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.
FPACX 1st Quarter Update TOTAL CASH & EQUIVALENTS 6,183,252,260.14 36.25% TOTAL NET ASSETS: $17,059,264,885.05 Activity: o Sold out of Anheuser-Busch, Jardine Matheson, Joy Global, Orkla, and Walgreens Boots Alliance. o Added to several names, including Alcoa, American Express, Bank of America, CIT Group, and Citigroup. o Top contributors for the quarter were Oracle, Aon, Yahoo/Alibaba pair trade, United Technologies, and Cisco. Citigroup, an undisclosed equity position, AIG, Bank of America, and Esterline were the largest detractors for the period. Positioning: o Gross exposure to equities is 60.9% and net equity exposure is 57.6%. Corporate Bond exposure increased to 4.9%. o Cash and cash equivalents allocation is 36.3%. Outlook: o We continue to research financials, high yield, cyclicals and various commodities-related businesses.
From David Snowball The better question is, can the fund consistently and honorably deliver on its promise to its investors; that is, to provide equity-like returns with less risk over reasonable time periods? Given that the management team is deeper, the investment process is unimpaired and its size is has become more modest, I think the answer is “yes.” Even if it can’t be “the old Crescent,” we can have some fair confidence that it’s going to be “the very good new Crescent.” But....Beware the Siren Song ? http://www.sirensongwetsuits.com/home
@Ralph--Morningstar's "star ratings" are 100% data based. They do not "upgrade" or "downgrade" star ratings. The number of stars is based on the fund's performance, which of course changes based on whatever rolling performance period is being considered. Thus, the star ratings are not meant to convey ANY sort of conviction Morningstar has about the fund's future prospects. That is what the "medalist" ratings are for. FPACX continues to have a gold medalist rating.
Dr. Snowball very politely exposed the weaknesses of FPACX, and the responses from the FPACX reps were essentially "FundSpeak" as far as I am concerned. I honestly do not care how actively managed fund managers justify huge cash positions, as such allocations objectively represent market timing -- or market guessing -- which has never worked over long periods.
One question I have for the FPACX team: Why has the management fee remained a constant 1% despite the ballooning of AUM ? The answer, unfortunately, is that FPACX is the cash cow for the firm, and asset gathering is in their best financial interest, but obviously not in the best interest of investors. The cow must be milked.
I would avoid FPACX solely for fund stewardship, which is poor in my opinion.
Instead of FPACX, I would consider using the Backtest Tool of Portfolio Visualizer to construct a viable alternative.
Two attractive combinations would be an 80/20 mix of VWIAX with either VIG (preference) or VYM. Since 2007, each of these combinations would have had higher total returns, lower standard deviations, lower maximum drawdowns, higher sharpe ratios and higher sortino ratios than FPACX. And both combinations have an average expense ratio of 0.15%, as compared to 1.11% for FPACX.
At this time, I would never, ever recommend FPACX to friends or family.
I have to go with Kevin on this one. There is no excuse for holding that much cash in a moderate allocation fund at that expense ratio. Just stealing as far as I'm concerned.
If anyone wishes to hold cash in large amounts, I'll be happy to hold on to it for you at only 0.5%.
Note: In the event of unanticipated requests for withdrawal of large amounts of cash ($10 or more), management, in it's sole discretion, reserves the right to make such payments in Monopoly scrip.
MStar shows 1.03% ytd, -2.69% over 1 yr, and 6.39% over 3 years. That's less than 60% IVV and 40% cash over all periods for the fee of 1.11%. Nothing confusing about that.
@kevindow, I like your approach that the Vanguard's combination offer better return while offering much lower expense ratio. Wonder how this combination perform in down markets including 2000-2002 and 2008? Thanks
I've always been an admirer of Romick but I've never been able to justify the fees. In 2000 I was 50 and could still bench 400 lbs. Times have changed for me and I suspect Romick as well. 'Course that's what makes a horse race. The thing about IVV is one can swap for voo, vti etc and reap the tax loss instead of paying more taxes for people that bail out of the fund. Those years you mention it seems like I had funds that lost money and I paid taxes too.
Hopefully, your question was sincere and not rhetorical. As I'm sure you realize, those ETFs were not in existence in 1993 (the inception of FPACX), in 2000-2002, or in 2008. One would have to come up with some other fund combination which would resemble the portfolio compositions of FPACX during those time periods. I was unable to find the portfolio x-rays of FPACX for those periods so I can't use PortfolioVisualizer to answer your question.
Also, according to BrightScope, FPACX had only $84M in AUM at the end of 1999, and only $1.3B in AUM at the end of 2007. So during those time periods, FPACX likely had very little resemblance to the fund it is today with $17B in AUM -- 15% down from the all time high of $20B -- in terms of exposure to SC and MC equities, its ability to short equities, and its ability to move in and out of stocks with agility. Also, because of huge differences in AUM, I don't think anybody can draw any conclusions about how FPACX will perform in future downturns based on how it performed in past downturns when AUM were much, much smaller.
@kevindow, I want to ensure you that I am sincere. Over 10 years ago I was seeking an all-weather fund and seriously considered FPACX, but picked T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation, PRWCX instead. Even though the smaller AUM, Steve Romick' track record, and flexible mandates were attractive attributes, Richard Howard, the former manager of PRWCX also have consistently good record despite having bigger AUM.
I understand that back-testing is not possible when the ETFs that don't exist in the period of question. Perhaps VWIAX in combination with VDIGX would work since both go back to 2000. With respect all active managed funds, the AUM is always an issue. Many tend to close to new investors too late in my opinion. That is one of the reason we are increasing our allocation to index funds.
