Dear friends,

It’s not a question of whether it’s coming.  It’s just a question of whether you’ve been preparing intelligently.

A wave struck a lighthouse in Douro River in Porto, Portugal, Monday. The wave damaged some nearby cars and caused minor injuries. Pictures of the Day, Wall Street Journal online, January 6, 2014. Estela Silva/European Pressphoto Agency

There’s an old joke about the farmer with the leaky roof that never gets fixed.  When the sun’s out, he never thinks about the leak and when it’s raining, he can’t get up there to fix it anyway.  And so the leak continues.

Our investments likewise: people who are kicking themselves for not having 100% equity exposure in March 2009 and 200% exposure in January 2013 have been pulling money steadily from boring investments and adding them to stocks.  The domestic stock market has seen its 13^th consecutive month of inflows and the S&P 500 closed February at its highest nominal level ever.

I mention this now because the sun has been shining so brightly.  March 9, 2014 marches the five-year anniversary of the current bull market.  In those five years, a $10,000 investment in the S&P500 would have grown to $30,400.  The same amount invested in the NASDAQ on March 9 would have grown to $35,900. The last remnants of the ferocious bear markets of 2000-02 and 2007-09 have faded from the ratings.  And investors really want a do-over.  All the folks hiding under their beds in 2009 and still peering out from under the blankies in 2011 feel cheated and they want in on the action, and they want it now.

Hence inflows into an overpriced market.

Our general suggestion is to learn from the past, but not to live there.  Nothing we do today can capture the returns of the past five years for us.  Sadly, we still can damage the next five.  To help build a strong prospects for our future, we’re spending a bit of time this month talking about hedging strategies – ways to get into a pricey market without quite so much heartache – and cool funds that might be better positioned for the next five than you’d otherwise find.

And, too, we get to celebrate the onset of spring!

The search for active share

It’s much easier to lose in investing than to win.  Sometimes we lose because we’re offered poor choices and sometimes we lose because we make poor ones.  Frankly, it doesn’t take many poor choices to trash the best laid plans.

Winning requires doing a lot of things right.  One of those things is deciding whether – or to what extent – your portfolio should rely on actively and passively managed funds.  A lot of actively managed funds are dismal but so too are a lot of passive products: poorly constructed indexes, trendy themes, disciplines driven by marketing, and high fees plague the index and EFT crowd.

If you are going to opt for active management, you need to be sure that it’s active in more than name alone.  As we’ve shown before, many active managers – especially those trying to deploy billions in capital – offer no advantage over a broad market index, and a lot of disadvantages. 

One tool for measuring the degree to which your manager is active is called, appropriately enough, “active share.”  Active share measures the degree to which your fund’s holdings differ from its benchmark’s.  The logic is simple: you can’t beat an index by replicating it and if you can’t beat it, you should simply buy it.

The study “How Active Is Your Manager” (2009) by Cremers and Petajitso concluded that “Funds with high active share actually do outperform their benchmarks.” The researchers originally looked at an ocean of data covering the period from 1990 to 2003, then updated it through 2009.  They found that funds with active share of at least 90% outperformed their benchmarks by 1.13% (113 basis points per year) after fees. Funds with active share below 60% consistently underperformed by 1.42 percentage points a year, after accounting for fees.

Some researchers have suggested that the threshold for active share needs to be adjusted to account for differences in the fund’s investment universe: a fund that invests in large to mega-cap names should have an active share north of 70%, midcaps should be above 80% and small caps above 90%. 

So far, we’ve only seen research validating the 60% and 90% thresholds though the logic of the step system is appealing; of the 5008 publicly-traded US stocks, there are just a few hundred large caps but several thousand small and micro-caps.

There are three problems with the active share data.  We’d like to begin addressing one of them and warn you of the other two.

Problem One: It’s not available.  Morningstar has the data but does not release it, except in occasional essays. Fund companies may or may not have it, but almost none of them share it with investors. And journalists occasionally publish pieces that include an active share chart but those tend to be an idiosyncratic, one-time shot of a few funds. Nuts.

Problem Two: Active share is only as valid as the benchmark used. The calculation of active share is simply a comparison between a fund’s portfolio and the holdings in some index. Pick a bad index and you get a bad answer. By way of simple illustration, the S&P500 stock index has an active share of 100 (woo hoo!) if you benchmark it against the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.

