope you join us for it all.

As ever,