If you own the fund in a taxable account and have a large, unrealized gain, maybe best to hold but watch. If in a retirement account, at least move to watch status with no additional purchases, or sell if you are so inclined. Keep in mind FPACX has underperformed its category in 2015 and 2016 YTD, not a long period. Performance itself is not problematic for me. The fund should not be compared to an S&P Index. Yeah, it was convenient for management to do this when their numbers looked good by comparison, but we never compared it to the index. The sudden change of comparable index by management, however, is troubling, especially when the selected index does not resemble the fund in any way.
Comments
FPACX 1st Quarter Update
TOTAL CASH & EQUIVALENTS 6,183,252,260.14 36.25%
TOTAL NET ASSETS: $17,059,264,885.05
Activity:
o Sold out of Anheuser-Busch, Jardine Matheson, Joy Global, Orkla, and Walgreens
Boots Alliance.
o Added to several names, including Alcoa, American Express, Bank of America, CIT
Group, and Citigroup.
o Top contributors for the quarter were Oracle, Aon, Yahoo/Alibaba pair trade, United
Technologies, and Cisco. Citigroup, an undisclosed equity position, AIG, Bank of
America, and Esterline were the largest detractors for the period.
Positioning:
o Gross exposure to equities is 60.9% and net equity exposure is 57.6%. Corporate Bond
exposure increased to 4.9%.
o Cash and cash equivalents allocation is 36.3%.
Outlook:
o We continue to research financials, high yield, cyclicals and various commodities-related
businesses.
http://www.fpafunds.com/docs/fpa-crescent-fund/q1-2016-crescent-update.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Full Schedule of !st Quater Holdings
http://fpafunds.com/docs/funf-holdings/crescent-03-31-16-for-website.pdf?sfvrsn=2
You can attend this event and ask for your self.
Southern California in Early June ? F P A Investor Day on the Pacific !
http://fpafunds.cvent.com/events/a-day-with-fpa-2016/agenda-66af952dc057428fbafd4a90b856dcb7.aspx
From David Snowball
The better question is, can the fund consistently and honorably deliver on its promise to its investors; that is, to provide equity-like returns with less risk over reasonable time periods? Given that the management team is deeper, the investment process is unimpaired and its size is has become more modest, I think the answer is “yes.” Even if it can’t be “the old Crescent,” we can have some fair confidence that it’s going to be “the very good new Crescent.”
But....Beware the Siren Song ?
http://www.sirensongwetsuits.com/home
When other people like it, it's porn; when You like it, it's art.
Dr. Snowball very politely exposed the weaknesses of FPACX, and the responses from the FPACX reps were essentially "FundSpeak" as far as I am concerned. I honestly do not care how actively managed fund managers justify huge cash positions, as such allocations objectively represent market timing -- or market guessing -- which has never worked over long periods.
One question I have for the FPACX team: Why has the management fee remained a constant 1% despite the ballooning of AUM ? The answer, unfortunately, is that FPACX is the cash cow for the firm, and asset gathering is in their best financial interest, but obviously not in the best interest of investors. The cow must be milked.
I would avoid FPACX solely for fund stewardship, which is poor in my opinion.
Instead of FPACX, I would consider using the Backtest Tool of Portfolio Visualizer to construct a viable alternative.
Two attractive combinations would be an 80/20 mix of VWIAX with either VIG (preference) or VYM. Since 2007, each of these combinations would have had higher total returns, lower standard deviations, lower maximum drawdowns, higher sharpe ratios and higher sortino ratios than FPACX. And both combinations have an average expense ratio of 0.15%, as compared to 1.11% for FPACX.
At this time, I would never, ever recommend FPACX to friends or family.
Kevin
Note: In the event of unanticipated requests for withdrawal of large amounts of cash ($10 or more), management, in it's sole discretion, reserves the right to make such payments in Monopoly scrip.
= cut & paste
#31
FPA Crescent Portfolio Fund (FPACX)
Performance (1-yr.): 5.18% Expenses: 1.11%
Performance (1-mo.): 5.05% Total Assets: $18.12B
See all details for FPACX »
Nice analysis ...
The thing about IVV is one can swap for voo, vti etc and reap the tax loss instead of paying more taxes for people that bail out of the fund. Those years you mention it seems like I had funds that lost money and I paid taxes too.
Hopefully, your question was sincere and not rhetorical. As I'm sure you realize, those ETFs were not in existence in 1993 (the inception of FPACX), in 2000-2002, or in 2008. One would have to come up with some other fund combination which would resemble the portfolio compositions of FPACX during those time periods. I was unable to find the portfolio x-rays of FPACX for those periods so I can't use PortfolioVisualizer to answer your question.
Also, according to BrightScope, FPACX had only $84M in AUM at the end of 1999, and only $1.3B in AUM at the end of 2007. So during those time periods, FPACX likely had very little resemblance to the fund it is today with $17B in AUM -- 15% down from the all time high of $20B -- in terms of exposure to SC and MC equities, its ability to short equities, and its ability to move in and out of stocks with agility. Also, because of huge differences in AUM, I don't think anybody can draw any conclusions about how FPACX will perform in future downturns based on how it performed in past downturns when AUM were much, much smaller.
Kevin
I understand that back-testing is not possible when the ETFs that don't exist in the period of question. Perhaps VWIAX in combination with VDIGX would work since both go back to 2000. With respect all active managed funds, the AUM is always an issue. Many tend to close to new investors too late in my opinion. That is one of the reason we are increasing our allocation to index funds.
Kevin
and surely, surely immune to what has happened with FPACX and OAKBX ....