Fund companies might have the same incentive and the same leverage with active share providers that the buyers of bond ratings did: bond issuers could approach three ratings agencies and say “tell me how you’ll rate my bond and I’ll tell you whether we’re paying for your rating.” A fund company looking for a higher active share might simply try several indexes until they find the one that makes them look good. Here’s the warning: make sure you know what benchmark was used and make sure it makes sense.

Problem Three: You can compare active share between two funds only if they’ve chosen to use the same benchmark. One large cap might have an active share of 70 against the Mergent Dividend Achievers Index while another has a 75 against the Russell 1000 Value Index. There’s no way, from that data, to know whether one fund is actually more active than the other. So, look for comparables.

To help you make better decisions, we’ve begun gathering publicly-available active share data released by fund companies.  Because we know that compact portfolios are also correlated to higher degrees of independence, we’ve included that information too for all of the funds we could identify.  A number of managers and advisors have provided active share data since our March 1^st launch.  Thanks!  Those newly added funds appear in italics.

*        Linde Hansen notes that their active share is 98 if you count stocks and cash, 87 if you look only at the stock portion of their portfolio.  To the extent that cash is a conscious choice (i.e., “no stock in our investable universe meets our purchase standards, so we’ll buy cash”), count both makes a world of sense.  I just need to find out how other investors have handled the matter.

Who’s not on the list? 

A lot of firms, some of whose absences are in the ironic-to-hypocritical range. Firms not choosing to disclose active share include:

BlackRock – which employs Anniti Petajisto, the guy who invented active share, as a researcher and portfolio manager in their Multi-Asset Strategies group. (They do make passing reference to an “active share buyback” on the part on one of their holdings, so I guess that’s partial credit, right?)

Fidelity – whose 5 Tips to Pick a Winning Fund tells you to look for “stronger performers [which are likely to] have a high ‘active share’”.  (They do reprint a Reuters article ridiculing a competitor with a measly 56% active share, but somehow skip the 48% for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth, 47% for Growth & Income, the 37% for MegaCap Stock or the under 50% for six of their Strategic Advisers funds). (per the Wall Street Journal, Is Your Fund a Closet Index Fund, January 14, 2014).

Oakmark – which preens about “Harris Associates and Active Share” without revealing any.

Are you active?  Would you like someone to notice?

We’ve been scanning fund company sites for the past month, looking for active share reports. If we’ve missed you, we’re sorry. Help us correct the oversight  by sending us the link to where you report your active share stats. We’d be more than happy to offer a permanent home for the web’s largest open collection of active share data.

Does Size Matter?

By Edward Studzinski

“Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

                    Nietzsche

One of the more interesting consequences of the performance of equities in 2013 is the ramp-up of the active investment management marketing machines to explain why their performance in many instances lagged that of inexpensive index funds. This has resulted in a manure storm media blitz with terms and phrases such as “stock picker’s market” or “active share” or “concentrated portfolios.” 

“Stock picker’s market” is generally a euphemism for active management. That is, why you should pay me 100 basis points for investing in a subset of the S&P 500, rather than pay Vanguard or some other index fund provider 5 basis points for their product. One of the rationales I used to regularly hear to justify active management fees was that the active manager will know when to get out of the market and when to get back in, whereas the small investor will always go in and out at the wrong time. The period of 2008-2009 puts paid to that argument when one looks at maximum drawdown numbers.  The question it raises however is whether the time horizon most investment managers and investors use is far too short. I think it clearly is and that rather than three years or three to five years, we should be thinking of ten years at a minimum.  Unfortunately, given personnel turnover in many investment organizations, it is difficult for the investing public to know or understand that the people who gave a fund its long-term performance, looking in the rear-view mirror, are not the ones doing the analysis or selecting the investments going forward. And if they are, often their time and attention is pulled in many other directions.  This is why I now, sitting on an endowment investment committee, appreciate why an integral part of the investment consultant’s report covers stability of personnel and succession planning at current firms invested in as well as firms proposed for consideration. Of course, if you are the average retail investor, you are far better off to focus on your risk tolerance, true time horizon, and asset allocation, again making use of low cost index products if you are not going to spend the time and effort to replicate the work of the consultants used by endowments and pension funds.

I am going to leave it to others to discuss “active share.”  I do think the question of “concentrated portfolios” is worth a few thoughts.  I once asked a friend of mine, at a large East Coast fund complex, how he managed to keep track of the two hundred or so stocks in his fund portfolio. His answer was illuminating.  He said that his firm had a very large research department and prided itself on its selection and training of analysts.  Politically then, over time he had to use an idea or two from everyone or every area. His preference would have been to have a much more concentrated portfolio.  I will refer to that then as the “ark” approach to investment management. Other firms, such as Longleaf, have tended from the get-go to have truly concentrated portfolios, say somewhere between twenty to twenty five stocks, given that the benefits of diversification run-out at a certain number of securities. Their rationale has been that rarely, when you are building a portfolio from the bottom up based on what are the most undervalued ideas, do ideas number thirty to forty have the same expected return potential as ideas number one to ten. (That is even more the case with the S&P 500 hitting new all time highs now).

