Yearly Archives: 2017

Briefly Noted . . .

By David Snowball

Updates

Stay of execution: the Mirae Asset Asia Fund (MALAX) and Emerging Markets Fund (MALGX) were both scheduled for liquidation. “[A]fter further consideration,” the Board changed its mind. Both are very solid little funds, with an emphasis on the “little.” They have $25 million in assets between them after almost seven years of operation. At the same time, both are four-star funds with the same manager and both are distinguished by capturing a bit less of the downside and a bit more of the upside than their peers. The question remains whether, given the current infatuation with passive funds, that will ever be enough for the funds to reach economic viability.

Briefly Noted . . .

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

The Board of Directors has approved re-opening the Boston Partners Long/Short Research Fund (BPRRX) to all investors, effective as of March 1, 2017. That said, they may re-close the fund is assets grow by more than 5%. They’re currently at $6.5 billion. In rough terms, that’s $300 million in inflows. It’s a really good long/short fund though, to be clear, it is not their closed flagship fund, Boston Partners Long/Short Equity (BPLEX).

The Board of Directors of Leuthold Funds has reduced the investment advisory fee (i.e., Leuthold’s cut) for Leuthold Global (GLBLX) from 1.10% to 0.90%.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

None that we noticed. Rather to the contrary, closed funds are starting to re-open. Given that valuations aren’t getting any more attractive, the reopenings (Oakmark International, Oakmark Global, Artisan Mid Cap Value) mostly seem to signal asset outflows and rising financial distress on the advisors’ part.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

On April 15, the American Century Disciplined Growth Plus Fund (ACDJX) will be renamed AC Alternatives Disciplined Long Short Fund (and will, well, begin shorting stocks). The manager will use the same quantitative model that he currently employs; he’ll just have the opportunity to short the least-attractive stocks that the system outputs as well as investing in the most-attractive ones.

Aspiriant Risk-Managed Global Equity Fund’s name has changed to Aspiriant Risk-Managed Equity Allocation Fund (RMEAX). They’re also dropping the requirement of investing globally. They’ve drawn a lot of assets ($750 million) for a fund with a pretty modest performance record; the argument, of course, is that they’re capturing more upside than downside which necessarily means trailing the market but being a lot less risky. That’s a hard sell and, to their credit, these folks are doing it.

Effective February 15, 2017, BlackRock Small Cap Growth Equity Portfolio became BlackRock Advantage Small Cap Growth Fund (CSQEX). Morningstar hasn’t quite caught up with the change.

Deutsche Global Equity Fund (DBISX) will be rechristened as with Deutsche Global Macro Fund on May 8, 2017. In the prospectus it gets a new name, objective, strategy and subadvisor. At base, it jettisons the whole “equity” focus in favor of multi-asset minuet. Given that they have no assets and a record that trails 97% of their peers over the past decade, the desire for change is understandable if late.

On May 1, 2017, The Dreyfus Third Century Fund (DTCAX) which has always been an ESG sort of fund, will be renamed The Dreyfus Sustainable U.S. Equity Fund, with some refinements to the ESG mandate.

In what might be the prelude to a merger, on April 10, the HSBC Emerging Markets Local Debt Fund (HBMAX) becomes the HSBC Emerging Markets Fixed Income Fund. The key difference is that now it invests in local currency debt; after the change it will invest in both local currency and dollar-denominated debt. At the same time, HSBC Emerging Markets Debt Fund (HCGAX) will change its mandate so that it, too, invests in both local currency and dollar-denominated debt. Both funds will then adopt the same benchmark: J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global (50%) and the J.P. Morgan Government Bond Index – Emerging Markets Global Diversified (50%), though neither fund has enough assets to be financially viable.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

There’s a sudden wave of share class liquidations, which we thought we’d mention separately. These are instances where funds sort of give up on the retail market and try to tie their fate to their ability to attract “sophisticated” institutional investors. The “sophisticated” is in quotation marks out of respect to the ridicule that advisors occasionally heap upon the heads of these guys.

Bogle Investment Management Small Cap Growth Fund (BOGLX/BOGIX) has closed its Investment class and converted the existing shareholders to the lower-cost institutional class.

Convergence Core Plus Fund (MARVX) is doing likewise.

Meritage Value Equity Fund (MPVEX) has discontinued the sale of its Investor Shares and it appears they’ll liquidate the Investor share class. They will continue to offer Institutional Shares. It’s not clear that the current Investors get to stay on-board.

Al Frank Dividend Value Fund (VALDX) is going to be merged into Al Frank Fund (VALUX). Nominally the shareholders vote on the move on April 20; given that the proposed liquidation would occur by the next day, I’m thinking this one is already in the books.

Breithorn Long/Short Fund (BRHAX) shorted out February 28, 2017.

Eaton Vance Hexavest Emerging Markets Equity Fund (EHEAX) will liquidate on March 31, 2017. If you’d invested on the fund’s opening day five years ago, you’d still be underwater today.

Gratry International Growth Fund (GGIGX) will be liquidated on or about March 30, 2017 

Newfound Total Return Fund (NFBAX) heads to the lost-and-found on March 7, 2017.

Nuveen Gresham Long/Short Commodity Strategy Fund (NGSAX) will be liquidated after the close of business on April 24, 2017.

PIMCO RAE Worldwide Fundamental Advantage PLUS Fund (PWWAX) will liquidate on April 28, 2017. Morningstar categorizes it as a market-neutral fund, though it’s not quite that. Regardless, this chart of its performance against its market-neutral peers may explain its current fate.

PWWAX chart

It will be preceded in death by two actively-managed ETFs, PIMCO Diversified Income Active ETF (DI) and PIMCO Global Advantage Inflation-Linked Bond Active ETF (ILB), both of which disappear on April 7, 2017.

Princeton Futures Strategy Fund (PFFAX) becomes the Princeton Past Strategy Fund on March 27, 2017.

Putnam is merging away a bunch of funds. The $5 billion Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (PGRWX), rated Bronze by Morningstar, will merge into the $6 billion Equity Income Fund (PEYAX) on or about May 15, 2017. The $1.2 billion Putnam High Yield Trust (PHIGX) will be absorbed by the $600 million High Yield Advantage (PHYIX) on May 8, 2017. The 3- and 5-year correlations between the funds’ performance is a perfect 1.0. The $22 million Putnam Global Dividend (PGDEX) will merge into the $8 million Global Sector (PPGAX) while Putnam Global Energy (PGEAX) will merge into Global Natural Resources (EBERX), but those mergers will be no earlier than mid-May and might well be later.

SCS Tactical Allocation Fund (SCSGX), which has lost a daunting 10% annually over the past three years while its peers have been climbing, will disappear on March 31, 2017.

TCW Small Cap Growth Fund (TGSNX) and the TCW Growth Equities Fund (TGDNX) will be liquidated on or about March 15, 2017.

Toews Hedged Core Frontier Fund (THEMX) has closed and will face The Final Frontier on March 15, 2017.

The closed-end Virtus Total Return Fund (DCA) will, pending shareholder approval, merge into The Zweig Fund (ZF) sometime toward the end of March, 2017.

February 1, 2017

By David Snowball

Dear friends,

I’m sorry we were late to the party, but glad that you’re here. We had a rough start to February. Our estimable technical director Chip had a bad fall at work which took her out for three days. Just as we were preparing for launch, our site was vandalized by what appears to be an Indonesian hacking collaborative. Then as we thought we’d undone the damage and settled back to work, they slipped in again. (To be clear: you’re safe. We collect neither personal nor tracking information. Any financial stuff goes through Amazon and PayPal, groups that can pay for security obsessiveness. Mostly they seemed interested in vandalism for the sake of “bragging rights.”)

And then, to top it off, Mr. Trump was president. Yikes.

Investing in the time of Trump

“If they had learned anything together, it was that wisdom comes to us when it can no longer do any good” (I. 26). Gabriel García Márquez, Love in the Time of Cholera

If you think it’s time to be bold, you presumably know something that the rest of us don’t. If you are indeed part of “the smart money crowd,” congratulations and thanks for stopping by! Also, you can go now.

The Dow Jones Industrials average famously breached 20,000 on January 25, rising 1,800 points since the election.  Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) is up 16% in 10 weeks. That advance is without basis in reality; that is, economic conditions are not 16% better than 10 weeks ago nor are the prospects ahead.

So why the rally? Mostly, I suspect, because people have become unhinged by the circus in D.C.  Peggy Noonan, Reagan’s best speech-writer and doyen of the country-club Republicans, frets “we are living through big history and no one here knows where it’s going or how this period ends… Mr. Trump has overloaded all circuits. Everything is too charged, nothing feels stable. ‘Nothing is stable,’ [a prominent friend] replied” (“In Trump’s Washington, Nothing Feels Stable,” WSJ, 2/4-5/17).  In such moments of great uncertainty, crowds surge. (I think about the news reports of people crushed to death against the doors of a burning theater as the crowd behind them rushes without thought or perception.)

In reality, nothing good has happened.  The estimable Dan Wiener, he of the Independent Adviser for Vanguard Investors, writes:

You’ve heard me say it before and I’ll say it again: This has been a “Rumor Rally” not a “Trump Rally.” Investors have been buying on the rumor and, as of yet, we don’t really know what the news is. But a sell-off is in the cards just about any time, ratcheted higher by the rising levels of uncertainty now facing the country. “The Rumor Rally” (2/1/17)

People are buying because people are buying.  Last summer’s “pessimism has been replaced by optimism,” a change that John Rekenthaler describes as “stark” (“Is the Contrarian Bell Clanging for Stocks?”1/27/17). That’s not generally a reason for you to buy. “[T]he confidence of professional and individuals investors,” Jason Zweig writes, “has a perverse quality … most of the time what the market does next has nothing to do with how optimistic investors are about it; the results are disconcertingly random. So you could visualize the stock market as a poltergeist or hobgoblin who takes a twisted delight in playing pranks on the expectations of the investing public” (“Don’t Let Other Investors Make Up your Mind,” 1/20/17).

Will investors continue finding reasons to bid stocks unrelentingly higher? How great is the supply of “greater fools”? Ummm … “maybe” and “substantial.”  Cullen Roche of Pragmatic Capitalist asks the right questions:

And here’s the interesting part about Trump’s Presidency – how much room is left in this balloon?  … how much higher can consumer confidence go? … how much more employment can you pull out of an economy plumbing very low levels of unemployment? This looks like a balloon that is much closer to its max capacity than vice versa. “Are Expectations Too High For Trump?” (1/23/17)

Mr. Rekenthaler echoes those questions:

Last year carried the danger that recession would occur … [but] the bad news did not come true, stocks [rallied] on relief. What relief will come now? The market has already celebrated twice … Something unexpected will be required for a third celebration. Unexpected positives do happen–but that’s not generally the way to bet. All this comes as rumination, not advice … [I have] a sense of foreboding … it is a bit worrisome. I feel as if I have been here before.

Mr. Zweig agrees:

This bull market for stocks is 94 months old, making it the second-longest in modern history … Now more than ever, you should take extra risk only because your own rigorous analysis leads you to conclude that it’s a good idea, not because other folks think it is.

Panicked crowds turn quickly, driven by their most panicked members and don’t much notice who is crushed underfoot. On whole we’d prefer that you neither join them nor getting trampled by them.

So what am I doing with my portfolio? Same as always: nothing. Mr. Rekenthaler  likewise. That reflects the fact that my portfolio allocation is aligned with my goals and my need to enjoy the day and sleep through the night.

What might you do? Step one is to figure out if you even have a plan. For many of us, our investments are like barnacles on a ship’s hull, accumulating bit by bit without plan or a sense of how they affect our overall well-being. If you don’t have a plan, I’d make one that answered two questions: how would I handle a short-term financial crisis? And then, what pattern of investment allows me to balance my longer-term goals with my desire to have a fulfilling life, now and then? If you do have a plan, double-check your comfort with the following prospect: you might lose 30% this year and not see that money again until well into the 2020s. That’s the reality of a stock heavy portfolio riding a very old bull market.

My preference runs toward experienced, risk-conscious managers who have both the mandate and the flexibility to save you from yourself and from the market. For me, that translates to funds willing to hold cash when the market is giddy and to aggressively invest cash when the market feels suicidal, to managers who are able to move between asset classes but who typically don’t, and those who I trust endure “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” with calm determination.

Except in a very long-term retirement fund that I look at only once every year, it doesn’t mean hitching my fortunes to funds (active or passive) that blindly follow the crowd.

I would normally review my own portfolio choices in our February issue, but given the extraordinary challenges of getting this month’s issue to you, I’ll save that treat for March.

Citizenship in the time of Trump

After its nearly century and a half run, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus plans to shut down “The Greatest Show On Earth.” (NPR.org)

Three quick thoughts. (1) Donald Trump is our president, for the next four years he qualifies as “a fact on the ground.” (2) Mr. Trump is a “a prancing, prattling mountebank” (my phrase from last November) and he’s not going to change. (3) You can’t afford to be.

Our message isn’t going to change: you need to skip the circus and focus on the policies. That means Get Off Facebook, except for cat videos and gloating about your kids’ or grandkids’ excellence. 60% of Americans get some or much of their news, especially political news and especially but not exclusively folks under 50, from social media. There are three problems with that strategy:

  • Facebook is not designed to provide reliable intelligence.
  • Facebook is designed to tell you what you want to hear; Facebook simply gives you more and more of whatever it is you and your friends like. That might be the National Knitting Night results or updates on the Steelers prospects for 2017. When you rely on it for political news, it’s toxic since conservatives hear the liberals love Satan and hate America while liberals hear that conservatives are Satan and hate everyone. Neither is true but both are seductive. It’s called “the echo chamber effect” and it leads conservatives to rage and liberals to weep. As Ms. Noonan reports, “at parties, dinners and gatherings the decibel level hits the ceiling right away and stays there. No one can hear anything.”
  • The delusion that reliable journalism is free is starving reliable journalism. At base, you refuse to pay for a newspaper subscription or NPR membership because you don’t think you need to; just look on the web and it’s all there, free!

Get Off Facebook then choose whatever social media outlet you most love and get off it, too. The ones we love are the ones that tell us it’s all so simple and we’re all so right. Geoffrey Fowler of The Wall Street Journal wrote two well-done pieces which might help you: “Take your brain back from social media” and “Am I really addicted to Facebook?” (You can and you are, by the way.) If you don’t subscribe to the Journal, try Googling the titles. The New York Times has run comparable articles, which would help you understand the challenge.

Having done so, steel yourself to act like a grown-up. It’s hard, but we need to rise to the challenge.

  • Support policies that are good for us; oppose policies that are bad for us. In my case, that translates to setting up a monthly contribution to the ACLU and hopes that they might help slow the mad rush. I’ve managed to avoid them for 60 years but now even the anguished conservative inside me recognizes that its time. In your case, it might as easily be supporting the American Conservative Union or the Environmental Defense Fund. Regardless, focus on policy.
  • Pay for real journalism. We need people who are professionally obliged to start with facts rather than those who start with conclusions. Both sorts of articles appear to offer facts; the difference is that the latter filter for “convenient facts” and “alt-facts” to prove what they knew all along. In my case, that translates to adding a subscription to the New York Times (.com!) as a way of helping to pay for the essential work of reporting reality rather than preference.

    That complements my paper subscriptions to The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and the Quad City Times.

    Patent attorney Vanessa Otero created a widely-discussed infographic that attempts to answer the question, “who should you turn to?”

    While I’m much more skeptical of The Washington Post than she is (their daily news summary is a pained and painful liberal howl), I think she’s more right than wrong.

  • Have dinner with someone you disagree with. At a table. With food you enjoy and a drink you savor. Without anything electronic. Give thanks for food and good health, for family and friends and for the wit to appreciate them. And if you must talk about the wider world, begin your conversation with these words: “Help me understand.”
  • Remind your representatives that you did not hire them to join a mob, either pro- or anti -. In my case, that meant writing to senators Ernst and Grassley with a reminder that the sobriquet “the greatest deliberative body on earth” was not lightly bestowed and that it must be earned, and earned again, by acting as the grown-ups at the picnic. I included a reminder of the words of senate Margaret Chase Smith, whose 1950 “Declaration of Conscience” wasn’t the country’s bravest statement against its worst elected official:

I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition.  It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear.  It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership in either the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch of our Government.

I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism.  I speak as briefly as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence.  I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart.

I speak as a Republican.  I speak as a woman.  I speak as a United States Senator.  I speak as an American.

Her statement concludes with the formal declaration of conscience:

It is with these thoughts that I have drafted what I call a “Declaration of Conscience.”  I am gratified that [other senators] have concurred in that declaration and have authorized me to announce their concurrence.

The declaration reads as follows:

1. We are Republicans. But we are Americans first. It is as Americans that we express our concern with the growing confusion that threatens the security and stability of our country. Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to that confusion.

2. The Democratic administration has initially created the confusion by its lack of effective leadership, by its contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances, by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home, by its oversensitiveness to rightful criticism, by its petty bitterness against its critics.

3. Certain elements of the Republican Party have materially added to this confusion in the hopes of riding the Republican party to victory through the selfish political exploitation of fear, bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance. There are enough mistakes of the Democrats for Republicans to criticize constructively without resorting to political smears.

4. To this extent, Democrats and Republicans alike have unwittingly, but undeniably, played directly into [our enemy’s] design of “confuse, divide and conquer.”

5. It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques — techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.

If you think that your vision is clearer than senator Smith’s, please do share it. If you hear your conscience in her voice, perhaps it’s time to share that fact, too.

Thanks!

To the good folks at Gardey Financial, for their years of support. We’re grateful, too, to those that have renewed or initiated a subscription to MFO Premium. And, we can’t forget to thank our stalwart supporters who’ve chosen to set up monthly PayPal contributions: Deb, Greg, Jonathan and Brian. Thanks so much!

Apologies especially to Leah W and mhkappgoda; we tried to extend thanks to you both but somehow ended up with incorrect surface and email addresses that led to a returned letter and rejected email messages. Neither of which diminishes the following: Thanks!

A different sort of thanks!

In our January issue, we asked if you might take a moment to help a child. A Florida reader’s autistic child was heartbroken that his Munder Funds LED wand had died after years of use and our reader, Doug, was looking for help in finding one. We asked if you would help, and you did.

Of course you did. You’re good!

Four readers (Charles, Jason, Leah, and Toby) tracked down very similar wands that are still on the market. Two (Mark and Marvin) offered suggestions for how to get the wand working or for other toys that might make a difference. And one (Graham!) actually tracked down the former Munder marketing executive for us.

Thanks to you all. You really do make a difference.

In closing …

The members of Albuquerque’s chapter of the AAII have been kind enough to invite me to drop by on March 15th. I propose to talk about how to survive despite bad journalism and bad impulses, though I seem forever to be wandering just a bit off-topic. If you happen to be around the city that day, I’m sure you’d be welcome.

We’ll be back on-schedule and in full voice just three short weeks from now with our March 1st issue. We hope to see you there!

As ever,

Survival of the Flushest?

By Edward A. Studzinski

“Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.”

