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.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Looking under the hood of Global Infrastructure Fund TOLSX
I own the A share class of this fund, TOLLX. Before you start plunking down your money look at it's Price/Prospective Earnings Ratio. Morningstar is showing it at better than 23. With this, I'd am only adding to my position during pull backs. The last shares I bought were back in the June/July range. It's a good fund but it has gotten a little expensive. This being a specality type fund it is not uncommon for these specality type funds to have a higher P/E Ratios than most diversified type funds.
I have linked its Morningstar report for those that might be interested. To see the P/E Ratio, click on portfolio tab and scroll down the page to the Value & Growth Measures Section. In addition you may want to note its turnover rate which is listed at 171%.
Additional Comment (11/25): The fund is currently majority positioned in the energy (43%) and utility (25%) sectors with exposure to industrials (15%). With this, it is currently more of a energy and utility play; however, with its high turnover rate of 171% it can reposition itself in short order. I hold this fund in the specality section of the growth area of my portfolio. The specality section accounts for 15% of the growth area and holds the following funds: LPEFX, MFADX, CCMAX, TOLLX & JCRAX.
The article (and bee) talk about "bridges, roads, and other physical structures required for the smooth functioning of society." But when one looks under the hood of TOLLX/TOLSX, it isn't bridges, roads, railroads, airports, etc. that one sees there.
It seems to me there are two very broad and loosely defined areas covered by infrastructure. One is the bridges, roads, etc. - which might be covered by industrial/transportation companies. I tend to think of these as companies that help move people and goods. The other is energy (or more broadly natural resources) infrastructure. (Where would one put communications - cell towers, cables/fiber lines, etc.?)
A good description of the latter comes from the PGBAX prospectus: Energy infrastructure companies are engaged in the transportation, storage, processing, refining, marketing, exploration, production, or mining of any mineral or natural resource. ... [The] mid-stream energy infrastructure market ... is ... mostly crude oil and refined products pipeline, storage, and terminal assets; natural gas gathering and transportation pipelines, processing, and storage facilities; propane distributors; energy commodity marine transportation (including liquefied natural gas transportation and processing) ..."
Think Keystone - TransCanada Corp (TRP) - that's 5% of TOLLX. If this is the kind of infrastructure you have in mind, that's fine. But it's not building bridges (except indirectly, as all construction requires energy, natural resources). A fund that seems more intent on balancing both sides of the infrastructure equation is Lazard Global Listed Infrastructure (GLFOX).
Its top holdings are: 8% Atlantia (ATL), a company involved in road infrastructure (operating, maintaining), 8% Fraport AG (FRA), owns/operates Frankfurt airport), 5% DUET (DUE), energy distribution systems, 5% Tokyo Gas, .... At #9 (4%) is Norfolk Southern (railroad). But these are mostly foreign companies, and this fund will keep at least 40% of its investments outside the US. So the fund may serve more as an example of one that holds bridge/road/RR companies than as one that might take advantage of a US infrastructure renewal (depending on whether foreign companies are involved in those projects).
The subject of this thread says it all - look under the hood.
Reply to @msf: I agree msf. The fund seems to own only 15% in industrials. The fund seems more like GASFX due to its heavy weighting in Energy and Utilities. Through Vanguard etf offerings one could own VAW and VIS getting good exposure to both Materials and Industrials.
Keep in mind that global infrastructure was a big 'theme' a few years ago, with probably a lot more room to run back then. And also keep in mind that the theme did not play out very well, either. Results were fair to poor for the most part. And as another poster pointed out, the definition of infrastructure tends to be pretty much whatever the fund company wants it to be.
Comments
I own the A share class of this fund, TOLLX. Before you start plunking down your money look at it's Price/Prospective Earnings Ratio. Morningstar is showing it at better than 23. With this, I'd am only adding to my position during pull backs. The last shares I bought were back in the June/July range. It's a good fund but it has gotten a little expensive. This being a specality type fund it is not uncommon for these specality type funds to have a higher P/E Ratios than most diversified type funds.
I have linked its Morningstar report for those that might be interested. To see the P/E Ratio, click on portfolio tab and scroll down the page to the Value & Growth Measures Section. In addition you may want to note its turnover rate which is listed at 171%.
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=TOLLX®ion=USA&culture=en-US
Old_Skeet
Additional Comment (11/25): The fund is currently majority positioned in the energy (43%) and utility (25%) sectors with exposure to industrials (15%). With this, it is currently more of a energy and utility play; however, with its high turnover rate of 171% it can reposition itself in short order. I hold this fund in the specality section of the growth area of my portfolio. The specality section accounts for 15% of the growth area and holds the following funds: LPEFX, MFADX, CCMAX, TOLLX & JCRAX.
It seems to me there are two very broad and loosely defined areas covered by infrastructure. One is the bridges, roads, etc. - which might be covered by industrial/transportation companies. I tend to think of these as companies that help move people and goods. The other is energy (or more broadly natural resources) infrastructure. (Where would one put communications - cell towers, cables/fiber lines, etc.?)
A good description of the latter comes from the PGBAX prospectus: Energy infrastructure companies are engaged in the transportation, storage, processing, refining, marketing, exploration, production, or mining of any mineral or natural resource. ... [The] mid-stream energy infrastructure market ... is ... mostly crude oil and refined products pipeline, storage, and terminal assets; natural gas gathering and transportation pipelines, processing, and storage facilities; propane distributors; energy commodity marine transportation (including liquefied natural gas transportation and processing) ..."
Think Keystone - TransCanada Corp (TRP) - that's 5% of TOLLX. If this is the kind of infrastructure you have in mind, that's fine. But it's not building bridges (except indirectly, as all construction requires energy, natural resources). A fund that seems more intent on balancing both sides of the infrastructure equation is Lazard Global Listed Infrastructure (GLFOX).
Its top holdings are: 8% Atlantia (ATL), a company involved in road infrastructure (operating, maintaining), 8% Fraport AG (FRA), owns/operates Frankfurt airport), 5% DUET (DUE), energy distribution systems, 5% Tokyo Gas, .... At #9 (4%) is Norfolk Southern (railroad). But these are mostly foreign companies, and this fund will keep at least 40% of its investments outside the US. So the fund may serve more as an example of one that holds bridge/road/RR companies than as one that might take advantage of a US infrastructure renewal (depending on whether foreign companies are involved in those projects).
The subject of this thread says it all - look under the hood.