Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
The Cambiar funds have respected management, but they are - I think - considerably volatile and concentrated. They can hedge, but that doesn't really seem to do anything for the funds not being quite volatile. They're really hot or really cold in sort of a Heebner-ish manner, and while some people like them, not something I'm interested in (but that's just me.)
To add to what Scott said (including Cambiar not being my cup of tea either), Cambiar Aggressive Value is a Cambiar fund on steroids. Unlike the others, it can, and does short (per prospectus and M* shows -24% cash, -2% bond, and short positions of 27% US and 5% foreign, though still significantly net long in equities). In the annual report, just filed, they acknowledge as much: "The key contributors to performance for the Cambiar Aggressive Value Fund were consistent with Cambiar’s other funds, yet more pronounced as a result of the Fund’s concentrated portfolio construction guidelines."
The report points out that the reason for the good performance 2009-2010 was macro - the economy was coming out of a recession.
Given the magnitude of the economic contraction that occurred in the 2007-2009 Great Recession, the starting point for this cycle was unusually low and followed an unusually long contraction, positioning a great many businesses for much better than average cyclical gains and the duration associated with a positive economic and business cycle. For about two and a half years, that view of things was highly accurate and informative, as corporate profits surged and a great many stocks left for dead in the wake of the market crash in 2008 rebounded accordingly. Our view was both accurate and contrarian, at least relative to a shell-shocked marketplace, and we performed quite well across the Cambiar Funds.
So aggressive funds would have tended to outperform.
This gets to my acknowledged bias against this type of leveraged, high turnover, aggressive fund. Such funds magnify trends (increased risk) at a high cost (leveraging, rapid trading, etc.). If you bought the fund because you saw a couple of years of top performance without looking under the covers, then maybe it's not your cup of tea either. But if this is what you knew you were buying, then maybe you'll want to stick with it.
Though even then, consider the rest of the letter in the annual report, where Cambiar acknowledges that its traditional methods don't seem to work in this choppy, close-to-zero interest rate environment. Their underperformance (as opposed to inline performance for a market going sideways) seems to confirm this.
msf noted: "Though even then, consider the rest of the letter in the annual report, where Cambiar acknowledges that its traditional methods don't seem to work in this choppy, close-to-zero interest rate environment. Their underperformance (as opposed to inline performance for a market going sideways) seems to confirm this."
I agree. The fund may be happy in a straight up market, a mostly fair weather fund; and I don't find they have had the skills to offset what "they" thought were directions in several sector areas.
We held CAMAX for about 6 months, two years ago; got our money spanked, took our remaining money, ran away and have not considered the fund for this house since then.
Like Scott has said it is a "hot" fund at times and also can be chilling "cold." Also, MSF had some note worthy comments.
For me, it would be the type of fund I would position into, and out of, with some type of timing strategy.
If you hold this in a taxable account and if you have a loss that can be taken for income tax purposes this might be an avenue you might wish to consider. If you have a profit in it ... I'd book the gains and run. That is just me though.
Have a good weekend ... and, "Good Investing." Skeeter
Comments
The report points out that the reason for the good performance 2009-2010 was macro - the economy was coming out of a recession.So aggressive funds would have tended to outperform.
This gets to my acknowledged bias against this type of leveraged, high turnover, aggressive fund. Such funds magnify trends (increased risk) at a high cost (leveraging, rapid trading, etc.). If you bought the fund because you saw a couple of years of top performance without looking under the covers, then maybe it's not your cup of tea either. But if this is what you knew you were buying, then maybe you'll want to stick with it.
Though even then, consider the rest of the letter in the annual report, where Cambiar acknowledges that its traditional methods don't seem to work in this choppy, close-to-zero interest rate environment. Their underperformance (as opposed to inline performance for a market going sideways) seems to confirm this.
I agree. The fund may be happy in a straight up market, a mostly fair weather fund; and I don't find they have had the skills to offset what "they" thought were directions in several sector areas.
We held CAMAX for about 6 months, two years ago; got our money spanked, took our remaining money, ran away and have not considered the fund for this house since then.
I have linked the Morningstar report below on CAMAX for easy review.
http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?Country=USA&Symbol=CAMAX
Like Scott has said it is a "hot" fund at times and also can be chilling "cold." Also, MSF had some note worthy comments.
For me, it would be the type of fund I would position into, and out of, with some type of timing strategy.
If you hold this in a taxable account and if you have a loss that can be taken for income tax purposes this might be an avenue you might wish to consider. If you have a profit in it ... I'd book the gains and run. That is just me though.
Have a good weekend ... and, "Good Investing."
Skeeter