I don't like to link promotional literature, but uncovered this while researching a fund I currently own.
ABRZX comprises a very small part of my
Alternative sleeve. A larger component in that sleeve is TMSRX, mentioned favorably by David in the June commentary. Both funds try to provide modest growth while limiting downside risk. The latter, of course, represents a different risk mitigation approach and is arguably the better fund. Both have ERs in excess of 1%. TMSRX is up slightly this year. ABRZX is off a few points. (Somewhere in time Invesco appears to have inherited a bunch of formerly
AIM funds. These seem to be of a slightly better breed with lower ERs than many in the Invesco stable.)
If you find their explanation of risk management useful, unique or entertaining, that's good. In no way is this intended to be a recommendation of the fund to others. Morningstar only gives the fund 3 stars. Lipper places it in the upper 20% of similar funds (4/5) based on total return, preservation and consistent return.
Relevant Excerpt:
"Many investors try to manage risk by allocating some of their investment dollars to stocks, for growth potential, and some to bonds, for seeking capital preservation. A 60% stock/40% bond allocation is considered by many to be a “balanced” portfolio. But allocating dollars and allocating risk are not the same thing. Because stocks are riskier than bonds, a 60/40 portfolio could actually derive as much as 90% of its risk from the stock allocation. That means a drop in the stock market could have a much bigger effect on your portfolio than you may realize. During the stock market plunge of 2008 to 2009, many investors found themselves in just that position."https://www.invesco.com/pdf/VIIBRA-BRO-1.pdf