Ambrose Bierce

A question I have been pondering with increasing frequency is, of the mutual funds around today, how many of them will still be around in ten years? This grew out of a year-end luncheon with a friend of mine who heads up the strategic planning effort for a large financial services firm out of Chicago that has gone global and now has its fingers in many pies. Our discussion started around the problem with the mutual fund model – an investment vehicle of infinite duration that must provide daily liquidity. Add to that the fact that the definition of long-term investor has now morphed into about three months, if you are lucky, as a portfolio manager. Then, if you are part of one of the large for-profit fund complexes, there is the fact that the parent is allocating capital and skimming forty to fifty basis points off the top. So the senior managers at the subsidiary of the parent (the individual fund companies) start under-investing in the business in terms of hiring and retention compensation so that they can pad their own paychecks (another Maserati bonus). The end result was a convincing argument that many well-known firms in Chicago will probably not survive the next ten years.

All things being equal (which they usually are not), it might have been easy to find flaws in the thesis. But based on many conversations with individuals running very scared in this world, it seems to me that it will have legs. And, as we have commented in this publication over the last few years, we are not living in a static world. Fund flows out of high-priced actively managed funds to passive index funds or alternatively, exchange traded funds, have stood the mutual fund investment management business on its head. Funds that have started in the last five years and made their way through the $60M break-even level in terms of assets under management (at least with a 1% fee), now find themselves hovering on the brink of financial extinction, especially if their performance relative to the indices or germane benchmarks has been middling to poor. And we see the pressures mounting on other firms which had been successful. With recent performance issues, GMO in Boston laid off staff in 2016 (and allegedly has been trying to sell itself for some time now, with no takers). We also have the example of the Harvard Investment Management Company, which is charged with running the Harvard University Endowment. Last week, it was announced that 50% of the staff will be let go. With the exception of the certain specialty areas, such as real estate, many of the functions will be outsourced. We have Pioneer in Boston being sold from an Italian financial services firm to a French one, much to the surprise of many. These examples are but a few indications of the sea change occurring as the perfect storm of fee pressures, poor relative performance, and the approaching implementation of the new Department of Labor fiduciary standards as they apply to ERISA accounts come clashing together.

Now I recognize the black humor in the fact that I and my strategic planning friend, having both done well from our time in the mutual fund business are skeptics of its longevity. And I also recognize that David and Charles both are still committed to finding a pony somewhere in the room full of manure. But, much of investment management these days is a commodity business. This is especially true in the area of large capitalization active managers. And while you may think you are getting two heads looking at a portfolio rather one, or two for the price of one, in reality you are getting two for the price of two. Except one co-manager is usually playing the role of Leporello to the lead co-manager’s Don Giovanni.

Which brings me to the question of what is the actionable advice here? First, determine what your time horizon and investment goals are, and then set your asset allocation in such a fashion as to give you a comfortable shot at meeting those goals. The long-term Ibbotson return numbers for various asset classes should be your reference in making those allocation decisions. Then, for large cap and mid cap stocks, find the lowest cost passive funds that you are comfortable with, and determine what amount of assets you want to allocate to them. Focus on firms that have the financial wherewithal to survive, such as Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, and Fidelity. For small cap and microcap securities, look for active managers with at least five year track records, and again allocate assets to them in terms of your overall asset allocation model. Here, a somewhat counter-intuitive approach is appropriate, as you don’t want managers who have too much in the way of assets that they end up style-drifting out of the category. Follow the same advice for large cap and mid cap international securities. For small cap international securities and emerging markets, look for active managers who are not engaged in asset gathering for large firms and have long-term track records

Alternatively, what my friend is doing rather than investing in mutual funds, is to put together a concentrated portfolio (twelve to fifteen) of equities that are long-term compounders of wealth and where you get some degree of investment exposure through their internal portfolios (both Berkshire Hathaway and Markel Corporation would be examples of same). But, and this is crucial, decide upon an approach, implement it, and then leave it alone. An annual review should suffice (not necessarily tied to year-end, so as to avoid the artificiality that often creeps into calendar year-end market valuations).

 

Planning a Rewarding Retirement

By Robert Cochran

This is the first in a series of articles on preparing for retirement. The next few will deal with what retirement looks like – what I will do as I enter another stage of my life, Social Security planning, cash flow expectations, investments, planning for health care, eventual downsizing and/or re-locating, and other topics I am finding important.

In my 36 years of helping clients plan for their retirements, there have been a number of things I now refer to as truisms that ring consistently for most of those clients. These are not retirement planning items, but they will smooth the path toward retirement. Readers of my commentary know most of them by heart, but I am personally more aware of them as I prepare for my own retirement later this year. Here they are in no particular order.

  1. Pay yourself first. Put money aside from every paycheck into some kind of retirement or savings plan. First establish an emergency fund that will cover 3-6 months of cash flow needs. Then, if you have a company 401k plan with an employer matching feature, strive to at least put enough of your own dollars in the plan every year to take advantage of the match. Otherwise you are leaving money on the table, and that is a mistake.
  2. Live within your means. This can be difficult, given our society’s penchant for having the fastest, newest, most beautiful (and often expensive) possessions now. The concept of starter home has unfortunately been cast aside, as young people living in nice apartments want those same upscale amenities in the homes they buy. Our first home, bought the winter after we were married in 1979, cost $40,000, equivalent to $132,000 in 2016 factoring inflation, and it was about the same monthly payment as our rent had been. We were thrilled to lock in a 30-year rate of 10.25%. Yes, we refinanced several times as rates dropped. It is easy to see why fewer millennials are buying. Those who do are often mortgage poor in their search for their “dream home”. The same goes for cars and other big-ticket items, where immediate prestige is short-lived.
  3. Pay off credit cards each month. This is another one that may be hard for young families, people struggling with employment problems, and those with medical issues. I can tell you that very few people start a successful retirement laden with credit card debt. From a financial planning perspective, there is only one solution to consumer debt: quit spending. Do you really need a 24th pair of shoes, new furniture, a birthday cruise, or any of those things you are unable to pay off at the end of the month? Lean to say no.
  4. Complete the basic estate planning documents you need. For everyone, this includes the following:
    • Durable Power of Attorney should you be unable to handle financial decisions and pay bills.
    • Health Care Power of Attorney (some states call this a Health Care Surrogate) to make decisions should you become incapacitated and unable to make the decisions yourself. Only trusted relatives or friends should be named for these two POA documents, and preferably they should reside in the same area of the state as you.
    • Advance Care Directive or Living Will is optional. It is a written statement of the kind of medical care you wish to receive should you be in a terminal condition, an end-stage condition, or in a persistent vegetative state.
    • Last Will and Testament that designates how you want your personal property divided at your death, who will act as the executor, who will act as a guardian for your minor child, who will have control of your digital property, among many items.
  5. Purchase life insurance to replace income needed in the event of your death. If you are single, you probably do not need life insurance. If you are married, consider what your death would mean to your spouse financially. If you have children, think about what will be needed to handle all the expenses, including day care and education for the long term. Buy the amount of insurance you need, and purchase an inexpensive, 15 or 20-year level-term policy. Keep the insurance only as long as it is needed.
  6. Strive to have your mortgage paid before you retire.
  7. Understand the importance of your credit score, and monitor it at least once a year.

I wish I had followed all of these truisms when I was young, but alas I did not. The sooner folks take them to heart, the quicker their financial success can happen. I readily admit that not everyone can accomplish all seven of them quickly. Some may take a long time, but they should be goals. Numbers 1 and 4 are absolutely crucial and are both easily accomplished. If you are just getting started on your own, are newly married, or changing relationships, understand how vital it is that you have current wills and POAs. And remember to change the beneficiaries of your financial accounts, unless you want your ex, and not your current spouse or partner, to get your 401k when you die.

There may be other things that individuals believe are vital to a successful financial life and retirement. This list, and future comments, are not meant to be exclusive.

AMG GW&K Global Allocation Fund (formerly AMG Chicago Equity Partners Balanced), (MBEAX), February 2017

By David Snowball

At the time of publication, this fund was named AMG Chicago Equity Partners Balanced.

Objective and strategy

The managers aim to provide “high total investment return, consistent with the preservation of capital and prudent economic risk.” The fund normally holds 50-75% in equities with the remainder in bonds and cash. The equity sleeve is mostly mid- to large-cap US stocks; direct foreign investment is minimal. The income sleeve is mostly high quality, intermediate-term bonds. The managers have the freedom to invest up to 25% in high-yield securities or in longer maturity bonds but, mostly, don’t.

Adviser

AMG (Affiliated Managers Group) advises the fund. AMG partners with forty small, distinctive investment management firms which then offer funds or separately managed accounts through the AMG umbrella. Its partner firms include River Road, Yacktman and SouthernSun. AMG has about $730 billion in assets under management.

Chicago Equity Partners manages the fund. CEP is a Chicago-based (duh) firm founded in 1989 to provide “bespoke equity offerings” to institutional clients. They have more than 100 institutional clients and about $10 billion in assets under management. AMG holds a 60% stake in CEP.

Manager

A team composed of Daniel Miller, William Sterling, Aaron Clark, Thomas A. Masi, and Mary Kane. Messrs Miller and Sterling are responsible for the portfolio’s asset allocation. Messrs. Clark and Masi are responsible for equity investments and Ms. Kane is responsible for fixed income. All are members of GW&K’s investment committee and all joined the fund in April 2020. With the exception of Masi and Clark, they are also responsible for co-managing other GW&K funds.

Strategy capacity and closure

The managers anticipate no meaningful constraints in the foreseeable future since they have a small fund trading in with highly-liquid asset classes.

Management’s stake in the fund

None of the managers has chosen to invest any of their money in the fund (as of June 2023). 

Opening date

January 2, 1997.

Minimum investment

$2,000 on the “N” (formerly “Investor”) shares, reduced to $1,000 for IRAs. The lower-cost “I” and “Z” share classes have minimums of $100,000 and $5,000,000, respectively.

Expense ratio

1.06%, after waivers, on assets of $23 million as of June 2023. 

Comments

The evidence is indisputable: we’re cowards. All investors talk about “investing for the long term” and “short-term volatility is just noise, just a part of the game,” which are nice sentiments. Unfortunately, they’re not descriptions of investor behavior: investors undercut their gains by trading too much, buying too late and selling too early. That’s particularly pronounced with ETFs, which are destructively easy to trade, and high-volatility strategies, which are terrifying to hold.

That often means that funds which balance equities, bonds and cash in their portfolios are an investor’s least exciting and most profitable choice. The best might offer 80% of the stock market’s gains with just 60% of its risks. That’s called an “asymmetrical risk-reward profile.”

The Observer recognizes that fact and our fund screener is calibrated to be much more risk-aware than most. Each month we screen decades’ worth of data to answer the question, which managers are earning their keep? That is, which managers consistently offer positive absolute return with the least risk? In assessing balanced funds, we don’t just compare those funds against an anonymous peer group, but also against two excellent, low-cost alternatives from Vanguard: the utterly passive Balanced Index (VBINX) which is always and only 60% CRSP U.S. Total Stock Market Index and 40% Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Float Adjusted Bond Index and Vanguard STAR (VGSTX), a fund of actively-managed Vanguard funds.

If you don’t glance at a Martin Ratio of 0.82 and think “cool! Excellent score on the most risk-sensitive measure, I’m feeling good,” we’ve prepared a simple translation for you in the table below. We tell you what each metric, above, actually measures and then how MBEAX’s performance over this particular 10-year-period compares to the others.

A quick example: APR %/yr translates to “annual percentage return, for the period measured, expressed in percents.” In the table below we describe those as the raw (i.e., not risk-adjusted) returns and let you know that MBEAX had higher raw returns than its peers or STAR.

How do you measure success?

CEP Balanced vs its peer group vs Balanced Index vs STAR
Raw returns APR CEP wins Tie! CEP wins
Worst-case loss MaxDD CEP wins CEP wins CEP wins
Time it takes to recover from the worst case Recvry CEP wins CEP wins CEP wins
Normal volatility Std Dev CEP wins CEP wins CEP wins
Bad volatility DS Dev CEP wins CEP wins CEP wins
Combined effect of big losses and small recovery Ulcer CEP wins CEP wins CEP wins
Losses during months when the market is falling a lot Bear market dev CEP wins CEP wins CEP wins
Standard balance of risk and return Sharpe CEP wins CEP wins CEP wins
A more risk-sensitive balance of risk and return Sortino CEP wins CEP wins CEP wins
A very risk-sensitive balance of risk and return Martin CEP wins CEP wins CEP wins

That comparison measures a meaningful period, we think: the span of time since the current management team fully settled in-place until now. If you do the same calculations for two other meaningful periods – the full market cycle that includes the 2007-09 crash and the current bull market plus the down market cycle that covers the 2007-09 crash – you see the exact same pattern. By every measure of reward, risk and risk-reward balance that we employed, CEP outperformed its peers (by a lot) and two entirely-excellent competitors.

Readers with MFO Premium access are able to look at the data for themselves by entering “MBEAX” into the multi-screener. We default to including the comparisons above. For those just interested in the data on the full- and down-market cycles I just mentioned, there’s a “Commentary” post with the tables for you at MFO Premium. Here is link to full Risk Profile.

The picture changes over shorter time periods, and that’s important to you.

The fund’s 1-, 3- and 5-year data show some wins and some losses, particularly against a purely-passive competitor. That makes perfect sense: a steadily rising, some say irrationally rising, market always punishes risk-conscious strategies and rewards maximum exposure to risk assets. Our ten-year and full-cycle comparisons take into account the reality of markets that rise and fall; shorter, arbitrary periods reflect just the upside performance.

And MBEAX is risk conscious. Manager Patricia Halper notes that “we ‘re very focused on risk control, which is reflected in the fact that our downside capture ratios are consistently in the top decile.” She describes the fund as “a pretty straightforward balanced fund, the sort of fund an investor would use as a core holding.” As we’ve researched the fund, we’ve come to agree that its strength is in a risk-conscious discipline and consistently strong execution of the strategy. There are no bells or whistles. The equity sleeve offers broadly diversified exposure to the domestic market, which noticeably more mid- and small-cap exposure but noticeably less direct international exposure than its peers. The fixed income sleeve targets mostly intermediate-term, high quality bonds. The asset allocation overlay allows for substantial changes in equity exposure, but significant tilts are infrequent. “We’re pretty slow moving on that,” Ms. Halper allows. “We’ve had 12 shifts since 2006, but exposure typically stays around 60-65%.”

That’s reflected in the fund’s high correlation to a 60/40 index; over the full market cycle, the correlation is .99.

Are there reasons for caution? Two occur to us.

First, long-term lead equity manager David C. Coughenour, a founding partner of CEP, resigned in January 2017. The equity team is now led by Robert Kramer, who has also managed the fund since 2000 and is also a founding partner at CEP. Given the fund’s reliance on quantitative screens and the team’s tenure, that risk seems manageable.

Second, the retail shares call an above-average expense ratio (1.09%) and expenses, as CEP itself notes in a white paper, matter. Expenses are, in part, a function of asset base: larger funds enjoy economies of scale which the best of them actively pass along to their investors. The picture is better when we compare MBEAX to other flexible funds with under a billion in assets; against that group, MBEAX is in the lowest-cost third. And, they might reasonably argue, “we’ve been earning our keep for a long time now.”

We agree.

Bottom Line

If you are willing to wager your financial security on the bet that the long bull markets in stocks and bonds, abetted by sensible and far-sighted actions being pushed by the president, will continue into the foreseeable future, you’re best served by a passive product that gives you naked exposure to those conditions. If you are increasingly dubious about how markets and economies will react to those same forces, you need to strongly consider entrusting a larger share of your assets to experienced, risk-conscious managers who’ve gotten it right in the past. The Chicago Equity Partners are one such set of managers.

Fund website

AMG Chicago Equity Partners Balanced

T. Rowe Price Global Multi-Sector Bond (PRSNX), February 2017

By David Snowball

Objective and strategy

The fund seeks “high income with the potential for some capital appreciation.” Their target is to maximize total return on a risk adjusted basis through a blend of high yield and global fixed income securities. They hope to achieve that end by investing primarily in income-producing instruments including:

  • US, international and emerging country sovereign debt
  • US, international and emerging market corporate debt
  • Mortgage- and asset-backed securities
  • Bank loans
  • Convertible securities and preferred stocks.

The fund may invest entirely in dollar-denominated foreign securities; other than that, the restrictions in the prospectus come down to “we may invest in risky parts of the bond market but we’re not going to go crazy.” The manager will actively allocate the portfolio based on market conditions.

Adviser

T. Rowe Price. Price was founded in 1937 by Thomas Rowe Price, widely acknowledged as “the father of growth investing.” The firm now serves 11 million retail and institutional clients through more than 450 separate and commingled institutional accounts and more than 150 stock, bond, and money market funds. Price had $810 billion under management at mid-year. It’s generally regarded as one of the industry’s best firms for its combination of a healthy corporate culture, risk sensitivity, thoughtful design and strong performance.

Manager

The lead manager, Steven Huber, is responsible for the fund’s critical asset allocation decisions. Before joining Price in 2006, he managed the State of Maryland’s $34 billion retirement fund for three years. From 1987 – 2003, he was the director of asset allocation and quantitative strategies for Aeltus Investment Management. Aeltus is an institutional money manager, once part of Aetna (hence the funky spelling) and now part of ING. He has managed this fund since inception.

Strategy capacity and closure

Huge: Price has substantial analytic resources and the manager has considerable freedom to move around inside the $100 trillion global bond market.

Management’s stake in the fund

Mr. Huber has between $500,000 – 1,000,000 invested in the strategy, a portion of which is invested in the retail fund.

Opening date

The fund launched December 15, 2008 under the name T. Rowe Price Strategic Income, which changed in July 2015.

Minimum investment

$2,500 for regular accounts, $1000 for IRAs.

Expense ratio

0.65% on assets of $1.3 Billion, as of July 2023.

Comments

T. Rowe Price Global Multi-Sector Bond has been left behind by Morningstar. That’s a common fate, even for outstanding funds, as Morningstar commits itself to “covering those investments that are most relevant to investors and that hold a significant portion of industry assets.” That makes perfect sense given their business model. Our “left behind” series looks at outstanding funds which Morningstar once covered but has now ignored for five or more years.

We’re following-up on Morningstar’s last analyst review, from December 2011, which made two points: really promising fund but we’ll need to see a longer record before we get excited.

Kathryn Young who until lately was an analyst for Morningstar – Australia, wrote on December 11, 2011:

Though promising, T. Rowe Price Strategic Income still needs to make its case.

This multisector-bond fund starts out on the right foot. It’s got a sensible, if standard, strategy and the tools to execute it successfully…

The problem is that Huber’s public track record is much shorter than those of the managers backing him up. He has plenty of experience–having spent nearly 20 years managing institutional assets before joining T. Rowe Price in 2006–but this fund is just three years old, and its record thus far is uninspiring.

The quality of resources backing Huber here and his tendency to keep a close eye on risk make the fund worth monitoring, but it’s difficult to have greater conviction in it until Huber’s proved he can be right more often than not.

