I hold Perkins MidCap Value Fund (JMCVX) in my IRA at Fidelity. I have been with this fund for almost a decade. I have seen the good side and now seeing the bad side.
I have finally decided to bail out of this MidCap Value fund (only time will tell if my timing is bad
and narrowed by choices to one of
following:
- Harbor MidCap Value NTF at Fidelity (HIMVX)
- Fidelity MidCap Value (FSMVX)
- Vanguard Selected Value (VASVX, not a NTF at Fidelity)
Since, I hold a large amount of this fund in Rollover IRA, I will be planning to liquidate this fund 5% at a time, so that I can then divert
the proceeds to one of the above fund monthly. I do not want to liquidate all at once and be in cash and I do not want to put a big lumpsump into
one of the above funds in one transaction.
If you were in my shoes, what would be your choice from above? Also, any other Midcap value funds to consider.
Thanks
Mulder
Comments
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/mid-cap-value?int=9c0d08
Janus History:
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/janus-capital-group-inc-history/
You might look at VOE.
Since you are considering VASVX, you might want to look into VMVAX for the following reasons.
1. VMVAX is more of pure mid cap value fund. 36% of VASVX is large cap.
2. VIMAX has superior 1 and 3 year returns and while Admiral shares have not not been in existence for 5 years, VMVIX has better 5 year returns.
3. VMVAX has an expense ratio of 0.09%. VASVX has an expense ratio of 0.41%.
While I think VASVX is a fine actively managed fund, I believe that is primarily attributable to Jim Barrow, its lead manager and secondarily, Mark Giambrone, both of Barrow, Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss. Jim will be 75 in the next few months and in preparation of his eventual retirement, Vanguard has has added two fund advisers (Donald Smith & Co and Pzena Investment Management), which I feel dilutes the good ideas from Barrow and Giambrone.
Mona
David's done a nice write-up of SCMFX, which falls more in the mid blend box but the returns have been good compared to the above with the exception of 2013 when they trailed badly.
How much of this is important to you in seeking a replacement? FSMVX matches most attributes - its portfolio leans a bit more toward large cap, and a bit more toward value, but both in minor ways. More significant is that its risk is rated average - still not a very risky fund.
VASVX is also slightly more value oriented, though with an average market cap matching JMCVX. M* rates its risk as below average - not quite as low as JMCVX, but in the "next" ballpark. Mona is correct that Vanguard recently added Penza Investment Management recently, but Donald G. Smith and Richard L Greenberg (of Donald Smith & Co.) came on board a decade ago, just three years after Mark Giambrone.
If you want to get a sense of how Barrow/Giambrone work with Penza and his team, you might look at American Beacon Mid Cap Value (AMPAX). From the fund inception until 2014, these two teams were responsible for the day-to-day management of that fund. ISTM that this is a respectable, though not awe inspiring fund - good risk/return, similar attributes to JMCVX, average risk and a bit pricy (compared with the other funds mentioned). Not a fund I'd look at to purchase, but one to see how these teams work together in a co-managed fund.
HIMVX isn't as close a match as the other funds. Its risk is higher (above average per M*) which IMHO goes along with a deep value leaning (vs. sitting on the value/blend line as do the other funds). On the other hand, it has somewhat more securities in its portfolio (about 175). Overall, it gives a bit greater variety in company cap sizes, and a bit less along the value/growth axis. While it has done well in the past few years (with markets soaring), its ten year record is almost identical to AMPAX - and management has been pretty stable for both funds over that period of time (making the comparison valid). Another indicator that the fund is more risky/volatile than the others - better in good times, worse in bad ones.
All of this gets me back to the question - what are you looking for in a replacement? If you're looking for a fund that spans a broad swath of companies, then a fund narrowly focused on mid cap value, whether active or index like VOE/VMVAX isn't going to do it.
Are you willing to look outside of Fidelity, or are you at least open to the idea of doing a move all at once (to facilitate purchasing TF funds at Fidelity)? In that case, you might also consider DHMIX (TF at Fidelity, more compact portfolio, leaning more toward small cap), or VETAX (NTF at Schwab, and a somewhat more focused market cap range, though not nearly as narrow as VOE/VMVAX).
Or if all you're looking for is a better fund, nominally labeled MCV, you might even look at FLPSX. A bit of a contrarian play in the sense that the fund is nearly a world fund, and the US market has been doing much better over the past few years.
I have been very happy with ACMVX.
This is a modest turnover fund. The attributes of the underlying holdings will move around - that doesn't mean that a company it owns has "decided" to become a larger company or more "growthy". The bouncing around of the portfolio is likely more an artifact of a boolean classification system (are you value? Yes or No) than management waffling.
This is why M* doesn't automatically reclassify a fund just because its current portfolio happens to meander a little outside of its current box. It's also why indexes that are designed to be implemented by funds now include "buffer zones" - where stocks are not automatically thrown out of the index just because they happened to meander outside of the index's box.
Regarding ACMVX - its a good fund, though closed now, and best used in a tax-advantaged vehicle (such as the OP's IRA).
Good comment @msf. Funds are tending to stretch their borders more these days so I see how M* can classify it wrong unless one looks at a broader time period. That might be hard if one is not a premium member at M*?
http://prospectus.americancentury.com/summary.asp?doctype=pros&clientid=amercentll&fundid=025076654
Follow the link in the prospectus to "Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares": Maybe I was thinking of Janus' policy - they no longer sell funds directly to new investors (these would be 'D' shares); you have to go through intermediaries (and purchase their traditional 'T' shares). (But even there, I believe that if you're an existing direct shareholder, you can open investments in other funds directly through Janus.)