Two quick notes. First, uhhh … it’s been five years since you wrote that, guys. Second, the record is clear: Mr. Huber has been right far more often than not.

What does the fund do?

The fund invests broadly and globally, tapping into a variety of income-producing assets. About 40% of its portfolio is invested in the US, with Brazil, Serbia, Mexico and Malaysia rounding out the top five. Sovereign bonds make up 40% of the portfolio, which is their largest slice but which is also a lot lower than the average global bond fund. They offer substantially more exposure to corporate and asset-backed securities than their peers. They offer more exposure to high-yield bonds than do their peers, but we’re hesitant to cite percentages because global ratings are often hard to compare. The upper limit is 65% high yield and 50% non-dollar-denominated. The manager tries to add value by altering sector allocation, credit selection, interest rate management, and currency exposures in response to evolving market environments.

How well does it do it?

By any measure, quite well.

The fund has whomped its Lipper global income group. From inception through 12/31/2016, the fund returned 6.6% annually while its peers made 4.4% – a difference of 200 bps. And it’s whomped its Morningstar world bond peer group. From inception through the end of 2016, a $10,000 initial investment here would have grown to $17, 264 versus $13,841 for its Morningstar peers. And it’s whomped its benchmark Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate ex Treasury Bond USD Hedged Index by more than 200 bps/year (704 to 494), which would have translated to a $17,264 to $14,735 margin to victory.

Are you detecting a pattern yet?

Over the same period, it also outperformed Morningstar’s only Gold rated global bond fund. Of five Silver-rated global bond funds, two substantially outperformed PRSNX, one of those at the cost of far higher volatility.

It’s also much less volatile than its peer group.

Across our array of risk, return and risk-return metrics, it’s consistently a top ten fund.

Had we mentioned it’s also a useful diversifier for a portfolio rich in US bonds? Its correlation to the total US bond market, which it has also outperformed, is 0.45. Even its correlation to two top-rated global bonds funds is only about 0.55.

For our MFO Premium subscribers, here is link to latest Risk Profile.

Bottom Line

The argument T. Rowe Price makes for such funds is straightforward: as the bond market, in the US and globally, becomes increasingly unsettled, you want to be able to actively adjust your exposure to keep an asymmetrical balance between risk and reward. Passive fixed-income products have a series of design flaws that don’t occur in passive equity ones and they have embedded risks that are masked when markets are steadily appreciating and that are painfully apparent when the tide turns. Unless you’re very good or very lucky, you are likely better served now by a manager who has the opportunity to move in the face of changing conditions and the experience to move well. You shouldn’t repeat Morningstar’s mistake in ignoring this singularly strong fund.

Fund website

T. Rowe Price Global Multi-Sector Bond

Elevator Talk: Rajiv Jain, GQG Partners Emerging Markets Equity (GQGPX/GQGIX)

By David Snowball

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.

Rajiv Jain, with the assistance of a seven-person team, has managed GQG Partners since the fund’s launch on December 28, 2016. While it’s technically accurate to say that Mr. Jain has been managing the fund for six weeks, it would be akin to a 2009 newspaper report noting that Brett Favre has been the Minnesota Vikings quarterback for the past six weeks. Mr. Jain is celebrating his 20th year as an emerging markets investor, the last ten of those years as manager of Virtus Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund (HEMZX / HIEMX).

Mr. Jain joined Vontobel Asset Management as an equity analyst in 1994. By the time he left in May 2016, he’d risen to become their chief investment officer, co-CEO and manager on 15 funds available to American and European investors. He was responsible for portfolios valued at $50 billion, including $30 billion in emerging markets investments and built their Quality Growth boutique. His new firm builds on that tradition: GQG Partners stand for Global Quality Growth Partners, a name which simultaneously reflects his investment style and his interest in creating a partnership with his investors.

It is fair to describe his career to-date as “spectacularly successful.”

From the perspective of American investors, the most visible manifestation of his work in the emerging markets was leadership of the Virtus Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund. During that time, he posted the best record of any emerging markets manager available to US investors.

MFO calculated the return, risk, and risk-return measures for Mr. Jain’s fund from June 2006 – his first full month on the fund – until the month he left the fund, March 2016, then compared them with the other 67 EM funds in operation over the same period. The results are startling.

  Annual returns Maximum drawdown Standard deviation Downside deviation Sharpe ratio
HIEMX 6.8% 53.3% 19.1% 13.5% 0.33
Rank out of 67 3rd 1st 2nd 1st (tie) 2nd

Here’s the translation: over a 10 year period, Mr. Jain posted his category’s third highest returns and the highest among diversified EM equity funds, behind only two niche funds. His fund suffered the smallest maximum drawdown, had the second lowest volatility, and tied for the lowest downside volatility (a variation of standard deviation focusing on “bad” volatility) which led to the group’s second-highest Sharpe ratio (the industry’s most widely-used measure of risk-adjusted returns).

Analysts have noticed. He was recognized as Morningstar’s International Fund Manager of the Year for 2012 (“Jain’s approach has produced attractive risk-adjusted returns over his tenure”) and won Morningstar Europe’s Global Equity Manager of the Year (“Performance metrics … confirm Jain’s ability to limit risk during market downturns, while driving strong returns across a market cycle to offset the inherent weakness in his approach during low-quality rallies. Risk-averse investors who look for global equity exposure are in very good hands here”) nod in 2013. London’s CityWire, looking back over a decade, concluded “Jain has stuck by many of his convictions and has the numbers to back him up.” Investors’ short term reaction to Mr. Jain’s departure from Vontobel was swift and negative: Vontobel stock dropped 11% and nearly $11 billion left the firm.

We asked Mr. Jain about his decision to strike out on his own and his discipline. Here are Mr. Jain’s 200 words on why you should add GQGPX to your due-diligence list:

Make no mistake, I have great respect and affection for my former colleagues but I wanted to create a vehicle that better expressed my own core commitments. I believe GQG Partners will be that vehicle.

Our first commitment to investors is alignment. Managing another person’s wealth is a privilege, an honor. I never forget that it is somebody’s life and retirement at stake. Respecting that means you have to have true and appropriate alignment. That plays out in a few different ways. I like to have the majority of my personal net worth in the same product as my clients; I invest with no other managers and in no hedge funds. It’s meaningful money. We accept no soft dollar commissions. No one at the firm is allowed personal trading; all of us will have a meaningful part of our net worth – including bonuses – in the fund.

We also want our fees to be below the median and we fully expect they will drop over time as our asset base grows.

The second commitment is to a particular culture. It should be very competitive with an intense focus on performance. The average manager has no reason to exist since he can’t outperform a simple index. And if we can’t deliver, we have no reason to exist. Tim Carver, who has overseen a dozen start-ups, is our CEO because I want my focus to be on my portfolio.

This is my 20th anniversary as an EM sole manager. I’ve been through 10 bear markets marked by 20% declines and three bear markets that saw 50%-plus declines. I am not forecasting future performance, but I can honestly report that I outperformed in all of them. That required evolution to match changing markets and a consciousness about taking less risk because, ultimately, absolute returns matter.

If I can forecast anything, it is that we will have years in which we underperform and years where we over perform. Across all those years and all those markets, we will strive to eliminate the noise, keep our focus, maintain a long-term view, trade lightly, dig deep, and cover the ground.

GQG Emerging Markets Equity has a $2500 minimum initial investment which is reduced to $100 for IRAs and other types of tax-advantaged accounts. Expenses are capped at 1.33% through November, 2018. The institutional share class has a $ minimum and expenses capped at 1.08%. Morningstar reports assets of $37 million (1/30/17), though that number is apt to be very fluid. Here’s the fund’s homepage. There’s a nice presentation of the fund’s strategy and distinctions in the inelegantly-named “pitch book.” It’s worth reading.

Launch Alert: Osterweis Emerging Opportunity Fund (OSTGX)

By David Snowball

On October 1, 2012, Callinan Asset Management launched Emerging Growth Partners, L.P. On November 30, 2016, Osterweis Capital Management re-launched the adopted hedge fund as Osterweis Emerging Opportunity Fund.

Manager James Callinan screens the growth universe, including both IPOs and mature growth companies, for companies and stocks that meet his criteria. He says, in general, that

We want to find an undiscovered or misunderstood company that should have sustainable and open-ended revenue growth of at least 20% for three to five years. Finally, we’re looking for rising margins which may include companies that are losing money and then will break into profitability.

That generates a watch-list of about 150 names from which he selects about 30 for the portfolio. The largest weighting for a single stock might be 5%, while a lot will occupy 2-3% of the portfolio.

Without question, the chief attraction of the fund is manager James Callinan. Mr. Callinan was one of the great growth managers of the 1990s and is one of the few growth managers left from that era. He managed Putnam OTC Emerging Growth Fund from 1994 to 1996 and RS Emerging Growth Fund (RSEGX) from 1996 until 2010. His stint with RS Emerging Growth coincided with his founding of the RS Growth Group LLC at Robertson Stephens Investment Management. Mr. Callinan closed the fund to new investors in 2000 after posting 183% returns in 1999 and drawing $1.6 billion in new money over three months. While the fund, like all its growth peers, was crushed in the 2000-02 bear market, unlike most of its peers it rebounded and remained a competitive offering through the first decade of the 21st century.

After leaving RS, Mr. Callinan managed the Emerging Growth Partners hedge fund, whose record is now incorporated into OSTGX’s. The fund far outperformed the average small-growth fund in 2013 with a gain of 54% to its peers’ 40%. In the following three years it was mostly a bit above average, but not stunningly so.

Mr. Callinan claims to have learned a lot about managing in the challenging markets that followed the 1990s. He professes to be more value conscious and to be running a more concentrated portfolio than he did in the 90s. He’s also go over half of his own net worth invested in the $40 million fund.

Investor shares of the fund carry 1.50% expense ratio, after waivers. The minimum initial investment is $5,000.

The fund’s website is Osterweis Funds.

 

Launch Alert: Symons Concentrated Small Cap Value Institutional Fund (SCSVX)

By David Snowball

On December 5, 2016, Symons Capital launched Symons Concentrated Small Cap Value Fund. It is, so far, available only as an institutional offering with a $1 million minimum.

The fund is an extension of the Symons Concentrated Small Cap Value composite.  As of 12/30/2016, that composite reflected quite healthy investment performance.

It’s particularly interesting that the fund’s 2:1 outperformance compared to its benchmark came without heightened volatility.  Symons Concentrated SCV composite had a standard deviation of 11.15% while the Russell 2000 Value, its benchmark, clocked-in at 15.5%.

It goes beyond “interesting” to “impressive” when you add in the fact that the separate account composite holds only 18 stocks and the fund intends to hold about the same. This makes Symons Concentrated SCV the most concentrated small cap fund in existence; the only small cap funds with fewer listed holdings are funds-of-funds and, effectively, hold hundreds of stocks. The plan is to purchase fewer than 20 stocks with market capitalizations of less than $3 billion across a broad sector allocation.

They describe themselves as ‘traditional deep value manager with a risk management focus.” Their target universe is “sad stocks,” that is, the temporarily depressed stocks of firms with good products and services.  Given the managers preference for companies with long-term sustainable competitive advantages, the description might be: systematically searching for the best and saddest small-cap blue chips.

The fund is managed Colin Symons. In our December Elevator Talk with Mr. Symons, we described him as “a serial over-achiever. Mr. Symons graduated from Williams College, arguably the best liberal arts college in America, in only three years. He started his career as a software developer, working with and writing code for both the IRS and major financial services firms such as Chase Manhattan Bank. He eventually earned recognition as a Microsoft Certified Solution Developer, a globally recognized designation. His interests grew beyond financial software into financials; he learned security analysis and earned his CFA. At Symons Capital he manages $483 million in their Value, Small Cap Value and Concentrated Small Cap Value strategies and funds.”

Institutional shares of the fund carry 1.61% expense ratio, after waivers. The minimum initial investment is $1 million.

The fund’s website is Symons Funds, but you might find a somewhat richer discussion and details about the SMA composite at the adviser’s main site, Symons Capital. In both cases there’s an iconic picture of Pittsburgh which makes me happily nostalgic.

Funds in registration

By David Snowball

An “arabesque” is either a graceful move in ballet or a graceful and intricate design in art and architecture. I’ll be fascinated to see how it plays out as a fund.

American Beacon TwentyFour Strategic Income

American Beacon Twenty Four Strategic Income will seek high current income with some hope of capital appreciation. The plan is to buy income-producing … uhh, stuff. Almost any conceivable stuff, globally and non-diversifiedly. The fund will be managed by a team from TwentyFour Asset Management, a London-based fixed-income specialist with nearly £8 billion in AUM. The opening e.r. will be 1.10% and the minimum initial investment is $2,500 for the Investor share class.

Arabesque Systematic USA Fund

Arabesque Systematic USA Fund will seek capital appreciation over the full market cycle with below benchmark levels of risk. The plan is to confuse me, apparently. They’re going to allocate 0-100% in stocks and the remainder in cash. They’re going to assess the appropriate equity exposure daily, which implies the prospect of daily rebalancing. The equity portfolio is biased toward momentum, moderate growth and ESG-screened equities. The fund will be managed by Dr. Hans-Robert Arndt and Philipp Müller of Arabesque Asset Management which is based in London and Frankfurt. The opening e.r. will be 1.20% and the minimum initial investment is $2,500.

Arabesque Systematic International Fund

Arabesque Systematic International Fund will seek capital appreciation over the full market cycle with below benchmark levels of risk. They’re going to allocate 0-100% in non-US stocks and the remainder in dollars. They’re going to assess the appropriate equity exposure daily, which implies the prospect of daily rebalancing. The equity portfolio is biased toward momentum, moderate growth and ESG-screened equities. The fund will be managed by Dr. Hans-Robert Arndt and Philipp Müller of Arabesque Asset Management which is based in London and Frankfurt. The opening e.r. will be 1.20% and the minimum initial investment is $2,500.

Clearbridge All Cap Growth ETF

Clearbridge All Cap Growth ETF will seek long-term capital appreciation. The plan is to invest in a diversified portfolio of large, medium and small capitalization stocks that have the potential for above-average long-term earnings and/or cash flow growth. The fund will be managed by Evan Bauman, Peter Bourbeau, Richard A. Freeman and Margaret Vitrano of ClearBridge Investments, LLC. The opening e.r. will be 0.59%. Since it’s an ETF, albeit an actively-managed one, there is no minimum initial investment.

Ivy Crossover Credit Fund

Ivy Crossover Credit Fund will seek to provide total return through a combination of high current income and capital appreciation. The plan is to invest in bonds on the razor’s edge between investment grade and junk; such instruments can … wait for it! crossover from one category to the next. Some of those bonds will also fall into the “rising star” and “fallen angel” categories, though it’s not explained why this presents a compelling investment opportunity. The fund will be managed by Rick Perry of Ivy Investment Management. The opening e.r. hasn’t been released for any of the seven projected share classes and the minimum initial investment for the no-load “N” shares appears to be set by folks like Schwab.

Manager changes, January 2017

By Chip

The good folks at Grandeur Peak worked hard in January to realign and rationalize the manager line-ups across all their funds, then Stewart Spencer left Emerging Opportunities (GPEOX) at month’s end to pursue other paths and an additional shuffle was in order. It’s worth watching. Meanwhile, founders Robert Gardiner and Blake Walker have resumed joint management of Global Opps and International Opp.

T. Rowe Price and Fidelity both had changes sufficiently consequential to trigger Morningstar reviews of their analyst ratings.

Because bond fund managers, traditionally, had made relatively modest impacts of their funds’ absolute returns, Manager Changes typically highlights changes in equity and hybrid funds.

Ticker Fund Out with the old In with the new Dt
TNYAX 1290 Global Talents Fund William Howard is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Anne Tolmunen joins Mark Beveridge, Alwi Chan and Kenneth Kozlowski in managing the fund. 1/17
AEEAX Aberdeen Asia Bond Fund Victor Rodriguez is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Adam McCabe, Kenneth Akintewe, Thomas Drissner and Gareth Nicholson will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
IIESX AI International Fund (formerly American Independence Multi-Manager International Fund) Navellier has resigned as a subadviser to the fund, therefore Louis Navellierwill no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. James Creighton and Nic Wherry will be joined by Charles McNally on the management team. 1/17
ABALX American Balanced Fund Dina Perry is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. John Smet, Hilda Applbaum, Gregory Johnson, Alan Berro, James Mulally, Jeffrey Lager, Michael Kerr, Alan Wilson and John Queen are continuing to manage the fund. 1/17
LGNAX American Independence Large Cap Growth Fund Navellier has resinged as a subadviser to the fund, therefore Louis Navellier and Michael Garaventa will no longer serve as portfolio managers for the fund. Charles McNally is now managing the fund. 1/17
MBESX AMG Chicago Equity Partners Balanced Fund Effectively immediately, David Coughenour will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. The fund will continue to managed by Robert Kramer, Patricia Halper, Curt Mitchell and Michael Budd. Check out our profile! 1/17
CESVX AMG Chicago Equity Partners Small Cap Value Fund Effectively immediately, David Coughenour will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. Patricia Halper, Robert Kramer and William Murray will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
MPAFX AMG Managers Cadence Capital Appreciation Fund William Bannick is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Robert Fitzpatrick, Michael Skillman, Robert Ginsberg and Stephen Demirjian will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
MECIX AMG Managers Cadence Emerging Companies Fund William Bannick is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Robert Fitzpatrick, Michael Skillman, Robert Ginsberg and Stephen Demirjian will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
MCMAX AMG Managers Cadence Mid Cap Fund William Bannick is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Robert Fitzpatrick, Michael Skillman, Robert Ginsberg and Stephen Demirjian will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
BXMIX  Blackstone Alternative Multi-Strategy Fund Effective January 25, 2017, Wellington Management Company LLP no longer serves as a sub-adviser to the fund. The fund’s assets managed by Wellington have been re-allocated to the Fund’s other sub-advisers. 1/17
BPEAX BP Capital TwinLine Energy Fund Mark Laskin will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. William Woodson “Trip” Rodgers joins David Meaney, Brian Bradshaw, Toby Loftin and Brian Olsen in managing the fund. 1/17
BUFHX Buffalo High Yield Fund Alexander Hancock will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. Paul Dlugosch and Jeffrey Sitzman will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
BUFMX Buffalo Mid Cap Fund No one, but . . . Robert Male and Dave Carlsen are joined by Scott Moore on the management team. 1/17
BUFSX Buffalo Small Cap Fund No one, but . . . Robert Male and Jamie Cuellar are joined by Alexander Hancock on the management team. 1/17
CDHIX Calvert Developed Markets Ex-U.S. Responsible Index Fund Dale Stout, Lise Bernhard and Laurie Webster are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Thomas Seto will now manage the fund. 1/17
CIOAX Calvert International Opportunities Drew Edwards, Gregory Gigliotti, Marco Priani, Jessica Reuss, David Runkle and William Sterling are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Aidan Farrell, Jade Huang and Christopher Madden will now manage the fund. 1/17
CSXAX Calvert U.S. Large Cap Core Responsible Index Dale Stout, Lise Bernhard and Laurie Webster are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Thomas Seto will now manage the fund. 1/17
CGJAX Calvert U.S. Large Cap Growth Responsible Index Fund Dale Stout, Lise Bernhard and Laurie Webster are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Thomas Seto will now manage the fund. 1/17
CFJAX Calvert U.S. Large Cap Value Responsible Index Fund Dale Stout, Lise Bernhard and Laurie Webster are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Thomas Seto will now manage the fund. 1/17
CMJAX Calvert U.S. Mid Cap Core Responsible Index Fund Dale Stout, Lise Bernhard and Laurie Webster are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Thomas Seto will now manage the fund. 1/17
CHNAX Clough China Fund Eric Brock is no longer serving as co-manager of the fund. Francoise Vappereau and Brian Chen will remain as co-managers of the fund. 1/17
RRGAX Deutsche Global Real Estate Securities Fund Joseph Fisher and Daniel Ekins are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Robert Thomas joins John Hammon, John Vojticek, Chris Robinson and David Zonavetch in managing the fund. 1/17
DHROX Diamond Hill Research Opportunities Fund Effective January 31, 2017 all references to Bhavik Kothari in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional information are removed. The rest of the extensive team remains. 1/17
DAIOX Dunham International Bond Fund Olaf Rogge is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. The other ten managers continue to manage the fund. 1/17
ELASX Emerald Small Cap Value Fund Effective January 3, 2017, Richard Giesen, Jr. is no longer serving as a manager of the fund. Steven Russell and Ori Elan will remain as the managers of the fund. 1/17
FDFFX Fidelity Independence Robert Bertelson no longer serves as portfolio manager of the fund. Jeffry Feingold will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
FSCRX Fidelity Small Cap Discovery Star manager Chuck Myers will step down at the end of 2017 Derek Janssen will switch over from Small Cap Value  
FCPVX Fidelity Small Cap Value Derek Janssen moves out to lead Small Cap Discovery in early 2018, leading to his gradual phase-out here and phase-in there Clint Lawrence will co-manage the fund for an undetermined period with Janssen before, they hope, succeeding him.  
FDVLX Fidelity Value Fund Stephen Barwikowski no longer serves as a co-manager of the fund. Matthew Friedman, Justin Bennett, Laurie Bertner, John Mirshekari, Shadman Riaz and Katherine Buck will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
GPEOX Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund Spencer Stewart has decided to follow his heart and pursue a new path. As a result, he will be leaving Grandeur Peak shortly. Blake Walker and Zach Larkin will remain as portfolio managers of the fund. 1/17
GPEOX Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund Robert Gardiner and Randy Pearce are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Blake Walker and Spencer Stewart will continue to manage the fund, joined by Zach Larkin as a “Guardian Portfolio Manager.” 1/17
GPMCX Grandeur Peak Global Micro Cap Fund Blake Walker is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Amy Hu Sudnerland is joined by Mark Masden in managing the fund. Robert Gardiner remains as the “Guardian” manager. 1/17
GPGOX Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund No one, but … Robert Gardiner and Blake Walker will continue as porfolion managers. Amy Hu Sunderland is listed as “Guardian” manager. 1/17
GPROX Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund Robert Gardiner and Blake Walker are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Amy Hu Sudnerland, Liping Cai, Zach Larkin, Stuart Rigby, Brad Barth and Mark Madsen continue to manage the fund. Randy Pearce is listed as the “Guardian” manager. 1/17
GPIOX Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund Randy Pearce and Spencer Stewart are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Blake Walker and Robert Gardiner will continue to manage the fund, joined by Amy Hu Sunderland as a “Guardian Portfolio Manager.” 1/17
GLLIX Great Lakes Large Cap Value Fund Effective December 31, 2016, Steve Wittwer has resigned as portfolio manager and research analyst. Edward Calkins, Wells Frice and Huong Le will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
HLMOX Harding, Loevner Frontier Emerging Markets Portfolio G. Rusty Johnson is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Pradipta Chakrabortty, Babatunde Ojo and Richard Schmidt will continue to serve as the portfolio managers of the fund. 1/17
HLMGX Harding, Loevner Global Equity Portfolio Alex Walsh will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. Peter Baughan, Ferrill Roll, Christopher Mack and Richard Schmidt will continue to serve as the portfolio managers of the fund. 1/17
HLMNX  Harding, Loevner International Equity Portfolio Peter Baughan will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. Ferrill Roll, Alexander Walsh, Bryan Lloyd, Patrick Todd and Andrew West will continue to serve as the portfolio managers of the fund. 1/17
HNASX Homestead Growth Fund Robert Sharps will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. Taymour Tamaddon will now manage the fund. 1/17
HCGAX HSBC Emerging Markets Debt Fund No one, but . . . Zeke Diwan joins Vinayak Potti in managing the fund. 1/17
HBMAX HSBC Emerging Markets Local Debt Fund No one, but . . . Billy Lang joins Nishant Upadhyay in managing the fund. 1/17
ICRAX ICON Consumer Staples Fund Rob Young, Craig Callahan and Donovan Paul are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Scott Snyder will now manage the fund. 1/17
ICIAX ICON Industrials Fund Rob Young, Craig Callahan and Donovan Paul are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Zach Jonson will now manage the fund. 1/17
ICTTX ICON Information Technology Fund Rob Young, Craig Callahan and Donovan Paul are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Derek Rollingson will now manage the fund. 1/17
JSFBX John Hancock Seaport Fund Effective June 30, 2017, Kirk Mayer will no longer serve as a portfolio manager of the fund. Following the effective date, Nicholas Adams, Steven Angeli, John Averill, Jennifer Berg, Robert Deresiewicz, Ann Gallo, Bruce Glazer, Andrew Heiskell, Jean Hynes, Mark Lynch and Keith White will continue as leaders of the fund’s investment management team. 1/17
LIMAX  Lateef Fund David Geisler no longer serves as a co-portfolio manager of the fund. Quoc Tran and James Tarkenton continue as co-portfolio managers of the fund. 1/17
LITOX Lazard Global Realty Equity Portfolio David Ronco and Antony Knep are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Jay Leupp will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
LREOX Lazard US Realty Equity Portfolio David Ronco is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Jay Leupp will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
LRIOX Lazard US Realty Income Portfolio David Ronco is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Jay Leupp will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
CURAX MainStay Cushing Energy Income Fund Judd Cryer will no longer serve as a portfolio manager of the fund. Matthew Lemme and Nick English will join Jerry Swank as portfolio managers of the fund. 1/17
ICAUX MainStay ICAP Equity Fund, which will be reorganized into the MainStay Epoch US Equity Yield Fund. Andrew Starr, Matthew Swanson and Thomas Cole are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. William Priest, Eric Sappenfield, John Tobin, Kera Van Valen and Michael Welhoelter will now manage the fund. 1/17
ICSRX MainStay ICAP Select Equity Fund, which will be reorganized into the MainStay Epoch US Equity Yield Fund. Andrew Starr, Matthew Swanson and Thomas Cole are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. William Priest, Eric Sappenfield, John Tobin, Kera Van Valen and Michael Welhoelter will now manage the fund. 1/17
MAPAX MainStay MAP Fund Andrew Starr, Matthew Swanson and Thomas Cole are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. David Pearl, William Priest and Michael Welhoelter join Christopher Mullarkey, James Mulvey and J. Christian Kirtley in managing the fund. 1/17
MGJAX MassMutual Select BlackRock Global Allocation Fund Romualdo Roldan will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. Russ Koesterich, David Clayton and Kent Hogshire join Dan Chamby and Dennis Stattman in managing the fund. 1/17
MOSAX MassMutual Select Overseas Fund No one, but . . . Michael Manelli joins David Herro, Demetris Georghiou, Filipe Benzinho, Gerd Woort-Menker, Georgina Maxwell, Jeroen Huysinga, Daniel Ling, Marcus Smith and David Herro in managing the fund 1/17
MGEMX Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund Emerging Markets Portfolio Samuel Rhee will no longer serve as a portfolio manager to the fund Baite Ali, Munib Madni, Ruchir Sharma, Eric Carlson and Paul Psaila will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
NOIGX Northern International Equity Fund Douglas McEldowney is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Mark Sodergren will now manage the fund. 1/17
PYFRX Payden Floating Rate Fund Sabur Moini is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Jordan Lopez will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
PYHRX Payden High Income Fund Sabur Moini is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Jordan Lopez will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
PRFAX PIMCO Total Return ESG Fund No one, but . . . Alex Struc joins Scott Mather, Alex Struc, Mark Kiesel and Mihir Worah in managing the fund. 1/17
PWREX Pioneer Real Estate Shares No one, but . . . Gina Szymanski will join the portfolio management team of Matthew Troxell, J. Hall Jones and John Garofalo. 1/17
PLBBX Plumb Balanced Fund Nathan Plumb has resigned as Associate Portfolio Manager, Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer of the fund in order to pursue other opportunities. Thomas Plumb will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
PLBEX Plumb Equity Fund Nathan Plumb has resigned as Associate Portfolio Manager, Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer of the fund in order to pursue other opportunities. Thomas Plumb will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
HDCAX Rational Dividend Capture Fund Michael Schoonover and David Miller are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Richard Garcia and Patrick Adams will now manage the fund. 1/17
SCGLX Scout Global Equity Fund Charles John will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. Derek Smashey and John Indellicate will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
TRLGX T. Rowe Price Institutional Large Cap Growth Fund Robert Sharps will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. Taymour Tamaddon, formerly of Health Science, will now manage the fund. 1/17
WMCEX Teton Westwood Mid-Cap Equity Fund Diane Wehner and Charles Stewart are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Nicholas Galluccio will serve as the sole portfolio manager. 1/17
TORYX The Torray Fund  Fred Fialco is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Robert Torray is joined by Shawn Henderson in managing the fund. Mssr. Henderson previously served as co-manager from 2008-2012. 1/17
TMGFX Turner Midcap Growth Fund Christopher McHugh, who has managed the fund since the heady days of 1996, is out. As is, Christopher Baggini Jason Schrotberger will now manage the fund 1/17
VCVSX Vanguard Convertible Securities Fund Jean-Paul Nedelec is no longer listed as a portfolio manager for the fund. Abraham Ofer, Stuart Spangler, Jean-Piere Latrille and Peter Raketic will continue to manage the fund. 1/17
IICFX Voya Multi-Manager International Factors Fund Nicolas Choumenkovitch and Tara Stilwell are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Jaime Lee, Oleg Nusinzon, Steven Wetter and Kai Yee Wong will now manage the fund. 1/17
WLCAX Wells Fargo Large Company Value Fund Stephen Block and William Schaff are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. Dennis Bein, Ryan Brown and Harindra de Silva will now manage the fund. 1/17
WTEIX Westcore Large-Cap Dividend Fund Craig Juran will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. Alex Ruehle, Lisa Ramirez, Paul Kuppinger, Troy Dayton, Derek Anguilm and Mark Adelmann will now manage the fund. 1/17
WTMGX Westcore Mid-Cap Value Dividend Fund Craig Juran will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. Alex Ruehle, Lisa Ramirez, Paul Kuppinger, Troy Dayton, Derek Anguilm and Mark Adelmann will now manage the fund. 1/17
WTSLX Westcore Small-Cap Growth Fund Craig Juran will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for the fund. Mitch Begun, Adam Bliss and Brian Fitzsimons will now manage the fund. 1/17
GVIEX Wilmington Multi-Manager International Fund Dimensional Fund Advisors, J O Hambro Capital Management Limited, LSV Asset Management, Northern Cross LLC, Oberweis Asset Management, Inc. and Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC were removed as sub-advisors to the fund. Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC, AXA Investment Managers, Inc., Berenberg Asset Management LLC, Nikko Asset Management Americas, Inc. and Schroder Investment Management North America, Inc. were added as sub-advisors to the fund. 1/17
YWBIX Yorktown Mid-Cap Fund Daniel Crowe, Chad Kilmer, Robert Lanphier, Mark Leslie, David Mitchell and David Ricci are no longer listed as portfolio managers for the fund. David Basten and Michael Dixon are now managing the fund. 1/17

Briefly noted

By David Snowball

Updates

It feels like an unusually consequential month for some of the fund industry’s most trusted voices. Scott Burns, long-time Dallas Morning News columnist, announced his retirement after “40 years of deadlines, 36 in national syndication. That’s over 5,000 columns and more than 3.5 million words.”  Rather than share final thoughts on personal finance (which you should have been able to glean from his preceding 3.5 million words), Scott offered “collection of columns that I wrote by leaving my computer, office and comfort zone.” If you write him, he’ll share a copy of them.

Bob Cochran, a member of MFO’s Board of Directors and one of the principals at PDS Planning in Columbus, Ohio, is phasing into retirement by year’s end and has agreed to share guidance with us from the series of choices he’s going to be making along the way.

Chuck Jaffe continues negotiating his separation from the Dow-Jones empire.  The on-again, off-again decision by DJ to continue hosting his column was, at last check, on again but the minions of the empire seem a bit inconstant. Chuck’s radio show, which is an independent enterprise, will continue unaffected.

Dan Weiner, a friend of MFO but most famously the guy behind the very successful Independent Adviser for Vanguard Investors newsletter, announced that his firm bought Braver Wealth Management, LLC and Braver Capital Management this week. That gives him a $4.7 billion wealth management company with 3,000 clients and a good newsletter. The combined firm will retain the Adviser Investments name.

All of us who follow MFO’s (mostly mutual fund) discussion board are profoundly saddened that Ted’s health no longer permits him to actively participate. Ted’s daily routine was to rise long before dawn and begin posting links to important fund and finance stories, even before the coffee was done brewing. (Yikes!) Over a span of two decades and three discussion boards (Brill’s MFI, FundAlarm, and MFO) Ted has shared hundreds of thousands of links and provoked tens of thousands of discussions. He and his wife Lynn remain in our thoughts and in our hearts.

Briefly Noted . . .

Thanks, as ever, to The Shadow whose tenebrous excellence surprises even the folks at Morningstar.

Effective at the close of business on February 28, 2017, the outstanding Class A and Class C shares of the Thomas White International Fund (TWWIX) and the Thomas White Emerging Markets Fund (TWEMX) will be converted into Class I shares. Not to suggest gaming the system, but I’d imagine that investors interested in the funds would want to immediately buy “C” class shares, knowing that they’ll become low-cost “I” shares within a month. That might well apply to current holders of higher-cost Investor class shares.

Vertical Capital Income (VCAPX) has temporarily suspended sale of its shares. Here’s the word:

Because the Fund has experienced a delay in filing its 2016 annual report, it has been unable to update its Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information. Therefore, the Fund’s Board of Trustees has determined to temporarily suspend the sale of Fund shares.

Not sure what the underlying issue is, but VCAPX is structured as an interval fund, the complexities of which might account for the issue.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Diamond Hill Capital Management has reduced its management fee by 5 bps for three Diamond Hill Funds: Mid Cap, Research Opportunities and Financial Long-Short.

Segall Bryant & Hamill Small Cap Value Fund (SBHVX) has lowered its management fee from 0.95% to 0.83%. The fund’s new e.r. is 1.08%

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Kopernik Global All-Cap (KGGAX) is soft closing on March 31, 2017. The advisor’s explanation is almost cute: “The mutual fund is being soft-closed at around $1 billion because we know how inconvenient a hard close can be for clients.” The fund’s performance offers a fascinating case-study in the risk of looking at performance over standard reporting periods. Here’s Morningstar’s report of how they’ve been doing:

Whoa! David Iben, superstar investor, strikes again! The view changes a little when you look at a picture of the fund’s performance since inception. KGGAX is the blue line:

Okay, admittedly the blue line ends up higher than the orange (peer) line but the … uhh, “performance hiccup” in between is entirely missing from the standard data report.

RMB Mendon Financial Services Fund (RMBKX, formerly Burnham Financial Services Fund) will soft-close on March 15, 2017.It’s a remarkably solid $500 million fund, quite apart from its five-star rating.

Towle Deep Value Fund (TDVFX) has closed to new investors using third-party channels such as Schwab. It’s an awfully admirable decision. They’ve been struggling for years to get attention. They returned 54% last year, despite a contracting pool of opportunities, and got serious attention. Having concluded that there simply aren’t many opportunities and reluctant to hold cash, they’re closing the door to their most popular channel. It seems very principled to me.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective immediately, the American Independence Multi-Manager International Fund (IIESX) has been renamed the AI International Fund.

On December 15, 2016, the Board of Trustees approved renaming BlackRock Small Cap Growth Equity Portfolio (CSGEX) as BlackRock Advantage Small Cap Growth Fund.

Cambiar Unconstrained Equity Fund (CAMAX) has been renamed Cambiar Global Ultra Focus Fund, and the description of the Fund’s principal investment strategies has been revised to better reflect the investment strategies of the Fund. Uhhh … the Fund will typically invest in a portfolio of 20-30 issuers.  Not to disrespect its ULTRA FOCUS focus, the fund database at MFO Premium lists 150 U.S. equity funds and 35 global equity funds with 30 or fewer holdings.

CBRE Clarion Long/Short Fund (CLSVX) is, subject to shareholder approval, being adopted by the Voya Funds, at which point it will be renamed Voya CBRE Long/Short Fund. Expect to see the change in May.

CMG Global Equity Fund (GEFAX) is becoming CMG Mauldin Solutions Core Fund; in the process it will switch advisers and drop the emphasis on controlling volatility from its investment objectives. Given that the fund is minuscule, expensive and vastly lags its peers (up 3% since inception while its peer group is up 23%), the change is warranted.

GMO Debt Opportunities Fund has been renamed GMO Opportunistic Income Fund (GMODX); the fund’s $750 million minimum initial investment remains intact.

Highland Opportunistic Credit Fund (HNRAX) is being reorganized as NexPoint Opportunistic Credit Fund. The key is the NexPoint will be an interval fund, which means that you will be permitted to ask for your money back once per quarter. The managers, however, might not honor all requests for sales; that is, you might want to sell $100,000 in fund shares but (1) the next window might not be until April 1 and (2) they might be willing to return just $60,000 on that date with the remained available at the July 1 redemption. The theory says this gives the manager the ability to invest on your behalf in illiquid or thinly-traded shares without fearing that a sudden rush to the exits will crash the fund. To date, the fund’s substantial volatility has not been accompanied by outsized gains.

On April 1, 2017, Innealta Capital Country Rotation Fund (ICCNX) becomes Dynamic International Opportunity Fund. Upside: no one knew what an “Innealta” was to begin with. Downside: the new name just needs to add “strategic” to win the marketing buzzwords trifecta. At the same time, Innealta Capital Sector Rotation Fund (ICSNX) becomes Dynamic U.S. Opportunity Fund. Note to the Innealta folks: you use the same ticker symbol for the “N” class shares of both funds in your SEC filing.

I don’t think that’s allowed.

All of the Janus Funds name will change to reflect Janus Henderson as part of the fund’s name.

Effective March 31, 2017 PNC Large Cap Growth Fund (PEWAX) will become PNC Multi-Factor Large Cap Growth Fund. What, you might ask, does “multi-factor” mean? Roughly: “we need a marketing hook.” Here’s the explanation from PNC:

The Adviser evaluates issuers and selects investments based on a variety of quantitative measures, referred to as “factors.” The Fund’s multi-factor quantitative process uses quality factors, such as a company’s stability of earnings; momentum factors, such as movements in both price and earnings and earnings surprises; and value factors, such as price to earnings, price to book, and price to cash flow ratios.

By this logic, of course, every active mutual fund might crown itself a Multi-Factor fund since every manager accounts for this same constellation of quality, growth and value.

PNC Large Cap Value Fund (PLVAX) undergoes an identical renaming. In a bolder move, PNC Large Cap Core (PLEAX) becomes PNC Multi-Factor All Cap Fund.

Effective as of February 28, 2017, all 18 SunAmerica Mutual Funds are being rebranded as AIG Funds. Generously, you’d say that three of the 18 have respectable 1, 3, and 5 year records.

Voya Capital Allocation Fund (ATLAX) has been renamed Voya Global Multi-Asset Fund.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

AllianceBernstein/TWM Global Equity & Covered Call Strategy Fund (TWMVX) will liquidate on February 27, 2017.

Appleton Equity Growth (APLEX) liquidates on February 28, 2017.

Federated Managed Risk Fund (FDRAX) has managed to get liquidated. I’m guessing that neither the $5 million portfolio nor the last 12 months’ worth of performance has helped. FDRAX is the blue line.

It bids farewell on February 24, 2017

Fidelity Income Replacement 2018 (FIRKX) and Income Replacement 2020 (FIRLX), with just $15 million between the two funds, will each liquidate on or about March 31, 2017. 

Mariner Managed Futures Strategy Portfolio (a one-star fund with no ticker symbol) will liquidate on March 20, 2017.

The Board of Trustees of the MassMutual Select Funds has approved “Liquidation and Termination” of MassMutual Select Diversified International Fund (MMZAX), on or about April 28, 2017 

In February, Hennessy Large Value Fund (HLVFX) will merge into Hennessy Cornerstone Value Fund (HFCVX). Depending on the time frame, the funds’ correlation sits around 0.88 – 0.90 with one fund temporarily inching ahead of the other before falling back.

On January 24, 2017, the Board of Trustees of AIM Investment Funds approved a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution for Invesco Macro International Equity Fund (VZMAX).The fund turned out to be consistently better at capturing downside than upside, an annoying habit for the few brave souls who bought it. The fund will be liquidated on or about February 27, 2017

Janus International Equity Fund (JAIEX) will liquidate on or about March 30, 2017. The fund did okay under a series of journeymen from 2006-2010, but the team in place since 2010 has steered it to consistently sub-par returns. Given the recent merger with Henderson Global, it was likely an opportune moment to cut ties.

Mirae Asset Global Growth Fund (MGAGX), sometimes designated just Global Growth Fund has become “the late Global Growth Fund.”

Palmer Square Long/Short Credit Fund (PCHAX) will be liquidated on or about February 15, 2017.

Putnam Global Energy Fund (PGEAX) will, pending shareholder approval, merge into Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund (EBERX). In anticipation of that development, Global Energy will close to new investors on March 7, 2017.

RidgeWorth Aggressive Growth Allocation Strategy (SLAAX) will liquidate on March 17, 2017. It’s a harmless fund-of-Ridgeworth-funds with no assets and no real distinction.

Turner Medical Sciences Long/Short Fund (TMSFX) and Turner SMID Cap Growth Opportunities Fund (TMCGX) have disappeared. The official text explaining the change is intriguing: the funds “did not receive the favorable vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of each Fund for its new investment advisory agreement and therefore each Fund will begin the complete liquidation of its assets.” Curious. Five Turner funds asked for approval of a new investment advisory agreement which, from the investors’ perspective, offered them a bit of financial gain. After failing to secure a quora at several attempted shareholders meetings, Turner pulled the plug. The weird thing is that they did get enough votes for three of five funds, all of which were offered the exact same agreement.

Virtus Emerging Markets Equity Income Fund (VEIAX) and Virtus Essential Resources Fund (VERAX) are closing to new investors on March 3, 2017 and will liquidate on March 15. The former was a good idea that never played out, the latter was weak even by the standards of a beaten-down peer group.

January 1, 2017

By David Snowball

Dear friends,

Welcome to the New Year.

If you think contemporary politics are crazy, ask yourself “why is January 1 the start of the year?” Ancient cultures tended to align their calendars with the rhythm of the natural world: solstices, equinoxes, the waxing and waning of the moon, planting seasons and harvests. January 1 aligns with, well, nothing.

Which was the point. The ancient Roman had two calendars running simultaneously. The joint rulers, called consuls, took office around January 1 after the week of solstice celebrations. That began “the consular year.” The religious calendar recognized spring as the beginning of the new year, so New Year’s Day fell in late March.  In an odd bit of anarchy, their calendar contained 10 months (hence “December” is “10th month”) and 304 days; the remaining days of the year were recognized but weren’t assigned to any month. They were just days.

Weeks tended to last eight days.

And the months? They varied in length, based on how many days the chief priest thought that month needed. Every couple years they’d toss in an extra month (an intercalary month) to realign the civil and solar years. But they didn’t always announce those events in advance; on the first day of the month (the kalend of the month), typically on a new moon, the pontifex maximus would share word of that month’s shape and length.  If the pontifex didn’t like what the government was up to, he might trim a few days off the month or declare a couple extra religious holidays when the government couldn’t be in session. Politics screwed up the calendar so badly that, according to Suetonius, harvest festivals occurred months before havest.

All of which only applied in Rome. The outlying pieces of the empire could follow whatever calendar suited them.

Then Julius Caesar put an end to (almost) all that foolishness. In 46 BCE (they would have called it 708 AUC, “after the founding of Rome”), he stripped the priests of their ability to control the year, aligned the new year with the start of the January 1 consular year and imposed a 12-month, 365-day calendar.  That all made 45 BCE a tough year because, to get everything lined up again, he had to add three extra months; an old-style intercalary month at the end of February and two newbies between October and November. (But just once, so don’t get used to it.) Then he announced that all the world had to surrender their native calendars, showing that the power of Rome was so great that even the year bent to its will.

Politics and pragmatism, religion and dogma: they’ve very old games, which we’ve played, lamented and survived for a very long time. In the meanwhile, life goes on, driven by the relationships we build, the attention we pay and the joy we share.

There is much to be joyful for.

It’s deceptively easy to believe that our world is going to hell in a handbasket because the only thing we hear each day is that day’s horrors. Someone got shot. Somewhere got poisoned. Something blew up. Why all the bad news? Two reasons:

  1. News media report on what’s new; that is, they tell us what happened today that was different from what happened yesterday. They’re looking at individual occurrences, especially if they come with striking visual images. We’re not asked to think about the big picture, because the big picture didn’t happen today. And so we fixate on all the little things that did transpire.
  2. Bad news sells; more particular, bad news delivered in a howling tone generates outrage and clicks. If you’re looking for evidence, look no further than any headline which also contains the words “Obama” or “Trump.” As in “Obama’s final, most shameful legacy moment.” Or “Trump and the ‘hideous monstrosity’ that was 2016.”

Bad news for fans of bad news. We share the planet with 7.4 billion people, almost all of whom are warm, caring and funny. And almost all of whom are working like dogs to make their lives and their neighbors’ lives and their children’s lives better. Andrew Foster, manager of Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX), travels to some of the world’s poorest nations. “These are deeply dysfunctional economies with unreliable capital markets, but we all knew that ahead of time. What really strikes me,” he said, “is how incredibly hard even the poorest people will work to give their children hope for a better life. What they’re willing to do is incredible and humbling.”

And it’s working. Oxford economist Max Roser, founder of the Our World in Data project, provides compelling evidence for that claim. Rather than focusing on today’s noise, he and his team look at data to pursue the question. “how are things changing?” One of his most striking displays concerns extreme poverty. “Extreme poverty” is defined as living on the equivalent of $1.90/day or less, an amount that’s adjusted to account for non-monetary income (trading for carrots), cost of living across time and so on. Here’s the picture:

World population living in extreme poverty

Dr. Roser offers this explanation of the picture.

In 1820 only a tiny elite enjoyed higher standards of living, while the vast majority of people lived in conditions that we would call extreme poverty today. Since then the share of extremely poor people fell continuously. More and more world regions industrialised and thereby increased productivity which made it possible to lift more people out of poverty: In 1950 three-quarters of the world were living in extreme poverty; in 1981 it was still 44%. For last year … the share in extreme poverty has fallen below 10%.

That is a huge achievement, maybe the biggest achievement of all in the last two centuries. It is particularly remarkable if we consider that the world population has increased 7-fold over the last two centuries … In a world without economic growth, such an increase in the population would have resulted in less and less income for everyone; a 7-fold increase in the world population would have been enough to drive everyone into extreme poverty. Yet, the exact opposite happened. In a time of unprecedented population growth our world managed to give more prosperity to more people and to continuously lift more people out of poverty.

I’m struck less by the fact that things are getting better, more by the fact that they’re getting better faster which is marked by inflection points around 1950 and 1970. The same pattern holds for global literacy, child mortality, education, fertility and even respect for human rights.

Dr. Roser is struck by the question, “why don’t we know this?” That is, why do so few of us see what Mr. Foster and Dr. Roser see, billions of people succeeding?

Things are getting better.

Not every thing. Not every day. But the important things are, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, getting better. They’re getting better because it’s in our nature to seek better, rather than to surrender to worse.

Our challenges are very real (and, in the case of global warming, terrifying). But they’ve been very real (and terrifying) for centuries. The question is not “will things get better?” so much as “what’s your plan to make your slice better in 2017?” Will you plant a rain garden or volunteer in your schools? Will you walk more, smile more, notice others more? Will you spend less time with your portfolio and more with your neighbors? Will you fuss less about this quarter’s returns and more about the pattern of intentional consumption and serious saving that will support your most important goals?

I have faith in you.

The 2% challenge

2016 was a good year for the Observer. We upgraded our servers to give you faster, more reliable access. Chip and Andrew redesigned the site into our new magazine-like format. Charles has done amazing work in making MFO Premium more sophisticated and more responsive to our readers’ needs. We continue to attract about 25,000 readers each month and came very close to cracking the 30,000 reader threshold in December.

We manage that with the financial support of about 1% of our readers, counting all of the folks who’ve contributed online or by check (though not the uncounted number who’ve used our Amazon link). Some of those folks have been wildly generous and stalwart through the years. We are endlessly grateful to them.

We offer three rewards for folks who contribute $100 or more to MFO in any year: our thanks, the satisfaction of knowing that you’re supporting other readers’ attempts to learn and grow, and access to MFO Premium. MFO Premium is MFO’s other site; it consists primarily of a remarkable set of data (from Lipper) and a suite of tools (designed by our colleague Charles Boccadoro) to allow you to make sense of the data.

MFO Premium is distinguished from other suites in two ways. First, it takes you miles beyond the simple-minded “who’s up the most in the past 3 years?” screeners that are generally available. It allows you to screen for significant time periods (for example, to look at performance in downmarket cycles or bear market months), to look at risk (maximum drawdowns, for example) and risk-return measures (Sortino and Martin ratios) that you rarely get to see, and to examine the correlations between funds. Second, it is constantly evolving. Charles is in almost-constant conversation with readers who are seeking clarifications, improvements or new features. He’s added several (including the correlation matrix) in 2016 and has more planned (including performance over rolling time periods) for 2017. Despite all that, it’s drawn only a couple hundred users.

Charles is, frankly, baffled.

We’d like to raise that to 2%, which would translate to around 500 people, including new and renewing members of MFO Premium, all told. It’s a simple, painless, satisfying process: contributions to MFO are mostly tax-deductible (our attorney says I must repeat the phrase, “consult your tax adviser”) because we’re incorporated as a 501(3)c charity. We’re also an efficient 501(c)3 since our fund-raising costs are, well, zero. If you contribute $100 or more, Charles gives you immediate access to MFO Premium with all the attendant data and support.

Please do. In support of our 2% goal, I’ll update folks monthly on our progress. (In technical terms, it falls somewhere between “guilting” and “nagging,” edging, I fear, toward “annoying.”)

MFO Premium portal

Could you help a child?

We received an interesting query from Doug, a reader in Florida who once worked in the broker-dealer end of the fund world. Doug’s son is autistic and has received profound delight and peace in playing, for the last decade, with a conference giveaway from the Munder Funds.

Lots of flashing blue lights but it’s now stopped working. New batteries didn’t fix it and Doug’s son is inconsolable. Doug knows nothing about the name or manufacturer, except for the Munder Funds name on the side.

If you have any idea of where he might find another or who made it, would you drop me a note? If I hear anything promising, I’ll surely pass it along to Doug.

And thanks!

Speaking of thanks …

Our supporters have been extra generous over the past month. We give thanks to all of you: Victoria, Nancy, Ben, Laurie and Leah – who renewed her MFO Premium subscription and added some extra support. We’re grateful to you all and we really enjoy the notes (Joe waves to Ed!) and cards you include. Thanks too, to Fitz, Kevin, Paul, Ed, Mary, Charles, Altaf and Rick. We couldn’t do this without your support. As always many, many thanks to our now four (!) regular subscribers, Greg, Deb, Jonathan, and Brian. If I’ve failed to recognize you, blame it on New Year’s Eve and a 650 mile drive home from Pittsburgh. I’m a bit tired, but still heartened by your support.

As ever,

“What Goes Around ……”

By Edward A. Studzinski

Democracy – “The substitution of election by the incompetent many for the appointment of the corrupt few.”

        George Bernard Shaw

So, another calendar year has gone by, and fund managers everywhere are dissecting their relative performance in comparison to some benchmark index. To put things into perspective for a real-world comparison (at least in terms of the performance numbers), the Admiral shares of the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund, which charges a five basis point fee, had a one-year total return of 11.9%, a five-year total return of 14.6% and a ten-year total return of 6.9%. These are all annualized numbers. It is also worth looking at the calendar year 2016 return for the Vanguard Value Index Fund, which has an expense ratio of eight basis points. It achieved a one-year total return of 16.9%, a five-year total return of 15.0%, and a ten-year return of 6.0% (again, annualized numbers).

I have been saying for some time that I think in this kind of world, there will be a place where active managers will outperform index funds. This is why however, that looking at fees AND performance numbers over longer periods of time is so important. There is a wonderful Dilbert cartoon in which in the first frame, Dogbert says, “The best way to evaluate an investment fund is to look at its misleading claims of past performance.” The second frame says, “The Dogbert Hedge Fund beat the market average for a three-week period ….. that one time.”

When you look at performance numbers over at least a five-year period, you generally find two things. One, performance differences tend to smooth out over time, giving one a real opportunity to understand whether the active manager is truly adding anything to performance (again relative to a benchmark). Two, rarely do any of you reading this make investments on the basis of having the money go into the market at the beginning of the performance measurement period, and then come out at the end of the performance measurement period. But you do tend to get impatient. That impatience, used to be reflected to me in emails “Why did you underperform the index last week on Wednesday, when it was up half a per cent and your fund was down.” This is one of the things that has happened – there are no, especially in the retail area, long-term investors. And the idea that a value approach will be lumpy, that is under-perform often for years before having the opportunity to show its true nature. Of course the other issue becomes whether the manager has the patience to not try and “fix” things when there is the double whammy of underperformance leading to negative fund flows (anathema to the asset gathering organizations). And for an example of lumpy performance in value funds, take a look at Fairholme Focused Income Fund, with its one-year total return of 32.3% and its five-year total return of 11.5% (annualized).

To make the comparisons a little easier to the three large cap Vanguard index funds I referred to above, let’s look at two large-cap actively-managed Vanguard funds. Vanguard Admiral Equity Income Fund has an expense ratio of seventeen basis points, and achieved a one-year total return of 14.7%, a five-year total return of 14.6%, and a ten-year total return of 7.4% (again, annualized). Vanguard PrimeCap Core, with an expense ratio of forty-seven basis points, had a one-year total return of 12.4%, a five-year total return of 16.1%, and a ten-year total return of 9.2% (again, annualized). Both of those funds would warrant a look for investment, given the five-year and ten-year numbers I would also suggest the less common index fund, the Vanguard Value Index Admiral Fund shares would also be worth a serious look. Look at performance over a longer period than just one-year or three-years.

 Fees Redux

“Skimming” is the term used when a casino management takes some profits off the total funds running through the books without having to account for it. I have spent a lot of time in this column railing against excessive fees. Where like-kind active funds are available, and the same period annualized total returns are available from the cheaper fund, the choice should be an easy choice. And it should be easy because the excess fees from your money are being skimmed off the top by the fund management controlling company. In the case of a corporate parent such as Affiliated Managers or PIMCO, anywhere from thirty to fifty basis points is being skimmed off the top and going into the corporate coffers, contributing little if anything to the investment decision-making and management process.

Hope and Change

An active manager I know mentioned last week that his fund flows, and those of his firm, which had been bleeding out all year, turned slightly positive in December. And while we have concerned ourselves with the competition that passive products present for active managers in the mutual fund arena, the competition is even greater in the hedge fund area. Think of it this way – the usual fee schedule for equity hedge funds is “two and twenty” meaning a two percent fee with a twenty percent performance fee (talk about skimming). A wonderful little article in The Financial Times on December 21st pointed out that analysts and quantitative managers have “reverse-engineered” the returns of many common hedge fund strategies such as long-short, and are replicating them in an ETF format. And for that matter, why pay a two percent expense ratio for one of the Gotham Funds, when Goldman Sachs has Smart Beta (multi-factor) ETF’s available at expense ratios of nine to forty-five basis points.

So let’s end this with a semi-real example to think about. Harold retires at age sixty with a $200,000 balance in his 401(k) account which he rolls over to an IRA at the beginning of the year. He doesn’t plan to file for Social Security payments until age seventy, when he will have maximized the annuity payout he can get from Social Security. For those ten years, he does not need to work or tap into his savings, as he receives a pension check for a vested defined benefit pension plan he had at another employer. Invested in the Vanguard Value Index Fund, Admiral shares, the investment would have grown to $358,170 when he would have had to start taking minimum distributions.

Alternatively, Harold rolls his $200,000 over at age sixty into the Vanguard PrimeCap Core Fund (assuming he can get into a closed fund), the initial amount has grown to $482,232 when he needs to start taking his required minimum distributions at age seventy. And if you don’t think the example is real since you can’t get into the Vanguard fund mentioned, the numbers work almost as well if you were to use the PrimeCap Odyssey Growth Fund, run by the same team as the Vanguard fund but available directly from the PrimeCap firm.

End of an Era

Another piece in the Financial Times (hint: I consider this to be the best financial newspaper in the English-speaking world) on December 30th spoke of the anger of investors with actively-managed funds.

They have pulled $30B a month out of actively-managed funds in 2016. What’s different is that in the past, those negative flows were usually tied to large stock market debacles. This year, what finally appears to have sunk in is the years of data showing that most active managers fail to keep up passive index funds’ performance over long periods of time. That said, another factor appears to be an increasing awareness by the investors of the “lifestyles of the rich” which many fund managers have adopted with multiple homes, Net Jets cards, and minimal working hours. As a result, in 2016 a full 301 funds had shut down and returned their investors’ funds. Another 97 were merged into better performing funds in the same fund family. (The article David Snowball and I have talked about writing is “Mutual Funds that Do Not Deserve to Exist.”). So what is the solution? Well, I can tell you from my vantage point, it appears that costs are being cut, but more to sustain margins so that the payouts can continue to the highly compensated (here I think of the fund manager whom one of his peers referred to as the “$30M a year” man). Often, as support staff and analysts are cut, it is the investment performance that continues to suffer as the investment research process becomes gutted. The other thing that happens is the quality of the personnel hired is ratcheted down (good enough) rather than the best available talent.

We have seen this in a number of situations where the industry was not understood (off-balance sheet assets and liabilities) but the income forecast model looked good. In that regard, investment analysis has become like much of American medicine today, with an overreliance on laboratory tests rather than the art of physical diagnosis. And in investment analysis, the similar paradigm has been an overreliance on models and “Investor Day” presentations which have been religiously scrubbed, often attended by not curious people to begin with.

A Final Comment

Whole forests are being destroyed for the paper being used in stories about this year’s Presidential election, not to mention the blizzard of stories on the internet. I am going to offer only one comment to ponder. Years ago, growing up in eastern Massachusetts (where politics are part of the air and water), I asked my grandmother, who had immigrated from what would have been then Russian Poland, why people voted for the Kennedy family. Her answer was simple but elegant. She said, “because they have too much money to steal.”

Happy New Year!

For fund managers, a lesson from a failed squatter toilet

By David Snowball

People are weird. They doggedly do things that are stupid and self-destructive. If you ask them “why?” the answer is often “because that’s what I’m comfortable doing.”

Investors are people.

Fund managers are people.

People are people.

People are weird.

Our story begins with smoldering dung. Nearly half of the world’s population cooks their food in stoves, often unvented, that burns solid fuel, often dung. In some parts of Africa it’s 98% while folks in rural India burn 60,000,000 tons of cow dung each year to cook their meals. The result is a disaster: homes and lungs are coated with black soot, indoor air pollutant levels are often 100x safe limits, 80% of children become nauseated and over 4 million people die each year from the fumes.

Clean-burning enclosed stoves are available. Heck, they’re often given away free and they’d vastly reduce the problem but they often end up in the trash heap out behind the house, or serving as bowls or in some other decorative role. A major story in the Financial Times reports:

For decades, researchers, charities and non-governmental organisations have looked for ways of persuading people in India and around the world to switch to more efficient cooking methods, which use less fuel per unit of heat and often cost relatively little. But time and again, people in rural areas return to their traditional stoves … (“India: Cooking up a recipe for clean air,” 12/21/2016)

Until now, nobody seems to have taken the time to figure out why, instead well-meaning organizations have proceeded to try to fix these people without understanding them. That is, they assumed that folks in India were dim and unable to understand the consequences of their actions.

It turns out that the villagers in question were perfectly rational. The stoves were designed by people who weren’t actually cooking traditional meals, in traditional settings, on them. If designers had only taken the time to talk with folks and to study and understand their behavior, they’d have discovered that the stoves simply didn’t work. Their heat was no adjustable, their fuel holes were too small, their vents shoot streams of smoke directly at the cook and more.

In short, they were ill-adapted and rejected. Stove designers aren’t used to talking with people and watching them cook; “it’s not,” they might say, “what I love doing.”

FT tracked the success of a new NGO, Nexleaf, which took the radical step of taking its clients seriously. They equipped each test stove with a small remote unit. As soon as a family stopped using the stove, Nexleaf was notified, sent a researcher to discover what went wrong, then improved their product. The combination of thoughtful attention and careful redesign seems to have made a world of difference; in one village studied, use of the improved stove reached 100% … and stayed there.

In short: listening matters and a willingness to get past “what we’ve always done” matters.

There’s a lot of academic research that documents a simple point: relationships matter and they’re created by open, ongoing communication. Dr. Leonard Kostovetsky of the University of Rochester points to the long research thread which shows that the economics of the fund industry are entirely dependent on investors’ perceptions that they’re in a meaningful partnership with their fund companies:

Gennaioli, Shleifer, and Vishny (2012) propose that the well-documented empirical finding that average active mutual fund alphas are negative (e.g., Jensen, 1968) is due to a “trust” premium, which allows asset management firms to charge investors additional fees if there is a trusting relationship between them. They write that trust can be established through “personal relationships, familiarity, persuasive advertising, connections to friends and colleagues, communication, and schmoozing.” (“Whom do you trust?” Investor-advisor relationships and mutual fund flows,” 2015)

Kostovetsky goes on to ask, what happens when a fund company violates that trust? He looks at the consequences of a change in ownership; for example, when a firm sells itself to AMG or Natixis. The short answer is, significant amounts of money starts flowing out the door. That’s particularly true of investors who had been willing to accept higher expenses in exchange for a better relationship:

Retail investors and investors in funds with higher expense ratios are more responsive to ownership changes, consistent with the notion that such investors place a higher value on trust and are more likely to respond to a relationship disruption by withdrawing their assets.

If you are dismissive of their need for a respectful relationship, they will be dismissive of your need to stay in business.  (Does the phrase “giant sucking sound” resonate with anyone?)

Based on our reading of the research, we’ve proposed a series of best practices that might serve to rebuild the trust that keeps the best portion of the industry alive. Those include:

Changing the role of your board of trustees. These are your shareholders’ direct representatives and advocates, yet you keep them insulated and invisible. They’re not on your website. They have no email addresses. They don’t speak in your letters and reports. The vast majority don’t invest in your funds despite evidence that such alignment powerfully improves fund performance. One manager after another tells me that their boards, often rent-a-boards, know next to nothing about their funds.

Expressing interest in your investors needs and concerns. No fund company has ever expressed interest in why I chose to invest with them, except now in my role as a public scold. No fund company has ever reached out after I’ve invested, except for the formulaic documents that now arrive via pdf. And no fund company has ever asked why I chose to liquidate my holdings with them. You are the only industry in the world that has made incuriosity into such an art. If we approached one of your equity managers and said “hi, we have a mature industry with few barriers to entry, the firms in which know nothing about their customers and have no strategy for retaining them, would you like to invest there?” the answer would be “only if I could short those losers.”

Putting away the convenient excuses. Managers, the folks who actually dominate most independent firms, offer the same three excuses every time this topic comes up. (1) Schwab doesn’t give us that information. (2) FINRA won’t let us. (3) I just want to build the portfolio; the rest is our distributor’s problem. To which we say: (1) make them, (2) that’s simply not true, (3) okay, as long as you’re comfortable with failure.

One villager took the FT out to show them, with pride, that she’d thrown her old dirty stove onto the trash heap where the reporter inquired about another discarded object.

Outside Jhunu Pradhan’s house, partly obscured by the undergrowth, is a ceramic squatter toilet, filled with sand. “An NGO built this here 10 years ago, but nobody ever wanted to use it,” her husband explains. Asked whether the organisation that built it knows it is not being used, he replies: “I don’t know, they never came back to check.”

Note to fund advisors: you’re in imminent danger of becoming the abandoned, sand-filled squatter toilets of the financial services world. If you aspire to better, you need to listen to your investors, to let them know that you’re listening, and to rebuild the relationships that you severed when you became hostage to third-party distributors like Schwab and Fidelity. 

Whose Fund Is It, Anyway?

By Leigh Walzer

The Closed End Fund (CEF) industry, with $200 billion in assets, is dwarfed in size by the open-ended mutual fund industry.   CEFs generally get little attention in Mutual Fund Observer and sites like Bogleheads. Trapezoid monitors most of the closed-end fund universe for manager skill in relation to expense ratio, using the same methodology and database as for open-end mutual funds. (MFO readers are invited to register for a free no-obligation demo which covers several mutual fund sectors)

There are many closed end funds trading at discounts to Net Asset Value (NAV). The average fund trades today at a 7% discount. This is not as big as it was a year ago, but still above the historic average. Exhibit I shows the average closed fund discount for all US CEFs (based on equal weighting) We are aware of 100 CEFs trading at discounts of 12% or greater. Sometimes those discounts persist so long they become more or less permanent. 

Some people attribute the discount to poor investment performance (we will comment on that later). High fees, lack of liquidity, and dividend yields are also factors. Rising short term rates make CEFs which rely on leverage less attractive.

Phil Goldstein

Whatever the reason, a persistent discount is a source of tension between fund holders and advisors. Many holders would like to see their investments trade at NAV, even if this necessitates opening the redemption window or liquidating the fund completely. The management company ordinarily wants to receive its stream of fees as long as possible.

Since 2014 activism has been heating up in the closed end fund (CEF) space. CEF activism was pioneered by a handful of players including Philip Goldstein of Bulldog Fund. A decade ago Elliot Associates forced Salomon Brothers Fund to open.

Recently, a number of hedge fund players have piled in. Activists have scored successes. As Exhibit II shows, several CEFs were forced to convert to open end funds, others agreed to liquidate or merge.  A number of other funds agreed to do large buybacks, often coupled with a standstill agreement which would keep the activist at bay for several years.

Exhibit II – Recent CEF and BDC Activist Plays

  Fund Activist Outcome
ACAS American Capital, Ltd* Elliott Ares acquired
ACG AB Income Fund Karpus merged into open end fund
AYN Alliance NY Municipal Income Fund Bulldog liquidated
CMK MFS InterMarket Income Trust Karpus, Bulldog liquidated
FTT Federated Enhanced Treasury Income Fund Karpus converted to open end fund
FAV First Trust Dividend and Income Fund Bulldog converted to ETF
FDI Fort Dearborn Income Securities (UBS) Karpus, 1607 converted to open end
FULL Full Circle Capital Corp* Bulldog, Sims Great Elm acquired
GHI Global High Income Fund Bulldog, Saba liquidated
HYF Managed High Yield Plus Fund (UBS) Saba liquidated
JGV Nuveen Global Equity Income Fund Bulldog merged into open end fund
KHI Deutsche High Income Trust Saba liquidated
XRDC Crossroads Capital, Inc.  (BDCA Venture)* Bulldog Bulldog granted BOD seat; proposing liquidation
RIT LMP Real Estate Income Fund Bulldog converted to open end fund
AVK Advent Claymore Convertible Securities & Income Fund Saba,  Western tender, standstill
DCA Virtus Total Return Fund Bulldog tender, standstill
ERC Wells Fargo Multi-Sector Income Fund Saba tender, standstill
FSC Fifth Street Finance Corp. * RiverNorth tender, standstill, side deal
FSFR Fifth Street Senior Floating Rate Corp.* Ironsides tender, standstill, side deal
GFY Western Asset Variable Rate Strategic Fund Relative Value tender, standstill
IRL New Ireland Fund Karpus tender, standstill
LCM Advent/Claymore Enhanced Growth & Income Fund Bulldog, Western, Saba tender, standstill

*Business Development Corporation

But in a minority of cases, the management company has resisted. Some have used delaying tactics. Others made tactical use of dilutive rights offers.

While there are several good examples of what happens when a fund resists activist pressure, we will consider Deutsche Bank as a case in point.

When shareholders and fund directors clash

Art Lipson

Art Lipson

Western Investment, a hedge fund manager based in Utah, has been battling funds managed by DIMA (Deutsche Investment Management Americas)  since 2009. The manager, Art Lipson, cut his teeth on the fixed income desk at Kuhn Loeb in the 1970s and 80s.  A few years ago, Lipson disclosed that 90% of Western’s portfolio was allocated to closed end funds trading at a discount.

DIMA was previously controlled by Zurich (which bought Kemper Insurance) and before that it was known as Scudder.

In 2010, after a protracted battle, Western struck a settlement with DIMA under which they agreed to liquidate two funds and effect partial tenders at several others.  As part of the agreement Western agreed to a five-year standstill with Deutsche.

Boaz Weinstein

Boaz Weinstein

In April 2015, around the time his standstill was expiring, Saba (a hedge fund managed by Boaz Weinstein) filed a 13D against Deutsche High Income Trust (KHI) with a 12% stake. KHI was another CEF managed by DIMA with assets of $140mm.  By February 2016 Deutsche and Saba agreed to a deal which led to the liquidation of KHI late in 2016. By capturing the discount, Saba generated an extra 10-12% over and above what the underlying assets generated; because Saba scaled into and out of the position, the bulk of the capital was tied up for 18-24 months.

Perhaps spurred by Saba’s success, Lipson decided to tangle with Deutsche again. His targets were Deutsche’s two remaining taxable CEF bond funds, Deutsche Multi-Market Income Fund (KMM) and Deutsche Strategic Income Trust  (KST). At the time the two funds were trading at discounts to NAV of 15%.  The combined net assets of these funds are approximately $250 million.   The investment agreement (renewed annually) paid DIMA roughly 1% per year. The board of each fund was identical to KHI

In the run-up to the October 2016 shareholder meeting, Lipson and his partner Benchmark Plus prepared to launch a proxy seeking four board seats and declassification of the board. The board opposed the motion but agreed to ultimately terminate the trust. But, unlike KHI, they asked to preserve the current structure for 2.5 years. Their rationale was that the current CEF structure conferred certain benefits on shareholders including the ability to use leverage.

Lipson’s proxy questioned whether the directors were truly disinterested, since they received considerable fees from 103 Deutsche funds. He also noted the funds have consistently traded at a discount and that Deutsche Bank was financially unstable. The proxy also criticizes the funds’ performance but doesn’t offer much evidence. And it notes that the directors’ business judgement was inconsistent: it moved to liquidate KHI quickly but wants to be much more patient with KMM and KST. The fund’s lawyers sought (and were denied by the SEC) permission to exclude the declassification proposal as well as many of Western’s arguments.

In the October 2016 shareholder vote, Lipson’s slate won a majority of the votes cast for each fund – but only 54% of the shareholders actually bothered to vote. As a result, the board refused to unseat the current directors or declassify the board. In 2009, during Deutsche’s first skirmish with Lipson, the fund amended its  by-laws to raise the voting threshold from a plurality of those voting to an absolute majority.

We understand why Deutsche would take this position. DIMA manages $1.6 billion of other CEFs, some of which have attracted attention from other activists. By agreeing to liquidate at the end of 2018, they preserve their fee stream for a couple of years, a time frame they probably believed was short enough to dissuade most activists from litigating; but also, long enough to undermine the economics of future activists.

However, the independent directors are the real decision makers.   Their perspective is murkier. Fifty six percent of shareholders who cast a vote supported the activists (blending the two funds.) This seems to evidence a strong desire by shareholders for change.

We spoke to two attorneys who handled similar cases in the past. Rarely are these cases tried in court. The facts and legal venues may differ from case to case. But there is general agreement that without the directive of an absolute majority the directors are obliged to apply their independent judgement to do what is in the best interest of shareholders.  The fund might take the position that the activists’ objectives diverge from those of retail shareholders. The two sides would presumably differ over how to interpret a persistent discount and whether shareholders’ interest is well served by following the strategy from the original prospectus.  The shareholder base may include many holders with low tax-basis.

We also spoke to Lipson. While some activists are willing to cut deals with managers involving a partial buyback, he has a philosophical tilt toward fund liquidation. “Given the choice, if a fund agrees to terminate in reasonable timeframe, I will support that over a quick fix solution…. Even if it means a slightly lower IRR.”

Currently Western is suing KMM, KST and the two boards. We are not legal analysts. We suspect the business judgment rule gives the directors a lot of latitude. But we would want to better understand why the board (with identical composition) terminated KHI so much more quickly than KMM and KST.

Current Activist Opportunity

Investors have been rattling the cage at a number of other CEFs, trading at a discount. Here is a partial list:

  Fund Name Discount        Activist Comment
ADX Adams Diversified Equity Fund 16.8 Gramercy shareholder proposal defeated
AGC Advent Claymore Convertible Securities & Income Fund II 14.4 Saba  
BGX Blackstone/GSO LS Credit Inc 8.4 Saba  
BIT BlackRock Multi-Sector Income Trust 11.0 Saba  
CEE Central Europe, Russia and Turkey Fund 12.9 City of London Discount Mgmt Program
CIF MFS Intermediate High Income Fund  9.6 Saba  
CSI Cutwater Select Income Fund  6.8 Karpus  
DHG Deutsche High Income Opportunities Fund 4.4 Bulldog, Saba  
DNI Dividend and Income Fund 17.3 Karpus, BlueBell, Saba rights offer as defensive tactic
DSU BlackRock Debt Strategy Fund 10.0 Saba  
EEA European Equity Fund 12.8 1607 Capital Partners, Karpus  
EMD Western Asset Emerging Markets Income Fund 13.7 Saba  
FAM First Trust/Aberdeen Global Opportunity Income Fund 8.3 Karpus shareholder proposal
FPT Federated Premier Intermediate Municipal Income Fund 7.4 Karpus  
FSD First Trust High Income Long/Short Fund 10.3 Saba shareholder proposal to declassify board
FTF Franklin Templeton Duration Income Trust  9.2 Saba  
GDO Western Asset Global Corporate Defined Opportunity Fund 9.5 Saba  
GLO Clough Global Opportunities Fund 13.6 Bulldog  
GLQ Clough Global Equity Fund 11.5 Bulldog  
GLV Clough Global Allocation Fund 11.6 Bulldog  
HYI Western Asset High Yield Defined Opportunity Fund 9.1 Saba  
HYT Blackrock Corp HY Fund 10.8 Saba  
JFC JPMorgan China Region Fund 5.7 Ancora, City of London  
JLS Nuveen Mortgage Opportunity Term Fund 4.4 Saba  
KEF Korean Equity Fund 8.4 Bulldog, City of London  
KF Korea Fund 12.2 City of London  
LBF Deutsche Global High Income Fund 3.9 Bulldog  
LGI Lazard Global Total Return 12.2 Bulldog  
MCR MFS Charter Income Trust 9.8 Relative Value Partners  
MSP Madison Strategic Sector Premium Fund 6.7 Ancora  
NRO Neuberger Berman Real Estate Securities Income Fund 8.7 Bulldog  
PHF Pacholder High Yield Fund 7.9 Bulldog/Full Value  
SWZ Swiss Helvetia Fund 13.0 Karpus, Bulldog  
TWN Taiwan Fund 13.4 City of London  
ZF Zweig Fund 10.7 Bulldog, Karpus  
ZTR Zweig Total Return 7.1 Bulldog, Karpus  

There are also several Business Development Corporations (BDC’s) which have drawn activist interest including

Ticker BDC Activists
KCAP KCAP Financial DG
MVC MVC Capital Wynnefield
SVVC Firsthand Technology Bulldog

Investors desiring to follow on are advised to do their homework. Many of the smaller CEFs have been taken out; the remaining ones require deeper pockets, more expensive proxy fights, and more patience. Larger hedge funds won’t necessarily join the fray for a variety of reasons. Gramercy stubbed its toe taking on Adams Express Diversified Fund (ADX.) Once an activist files his 13D prices tend to rise and big positions are harder to accumulate. Also note that a few settlements have been crafted narrowly which are more beneficial to the activists than to the shareholders as a class. Sometimes settlements struck by one fund bring standstill relief to sister funds.

In the case of the two Deutsche funds, KMM and KST, we do expect the trusts to liquidate within two years. Even if the expense structure of these funds is a bit rich, investors in these funds should outperform comparable open end short-term bond funds by roughly 3% per year by closing the discount. That will improve if the activists persuade the boards to terminate earlier.

A CEF trading at discount may not be enticing if you dislike the underlying assets. We noted last month that the economic policies of President-elect Trump may not be friendly to the bond market. KMM and KST hold fixed-rate bonds with an effective duration of 4.4 years.

How do CEFs perform?

Do closed end funds trade at a discount because, as the activists say, they are weak performers? Or does the discount reflect structure and illiquidity?

We reviewed the skill of 40 closed end bond funds which were included in our most recent fixed income model. This is not the same as the model featured on fundattribution.com which evaluates equity funds for skill. The fixed income model relies entirely on regression data and has not been tested for predictive validity. But it does control for factors like allocation to fixed income strategies, duration , expense ratio, and reliance on leverage to generate yield. We were surprised to see the performance of CEF bond managers was worse, on average, by roughly 1 standard deviation. Many bond CEFs borrow short term at a spread over LIBOR to invest in longer duration instruments; while that activity may boost current income, we view the spread over LIBOR as a deduction to skill.

Among the 40 CEFs, higher skill correlates with smaller discount as one would expect. But the relationship is weak and there are clearly other factors driving CEF discounts.

We did a similar study of 70 equity CEFs. For this group we used Trapezoid’s sS metric, which measures fund manager skill from security selection for every period  after controlling for asset allocations, factor exposures, leverage, systemic risk, and of course expense ratios. More about the methodology behind this metric can be found here. The CEF managers once again underperformed their open-end active manager peers. However, the difference was much less pronounced, only one third of a standard deviation. The equity CEFs include a heavy concentration of foreign funds and infrastructure so it is hard to draw strong conclusions.

Bottom Line

Closed end funds trading at a discount are a traditional value play. Those discounts are explained in part by lousy performance and high expense ratios, by sentiment, by timeliness of the asset class, and by illiquidity. The presence of activist investors could indicate there is a catalyst who will narrow the discount. Following the lead of activists might be a good strategy but patience is required.

Disclosure: the author has investments in certain CEF’s and BDC’s mentioned in this article

Slogo 2What’s the Trapezoid story? Leigh Walzer has over 25 years of experience in the investment management industry as a portfolio manager and investment analyst. He’s worked with and for some frighteningly good folks. He holds an A.B. in Statistics from Princeton University and an M.B.A. from Harvard University. Leigh is the CEO and founder of Trapezoid, LLC, as well as the creator of the Orthogonal Attribution Engine. The Orthogonal Attribution Engine isolates the skill delivered by fund managers in excess of what is available through investable passive alternatives and other indices. The system aspires to, and already shows encouraging signs of, a fair degree of predictive validity.

The stuff Leigh shares here reflects the richness of the analytics available on his site and through Trapezoid’s services. If you’re an independent RIA or an individual investor who need serious data to make serious decisions, Leigh offers something no one else comes close to. More complete information can be found at www.fundattribution.com. MFO readers can sign up for a free demo.

Expect More of the Same in 2017

By Robert Cochran

 2016 was the year of surprises.  Conventional wisdom and expectations were mostly proven wrong.  Think about the following events. It was common knowledge that the Britain vote to leave the European Union would fail.  Common knowledge was wrong.  At the beginning of 2016, all major investment firms suggested loading up on European stocks and reducing domestic exposure.  They were proven wrong.  Many of the same firms recommended investing in large U.S. companies over small companies.  They were wrong. The polls and broadcast media told us the U.S. presidential election options were two: whether Clinton would win by a small amount or by a landslide.  The polls and media were totally wrong, and they are still blaming everything and everyone else but themselves. 

Economists, investment experts, and the media agreed that a Trump victory would mean a market crash.  We may indeed see a crash, but almost two months since the election, the experts have missed it again.  At the beginning of the year, most expectations were for the Fed to increase interest rates at least twice, perhaps three times.  Expectations were wrong.  Despite less than stellar economic readings, the Fed raised rates in December, some believe more to save face than anything else. 

My own ability to predict the future is no better than anyone else’s.  One of my study groups does annual predictions of key economic items.  For 2016, I thought the S&P 500 would rise 4%, gold would end the year at $1,200 and oil at $50.  The 10-year Treasury would be at 2.75%, the CPI would be up 1.80%, unemployment at 5%.  And, worst of all, I thought EAFE would gain 10%.  I may win one of those seven categories. Our clients frequently ask if they should buy into a sector or get out of an asset class. The assumption is that since I and my colleagues are career advisors, we have the ability to see what others do not.  Fortunately, we use globally diversified mixes of stocks, bonds, and alternatives for our clients, and we don’t base allocations on our annual predictions.

2017 will bring another batch of common knowledge, broadcast media predictions, and sure things from economic and investment gurus.  We are already inundated with Top 10 Predictions, and we will like those that match our biases, just as we dismiss those that are not in line with our biases.  If history is any guide, most predictions will be wrong, again.  The problem with investment predictions is that what ought to happen (because of valuations, economic outlook, politics, and theory) seldom does happen.  Take international stocks, for example.  Domestic has out-performed international for a near record number of months and years, valuations are mostly low to cheap, so surely the EAFE will beat the S&P 500!  I have been expecting this for many months and am still waiting. The MFO Discussion Board always has a good number of threads attempting to anticipate “where to invest now”, just like the retail magazines. 

At the end of 2015 and into early 2016, many pundits and investors had pulled most of their dollars out of emerging market stocks.  After all, EM stocks as a whole had a lousy 3-year record compared to the S&P 500.  And, of course, emerging market stocks had a rip-roaring 2016, beating the S&P 500 during the first three quarters of the year 16.5% to 7.5%.  Then everyone jumped on the bandwagon, saying EM was where investors should move their money.  As usual, the experts were late to the party.

Expectations of higher interest rates have hurt values of long-maturity bonds, especially long-term Treasuries, which lost almost 13% in the last three months.  But only recently have pundits glommed onto this reality.  We have favored short-duration bonds for some time, and this hurt performance numbers a bit in the last couple of years, but we have never liked taking much risk with fixed-income.  Common knowledge, and our hope, is that the December Fed rate increase of 0.25% is followed by other 0.25% increases and not bigger jumps.

There is very little we can control with investments.  Expenses are certainly one thing, and this is especially true now with bonds.  And we have some ability to control the amount of risk we have in our portfolios. But we certainly have no control over economics, global politics, interest rates, and current events. A diversified investment allocation remains a solid strategy for most investors. Domestic and global events will happen, and some changes to portfolios will be needed.  But chasing performance and investing based on prediction are almost always losing games. Remember one thing above all else when it comes to investing: There is risk in everything.  Be sure your portfolio’s allocation matches your goals, your cash flow needs, and gives you some measure of assurance. 

And remember that today’s headlines and tomorrow’s reality are seldom the same.

No Load MFO Ratings

By Charles Boccadoro

We’ve eliminated load from our MFO Ratings methodology, following Morningstar’s lead, effective immediately on our premium site and starting with 4th quarter update on our main site. Previously annualized return calculations included any maximum front load specified in the prospectus, which is what an investor may pay when purchasing shares of a fund, expressed as percentage of the purchase amount.

Morningstar’s Director of Global ETF Research, Ben Johnson, was quoted recently that “fewer investors are paying commissions or sales charges, which is why we’re removing the load adjustment from the calculation. When we established the Morningstar Rating methodology, these charges were much more common and we saw a need to highlight the cost for investors.”

In its press release, Morningstar explains:

Increasingly, Morningstar finds that investors pay for distribution and advice in different ways, but the current calculation only captures the payment for load classes. Incorporating the load into the Morningstar Rating is therefore penalizing load share classes because of choices investors make about how to pay for advice.

Morningstar is removing the load adjustment from the Morningstar Rating calculation to better reflect the current state of the industry. In the United States, approximately half of A share class investors don’t pay the full load, and the Morningstar Rating previously assumed the maximum fee for load investors and the minimum fee for no-load investors.

They also retired so-called load-waived “virtual” share classes.

Loaded funds typically do have a graduated fee scale, something like: 5.75% on amounts up to $25K, 3.5% up to $250K, and 0% above $1M.

MFO discussion board member and beta tester extraordinaire teapot argues “Lots of brokerage firm now offer load waived A shares. I think performance comparison on load mutual fund without load adjustment will be more frequent.”

To his point, nearly half of Fidelity’s 3,621 No Transaction Fee (NTF) fund offerings comprise loaded funds, including those by Templeton, Putnam, Ivy, Cohen & Steers, Calamos, Hotchkins & Wiley, and Principal. Ditto for Schwab’s 3,981 One Source Load Load/No Fee offerings and USAA’s 2,285 No Load/No Fee offerings.

The fine print of such offerings also notes that short-term redemption fees may apply and the brokerage houses may receive other compensation in the form of 12b-1 fees or additional compensation paid by the fund, its investment adviser or an affiliate, as described in the prospectus.

David Swenson, Chief Investment Officer at Yale University since 1985 and author of Unconventional Success: A Fundamental Approach to Personal Investment, has long articulated that the practice of loaded fund is indefensible.

Intrepid International Fund (ICMIX),(Liquidated), January 2017

By Dennis Baran

This fund has been liquidated.

Objective and strategy

The fund seeks long-term capital appreciation by investing in an international, all-cap portfolio. The fund is non-diversified and its primary focus is on developed markets. Its strategy is benchmark-agnostic, so its country, industry and sector weightings may differ substantially from those in its benchmark index or peer group. Its process capitalizes on market disruptions, fear, and volatility to generate bargains. The fund plans to hold between 15-50 different companies, may hold substantial cash and is typically hedges its currency exposure when cost effective.

The fund is intended for long-term investors wishing to own a concentrated international value fund, who understand its value-driven philosophy focused on absolute results rather than relative performance, and its flexibility to hold cash when the risks present in the market are more beneficial to shareholders than investments in additional securities.

Adviser

Intrepid Capital Management in Jacksonville, Florida was founded in 1994 by Forrest Travis and his son Mark. Intrepid chose to separate its investment strategy both geographically and philosophically from Wall Street by executing an independent and contrarian approach to money management. The name of the firms identifies what it calls its constant pursuit of absolute value in a fearless and enduring way through the application of rigorous analysis to understand a business, identify when it is selling by at least a 20% discount to fair value, and then waiting patiently for this value to be recognized. The process is applied “without fail” in the effort to make money in up markets and protect capital in down markets. The firm will not buy a company that any of its managers would not own themselves, invests its own money “shoulder to shoulder” with its clients, and holds cash when buying opportunities are not identified. As of 11/30/16, the firm manages $909 million in its six mutual funds, separate accounts, and a hedge fund with most of the assets in its funds.

David Snowball, publisher of MFO, has previously profiled two of its offerings, Intrepid Income (ICMUX) and Intrepid Endurance (ICMAX). Intrepid Funds

Reason for Launching the Fund

Following its previous success in finding undervalued domestic companies – what the firm has done for years – Intrepid started the fund to gain access to a larger investable universe through an international product and one that had been planned for a long time.

The Manager: Chronology and Development

Nominally the fund is managed by a team which is led by Ben Franklin, CFA. As a practical matter, Mr. Franklin now has sole responsibility for the fund’s day-to-day operations. That will be formalized in the next prospectus, which will remove the names of the other team members.

While in high school, Franklin participated in a magnet program called “The Academy of Finance” but had mixed feelings about investments as an area he wanted to pursue. However, while in college, his father gave him a copy of The Richest Man in Babylon by George S. Clason, which changed his future plans significantly. The book had simple financial advice, but what he concluded most of all was the basic idea of having money do the work for you, and the more you know about doing that, the safer your future will be. This belief has guided his strategy in his fund.

While getting his MBA, Franklin fell in love with the value philosophy when he was in a student-managed investment fund allowing participants to apply their knowledge in picking stocks. Benjamin Graham’s The Intelligent Investor resonated with him because it made sense not only practically but also temperamentally. He recalls that his professors – too ingrained with efficient market theory – didn’t give any importance to value investing in response to his questions, and so he continued to embrace the value philosophy by “going down the rabbit hole” on his own.

After finishing his MBA, Franklin’s main goal was to get an equity analyst position and work eventually into a shop that shared his value philosophy. However, he was lucky enough to be hired at Intrepid Capital in January 2008, a firm that already shared his value tilt and contrarian views. He then began as a research analyst before beginning his duties as a portfolio manager of ICMIX.

He received his BBA in Management and MBA in Finance from the University of North Florida.

When Franklin started working at Intrepid Capital, Mr. Jayme Wiggins, current manager of the Intrepid Endurance fund (ICMAX), was working at Intrepid, running the high yield strategy. When he left within a year of Franklin’s hiring for business school and before the crash, Franklin joined Mr. Jason Lazarus, now the manager of Intrepid Income (ICMUX) to manage the high yield strategy, which was still early in their careers. Everyone at Intrepid, he says, handled that time period with impressive poise, and working together with Mr. Lazarus helped with his growth. They both started about the same time and would challenge each other frequently, candidly, but respectfully.

Besides Mr. Lazarus, Mr. Wiggins has also been instrumental in his development as a smart, independent investor who can quickly find the faults in any investment idea and someone willing to help others. Franklin seeks his advice frequently and is a person who makes everyone that much better.

Franklin credits his experience working on junk bonds as helping him to evaluate stocks. That’s because Intrepid’s bond strategy typically includes holding bonds until the company calls them or they mature, and in many cases these are illiquid holdings they couldn’t sell quickly if they wanted to. For this reason, they have always been very diligent in focusing on the downside by knowing what the upside is (yield-to-worst). By doing so, their work is done in finding out what could go wrong and why it is called a negative art.

When investing in cheap and illiquid stocks, Franklin applies the same diligent approach because it’s important to know as many things as possible that could go wrong before purchasing a stock and what he would do in the event this happens. While some people are very capable of remaining calm in turbulent times, he believes it’s even better to be prepared ahead of time. He adds, however, that not all outcomes can be foreseen, and when too many external factors can affect a security, he tries to avoid it altogether.

Concerning the launch of the fund, Franklin says that at first his ultimate goal was to be a portfolio manager of domestic small caps or even micro caps because he believed that this category would offer the best opportunities for finding undervalued stocks, including domestic small cap stocks. However, when the opportunity arose to be a portfolio manager of a small cap international stock fund, he was beyond delighted because it was so close to what he wanted to do.

So how did he handle the complexities of international markets compared to domestic ones?

He spent a lot of time learning the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and looking for simple, easy ways to understand businesses that can be valued with a high degree of confidence – much as he does with domestic companies. Using this process, he has discovered many international companies for potential investment. Also, because his portfolio has few restraints, he can buy undervalued domestic companies as well. If the world is his market, why would he limit himself only to domestic stocks?

Mr. Franklin is the sole portfolio manager of ICMIX. He is joined by Matt Parker, an analyst. They do work together with other managers and analysts across the firm as well. Franklin is responsible for all buy and sell decisions in the fund.

Strategy capacity and closure

Approximately $1 billion, firm wide. While some of the other Intrepid funds occasionally buy its international names, Mr. Franklin has a good feel for their liquidity and investability across the $900 million held at the firm.

Active Share

The fund does not keep an active share statistic; however, it will not look like an index dominated by larger companies because its all cap strategy allows Franklin to look anywhere. At the same time, he points out, suitable international investments are also limited, and so he searches for the best of these, indicating that many value companies are cheap for a reason and “have some hair on them.” Another factor impacting active share is the level of concentration in the fund vs. the index.

Management’s stake in the fund

As of September 30, 2015, Mr. Franklin has between $100,001-500,000 invested in the fund. Of the other two nominal team managers, Mr. Travis has $100,001 – 500,000, and Mr. Wiggins has none. As of December 31, 2015, only one of the fund’s three independent trustees has chosen to invest in it.

Opening date

ICMIX began operations December 30, 2014.

Minimum investment

$2,500 for Investor Class shares and $250,000 for Institutional Class shares, except that Institutional Class shares of the Fund are not currently available for sale.

Expense ratio

1.40% on assets of $17M as of 12/22/16

Comments

Proprietary Research

Mark Travis, CEO of Intrepid, has said, “We use in-house research, refined over 20 years of practice and perfected during some of the most challenging markets of the century, to determine if a company is our criteria for investment. It’s simple, but not easy.” In other words, this is hard-nosed, homegrown research.

Mr. Franklin adds that most managers’ reliance on outside opinions – whether from the sellside, other managers, or some other content generator – is from the human condition needing reinforcement from others and, as such, is a liability and an error in the process. Intrepid’s research begins by reading a company’s annual report and then forming an investment thesis. Because outside opinions are everywhere, he says, it’s very easy to let those seep in after initial exposure, and so they try to avoid any influence until their research is done and their thesis is complete. Also, subjectivity and difference of opinion can easily differ no matter how quantitative investors get.

The criterion for purchasing companies is at least a 20% discount to FV regardless of market cap. The manager also cites research showing that investing in one’s best ideas and in illiquid and unpopular securities, where larger funds are unable to invest, outperform most of all.

Portfolio Construction: Focus on Small Cap Value

As of 11/30/16, with a median market cap of $396 million, ICMIX is a micro/small deep value fund as shown in the Morningstar style box. However, Franklin doesn’t expect the fund to consistently remain deep value but rather consistently as an all cap fund as is its mandate. While deep value has a place, he personally enjoys buying quality businesses that will compound over time rather than focusing on buying what he calls “cigar butts.” Ideally, he will shift more towards the former but never totally ignore the latter.

Franklin touts the fund’s small size as an advantage because it allows him to purchase smaller securities that would not make sense to a larger fund, as they would not “move the needle.” He has attempted to use this to his advantage and “think outside the box.” Morningstar’s Style Map software agrees because ICMIX literally doesn’t fit inside. Many of his holdings are trading at multiples much lower than what is available in larger securities, resulting in the fund being labeled appropriately. Although some would suggest that posturing a fund in these types of companies is riskier than buying large, well-known companies, Franklin disagrees with this view in the current market environment.

The problem is, he says, that Intrepid requires a margin of safety and that prevents it from investing in good businesses at expensive prices. If a significant market dislocation occurs, then many good businesses he follows may become cheap enough to buy.

Finding Statistically Cheap Companies

Everything Franklin does is based on bottom up analysis. His screening process includes many typical value screens – low multiple of earnings, cash flows, book value, new 52 week lows, and searching for companies below certain EV/EBITDA multiples to find the number of companies that fall within their parameters as being cheap. While this process reveals plenty of potentially investment ideas, the real value added is putting in the hard work going through each name and understanding what’s going on. This can be frustrating because almost every name that looks good at first eventually becomes a pass as more is learned.

Also, he may have to become creative in that process to identify companies that others have overlooked. For example, a company may be trading at a high multiple of current earnings due to the current year’s earnings being depressed but may be cheap if he values it based on normalized earnings. Most important is that finding these companies is only the beginning. Determining their value is completed through fundamental analysis.

Franklin follows over 150 companies on a regular basis for potential purchase and reviews them to see if any have fallen in price significantly and thereby become candidates for purchase. Although he does not have a thorough understanding of all of these companies’ intricacies, he does have a good starting point. Within that list is a smaller one that he knows better, one that is growing, and in which he would invest at short notice if prices fell.

Cash Flows

Most investments that Franklin makes are in companies he expects to be going concerns; therefore, he analyzes earnings and cash flows, valuing these businesses based on discounted cash flows but with some important distinctions.

While more complex, the three basic inputs of DCF are cash flows, the discount rate, and the growth rate. When estimating the cash flow, he attempts to use a normalized cash flow for a business over the business cycle, not forecasting the next five years, and not using the cyclical peak or trough cash flows. Nor does he look at the discount rate in an academic fashion, that is, he does not subscribe to a capital asset pricing model (CAPM) or weighted cost of capital (WACC). Instead, he uses a rate of return that he expects a business to produce on an unlevered basis, typically between 10 and 15%. He knows that he is not going to be right about the growth rate, and for this reason, is typically looking at mature, slow growth companies that are growing at, or near their country’s GDP, and in that way is making an assumption about the country’s long term growth rate relative to a company’s growth rate to it.

The Process at Work: Undervalued Companies, Acquirers, Higher Quality Companies, and Spin-offs

Dundee Series 3 preferred is a significantly undervalued example. While the company is burning some cash, it has significant asset coverage (over 7x), including multiple publicly listed stocks, which he says, they could easily sell to satisfy the principal if needed. Yet, the preferreds are selling at half of their par value and have a 9% current yield and are also floating rate based on the Bank of Canada’s 3-month rate. Duration is not an issue – and their rates are already low – about 50 bps for the 3 month.

Toxfree (TOX AU) is a recent purchase of a serial acquirer. The company is in the waste management industry in Australia but focuses on the treatment of waste rather than stuffing it in some old landfill. Franklin points out that governments continue to push for better waste management practices and that in Australia only about100 hazardous treatment facility licenses exist and are hard to obtain. Because TOX has been acquiring small mom and pop firms that already have these licenses, they have about one-fourth of all licenses in use themselves. Furthermore, the waste management industry has a history of borrowing too much and getting into trouble, but TOX has been prudent in their use of debt and has historically issued equity as part of the deal. These are the types of acquisitions that he believes can add value, that a larger competitor will require these licenses, and that a buyout of the company is likely.

Ipsos (IPS FP) is a higher quality, global market research and consulting firm in France. It has performed well and is trading close to their valuation. Franklin says that while the stock could take off from here because its closest competitor was just bought out, he doesn’t think it would be due to the intrinsic value and purchasing here is more speculative – that is, betting that others will bid it up to a higher multiple as opposed to getting a satisfactory yield over time.

Last, Franklin says that he likes spin-offs and actively investigates them for potential investment. For example, he has made one investment in a spin-off, DeLClima, that was a large success but was unfortunately included only in his seed account prior to the launch of the fund. He says that not all spin-offs are great investments. In general, he believes that most mergers and acquisitions end up destroying capital but also that this view is not a hard and fast rule. He prefers companies that do bolt-on acquisitions that are easier to have things go right.

  • On average, he tends to own shares in businesses with more stable end markets
  • and without highly leveraged balance sheets, ones where management has a
  • substantial stake, there is little debt, and the products are indispensable. These
  • can usually be valued with a higher degree of confidence.

So is his philosophy more like Warren Buffet’s or Benjamin Graham’s? That depends, he says, on his estimated margin of safety. At times he would take a significantly undervalued security over a higher quality business trading at only a minor discount, adding that keeping an open mind and not discriminating can produce better investment results.

Evaluating Risk

Intrepid defines risk as losing money. It controls risk by understanding a business’s operating characteristics, cash flows, balance sheet, and the motivations of management while avoiding companies with both operational and financial risk. Then the firm waits patiently to buy shares when there is at least a 20% discount to their fair value estimate.

Franklin uses various methods to include risk in his valuation. The end result is that the valuation is already accounting for the additional risks, and if the stock is still trading at a 20% discount then it is a potential buy. To require a larger discount from here would be double counting. If he thinks a company is on the riskier end, then he uses a higher discount rate to account for it. He accounts for capital intensity via our cash flows, which will be lower due to the required reinvestment. Again, he does not subscribe to WACC. This results in excluding many levered firms because he won’t give them the benefit from accessing capital at lower, tax advantaged rates. While this can be overly punishing at times, it’s better than having company blow-ups. He tries to account for cyclicality with his normalized cash flow and higher discount rate. This results in typically ignoring cyclicals in all but the worst environments.

A broader explanation is that he can value some risks so long as the risk is not too large, but other risks can be too difficult to value, for example, political risk. Another important distinction is not taking on too many external variables. If a company is reliant on multiple factors (e.g. interest rates, oil prices, and global shipping) it becomes too difficult to value with a high degree of confidence.

The one area where he tends to lean towards requiring a higher discount than 20% is on asset valuations. Companies that are generating cash flow will continue to accrue value, even if the stock price is not reflecting it. However, companies with little to no cash flow are not accruing that value, and the longer it takes for the price to represent the value, the lower the return is.

The fund also controls risk by limiting the size of its positions in the portfolio.

Although the fund has no minimum, Franklin doesn’t want to spend time researching a company unless it could be at least a 2% weight in the fund – its typical initial size. He considers 4% a “full weight” for most securities but is willing to go above that for companies that offer the proper type of risk/reward tradeoffs he likes, for example, in Clere AG, a German company that focuses on investments in environmental and energy solutions in Europe.

Fund Performance and Relevant Data

The table below is as of 11/30/16. The fund’s inception date is 12/30/14.

 Source: Intrepid Capital

The fund has outperformed its bogey by a wide margin.

What does an MFO Premium Multi-Search show for the fund?

Currently at 1.9 years, ICMIX falls just short of a two-year history and is classified as a rookie fund (1-2 years old). As of 11/30/16, the short answer is that its lifetime performance and risk metrics are very promising.

While its peer comparisons are interesting, they are also problematic with such a young fund. After sorting through a lot of Morningstar and MFO data, we decided to screen for “rookie funds” in any of the international styles with the MFO Premium Multi-Search tool – small value, small core, and small growth. That gives us a comparison group of 19 funds. Within that group, ICMIX ranks at or near the top.

ICMIX Performance and Risk Metrics against other rookies

Performance

Sharpe Ratio

Sortino Ratio

Martin Ratio

Ulcer Index

Bear Market

5th of 19

3rd

2nd

4th

1st

1 (Best)

The fund ranks highly after its nearly two-year history against these competing styles by performance and on a risk adjusted basis. Also, its MAXDD at -6.9 ranks second among the group. Its short-term performance based on all of the metrics presented so far is encouraging.

As of mid-December, Morningstar shows the fund having a top decile rank of 5 for one-year and 7 YTD. Its one-year upside-downside capture ratio is 100.77 and 32.17 as of 11/30/16.

But investors need to be mindful of a much larger perspective – namely, what Franklin says himself.

While he may welcome and be pleased with the fund’s short history, he would point out that it is not a complete market cycle; that its upside is limited in certain markets, especially during a bubble; that when the whole market begins to be overvalued, it won’t participate; and that if this continues for some time, it will continue to underperform.

That is because Franklin views his performance based on the research he conducts, adherence to the process, and emotional discipline. He believes in the process, and if he doesn’t perform well, he will have to look back and see if it was because he made mistakes, is the result of bad luck, or some other external factor. The most important idea is to constantly improve and produce salubrious risk-adjusted returns. So far- so good.

At 38%, most of the fund is in Europe; however, 8.7% is from its holding in Clere AG.

Cash has averaged 34% since the inception of the fund, measured on a quarterly basis. It has ranged from 12% to 62%, again measured on a quarterly basis. Cash is about 20% as of mid-December. The fund’s portfolio turnover is 32%/Yr.

Franklin presently avoids investments in China and Russia because of their special risks; however, this view is not permanent. In many cases, he cannot trust that the cash on Chinese balance sheets is really there. Concerning Russia, he does not want to take the appropriation risk at this time. Besides, other potential ideas have more easily defined risks compared to those in China and Russia.

Application of Behavioral Finance

One component of Intrepid’s and Franklin’s investment process is the emphasis on behavioral finance to avoid their own mistakes rather than bet on the emotions of others for some sort of positive event. He says that checking his biases and emotions is a constant, especially before and after taking action. For example, one particular emphasis is determining what could go wrong with a position ex-ante and how he wants to react if in fact something bad happens. This only works with the “known unknowns,” but it is helpful with managing emotions.

Another example of how he and the firm implement behavioral finance includes avoiding sellside research, sometimes entirely, but always after they have formed their own thesis in order to avoid biases. Additionally, trying to speak only with management about objective facts is important because it is easy to be led astray by promotional management.

Also, understanding the human condition to avoid mistakes motivates him and is an evolving process. He says that Charlie Munger’s 25 cognitive biases is as good of a quick summary as anything in the psychological literature about human misjudgment and an even better guide than the traditional concepts written about the subject, for example, the house money effect, hindsight bias, anchoring, etc.)

Neither he nor the firm evaluates markets as many of their competitors do. They try to treat it as Benjamin Graham has done – as a manic-depressive business partner. It is far too easy to get caught up in the vicissitudes of the market if that is the focus rather than on the bottom-up investing that they do themselves.

As someone who applies an awareness of behavioral principles, cognitive biases, human misjudgment, and decision making, Franklin recommends that investors do the same – even the most intelligent of them – by picking up a psychology book, not another investment book. Doing so, he says, may lead them to have better investing results. Human thinking is filled with “psychological hazards and pitfalls” as he calls them. Being aware of our own psychological limits helps us recognize them and thereby evaluate decisions before and after we make them.

Bottom Line

ICMIX offers investors the opportunity to own an all cap international value fund having a distinct strategy for buying undervalued companies throughout the globe. Its process is distinctive, based on principles used for years by the Adviser, and now currently applied as a unique investment product compared to others in its category. Franklin points out that not much money exists from other firms in small cap international value because they may not see these offerings as scalable.

Franklin emphasizes a long-term approach focused on producing superior performance during full market cycles by participating to the extent possible in favorable up markets complemented by caution in overvalued ones. As such, the fund warrants consideration by investors as a promising new offering and additional discussion here.

Franklin’s taking a long-term view when investing in stocks means it could take quite some time for the thesis to play out. Potential investors need to understand that and should be taking the same approach. He adds, however, that sometimes things happen faster or slower than expected. While he can’t say what the future will be, he can discuss what the portfolio looks like today and his thoughts about it.

Does investing in the fund require extraordinary patience? Clients who take a long-term approach, he says, do not feel that they are being patient. The only pressure they would feel, he states, would be self-inflicted, and if they believe in the process, they won’t feel that pressure.

While the portfolio is currently deep value, Franklin says that he isn’t sure that patience needs to be greater than it is for Intrepid’s traditional products. Many managers avoid deep value because it’s not as easy of a sell. While it’s easier to talk about the benefits of investing in a company like Nestle, it’s not as easy for buying a small unknown company in Australia. But this is what opens up opportunity for him, is the right thing, and that over time investors will realize it.

With these ideas in mind, he says that the fund is not right for everyone.

As someone who frequently uses quotations to highlight his quarterly commentaries, Franklin alludes to the Greek Stoic Epictetus (55 A.D. – 135 A.D) who spoke of living life as if “wealth consists not in having great possessions but in having few wants.” If someone agrees, then short term movements in prices are palatable. On the other hand, if one lives like Mae West who said, “I generally avoid temptation unless I can’t resist it,” then a person is probably speculating to earn enough to offset some other financial error, and negative moves in prices will be unbearable.

 Those at Intrepid spend time talking to clients, attending conferences, and giving presentations. Education, not promotional management, is their goal. The fund communicates with shareholders through semiannual webinars featuring manager Q&A and detailed quarterly reports focused on their holdings and current thinking. Their website clearly explains the firm’s philosophy, strategies, and risks for each of their funds. Franklin adds, ““We welcome clients and prospects of the Fund wishing to get a better understanding, and who want to get in the weeds with us regarding our thinking, to email or call.” The door is open.

Fund website

Intrepid International

Funds in registration

By David Snowball

The SEC requires managers to submit plans for their new funds 75 days before they’re offered for sale to the public. This month finds 16 new funds in the pipeline. The most intriguing are the two Rondure funds, launched by a partnership between former Wasatch star manager Laura Geritz and the folks at Grandeur Peak. We wrote in December about the partnership. One of pure EM, the other global and both are positioned to hold stocks that are somewhat larger and more seasoned than we associate with Grandeur Peak. Artisan, which rarely launches a bad fund, has registered plans for its niche-est fund, Artisan Thematic, led by an experienced hedge fund guy.

Artisan Thematic Fund

Artisan Thematic Fund will seek long-term capital appreciation. The plan is to invest in securities which stand to benefit from “thematic trends” that might drive above-market rates of growth for the next 3-5 years. The portfolio will be all-cap, global and focused. The fund will be managed by Christopher Smith who had previously worked for a series of private partnerships, most recently Kingdon Capital. The minimum initial expense ratio will be 1.50%. The minimum initial purchase will be

BNP Paribas AM Emerging Markets Equity Fund

BNP Paribas AM Emerging Markets Equity Fund will pursue long-term capital appreciation. The plan is to invest in EM stocks, specifically “quality growth companies with strong management, corporate governance and financial health.” The fund will be managed by Don Smith, Rick Wetmore, and Quang Nguyen. The initial expense ratio will be 1.15%. The minimum initial investment for retail shares will be $2,500. This is one of a suite of six unrelated BNP Paribas funds launching simultaneously. The others focus on mortgage-backed securities, US small cap stocks, EM debt, inflation-linked bonds and absolute return fixed-income. They’re all covered in the same prospectus.

GMO Climate Change Fund

GMO Climate Change Fund will pursue “high total return,” a phrase I haven’t seen before. The plan is to invest in the stock of firms which stand to benefit from efforts to “curb or mitigate the long-term effects of global climate change, to address the environmental challenges presented by global climate change, or to improve the efficiency of resource consumption.” As with infrastructure funds, that represents a pretty diverse group. The fund may have a lot of industry or sector concentration and may also hold significant amounts in cash or Treasury bonds. The fund will be managed by two members of GMO’s Focused Equity team, Thomas Hancock and Lucas White. The initial expense ratio has not yet been disclosed.The minimum initial investment will be between $125 million and $300 million, depending on share class.

Harbor Strategic Growth Fund

Harbor Strategic Growth Fund will pursue long-term capital gains. Harbor is setting this up as a shell for the sole purpose of having a fund into which they’ll merge Mar Vista Growth in March 2017, an entirely-reputable little fund. The fund will be managed by Mar Vista’s existing team. The initial expense ratio for Investor shares will be 1.08%. The minimum initial investment will be $2,500, reduced to $1,000 for various tax-advantaged accounts.

Mirova Global Green Bond Fund

Mirova Global Green Bond Fund will pursue total return, through a combination of capital appreciation and current income, by investing in green bonds. The fund will be managed by Christopher Wigley and Marc Briand of Natixis. The initial expense ratio has not been disclosed; there will be a sales load but load-waived shares are available. The minimum initial investment will be $2,500.

Redwood AlphaFactor Core Equity Fund

Redwood AlphaFactor Core Equity Fund will pursue long-term total return. The plan is to replicate the performance of their AlphaFactor Focused Index, which ranks stocks at least in part on “net share count reduction, free cash flow growth, dividend yield, volatility and debt/asset ratios.” The fund will be managed by the senior folks at Redwood, Michael Messinger, Michael Cheung, and Richard Duff. The initial expense ratio has not been disclosed. The minimum initial investment will be $10,000.

Rondure New World Fund

Rondure New World Fund will pursue long-term capital appreciation. The plan is to find “great companies at good prices and good companies at great prices” with ties to the emerging markets. Those might include both firms domiciled in emerging or frontier markets, or those whose earnings are tied to the EMs. The fund will invest primarily in stocks with market caps of $1.5 billion an up, though the occasional IPO might slip in. The fund will be managed by Laura Geritz who, from 2006-2016, managed or co-managed a variety of Wasatch funds, including Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund (WAFMX, 2012-16), Wasatch International Opportunities Fund (WAIOX, 2011-16) and Wasatch Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund (WAEMX, 2009-15). The initial expense ratio has not yet been disclosed. The minimum initial investment will be $2,000 for both Institutional and Investor class shares, with the minimum reduced to $1,000 for accounts established with an automatic investing plan.

Rondure Overseas Fund

Rondure Overseas Fund will pursue long-term capital appreciation. The plan is to find “great companies at good prices and good companies at great prices” from countries, developed and developing, around the world. The fund will invest primarily in stocks with market caps of $1.5 billion an up, though the occasional IPO might slip in. The fund will be managed by Laura Geritz who, from 2006-2016, managed or co-managed a variety of Wasatch funds, including Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund (WAFMX, 2012-16), Wasatch International Opportunities Fund (WAIOX, 2011-16) and Wasatch Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund (WAEMX, 2009-15). The initial expense ratio has not yet been disclosed. The minimum initial investment will be $2,000 for both Institutional and Investor class shares, with the minimum reduced to $1,000 for accounts established with an automatic investing plan.

TCW/Gargoyle Dynamic 500 Collar Fund

TCW/Gargoyle Dynamic 500 Collar Fund will pursue long-term capital appreciation “with limited and defined risk of significant loss compared to the S&P 500 Index.” The plan is to buy exposure to the S&P 500, buy put options to hedge their SPX exposure and sell call options to hedge their puts. The fund will be managed by Joshua Parker and Alan Salzbank, Gargoyle’s founders. The initial expense ratio has not yet been disclosed. The minimum initial investment will be $5,000.

TCW/Gargoyle Dynamic Market Neutral Fund

TCW/Gargoyle Dynamic Market Neutral Fund will pursue long-term capital appreciation regardless whether the level of the general [U.S.] stock market increases or decreases. The plan is to buy exposure to the S&P 500 and hedge it with short-term out-of-the-money SPX call options.  The fund will be managed by Joshua Parker and Alan Salzbank, Gargoyle’s founders. The initial expense ratio has not yet been disclosed. The minimum initial investment will be $5,000.

TCW Long/Short Fundamental Value Fund

TCW Long/Short Fundamental Value Fund will pursue long-term capital appreciation. The plan is to build your basic long-short portfolio but to incorporate in it this advisor’s particular magic. (No, it’s not immediately clear what that might be.) The fund will be managed by Jeremy Zhu, Vincent Staunton, and Marty Lane of TCW. The initial expense ratio has not yet been disclosed. The minimum initial investment will be $5,000.