There is another way to look at this which I think makes it more understandable for the average person.  In 2006, Huber Capital Managed LLC performed a study, looking at value-oriented investors, entitled “Limited Assets Under Management is a Competitive Advantage.”   The study assumed an equal weighted portfolio of 2.5% positions (forty stocks) to show how the investable universe of securities shrank at certain asset levels. It looked at the Russell 1000 Value Index and the Russell 2000 Value Index. The conclusion of the study was that as assets under management grew, portfolio managers faced increasingly unpleasant choices. One choice of course was to shrink the investment universe, what I have referred to in the past as the rule limiting investments to securities that can be bought or sold in five days average trading volume.

Another alternative was to increase the number of stocks held in the portfolio. You can see whether your manager has done this by going back five or ten years and looking at annual reports.  When the fund was $5B in asset size, did it own thirty stocks? Do you really believe that with the fund at $10B or $15B in asset size, that it has found another twenty or thirty undervalued stocks?  Look also to see if the number of research analysts has increased materially. Are roughly the same number of analysts covering more names? 

The third choice was to make the fund very concentrated or even non-diversified by SEC standards, with individual positions greater than five per cent. That can work, but it entails taking on career risk for the analysts and fund managers, and enterprise risk for the management company. A fund with $10B in assets under management has available only 50% of the investable set of stocks to invest in, assuming it is going to continue to focus on liquidity of the investment as an implicit criteria. That is why you see more and more pension funds, endowments, and family office managers shifting to low-cost index or ETF vehicles for their large cap investments. The incremental return is not justified by the incremental fee over the low-cost vehicle. And with a long-term time horizon, the compounding effect of that fee differential becomes truly important to returns.

My thanks to Huber Capital Manangement LLC for doing this study, and to Long Short Advisors for making me aware of it in one of their recent reports. Both firms are to be commended for their integrity and honesty. They are truly investment managers rather than asset gatherers. 

On the impact of fund categorization: Morningstar’s rejoinder

Morningstar’s esteemed John Rekenthaler replied to MFO’s February commentary on categorization, although officially “his views are his own.” His February 5 column is entitled How Morningstar Categorizes Funds.

Snowball’s gloss: John starts with a semantic quibble (Charles: “Morningstar says OSTFX is a mid-cap blend fund,” John: “Morningstar does not say what a fund is,” just what category it’s been assigned to), mischaracterizes Charles’s article as “a letter to MFO” (which I mention only because he started the quibble-business) and goes on to argue that the assignment of OSTFX to its category is about as reasonable a choice as could be made. Back to Charles:

Mr. R. uses BobC’s post to frame an explanation of what Morningstar does and does not do with respect to fund categorization. In his usual thoughtful and self-effacing manner, he defends the methodology, while admitting some difficulty in communicating. Fact is, he remains one of Morningstar’s best communicators and Rekenthaler Report is always a must read.

I actually agree with his position on Osterweis. Ditto for his position on not having an All Cap category (though I suspect I’m in the minority here and he actually admits he may be too). He did not address the (mis-)categorization of River Park Short Term High Yield Fund (RPHYX/RPHIX, closed). Perhaps because he is no longer in charge of categorization at Morningstar.

The debate on categorization is never-ending, of course, as evidenced by the responses to his report and the many threads on our own board. For the most part, the debate remains a healthy one. Important for investors to understand the context, the peer group, in which prospective funds are being rated.

In any case and as always, we very much appreciate Mr. Rekenthaler taking notice and sharing his views.

Snowball’s other gloss: geez, Charles is a lot nicer than I am. I respect John’s work but frankly I don’t really tingle at the thought that he “takes notice.” Well, except maybe for that time at the Morningstar conference when he swerved at the last minute to avoid crashing into me. I guess there was a tingle then.

Snowball’s snipe: at the sound of Morningstar’s disdain, MFWire did what MFWire does. They raised high the red-and-white banner, trumpeting John’s argument and concluding with a sharp “grow up, already!” I would have been much more impressed with them if they’d read Charles’s article beforehand. They certainly might have, but there’s no evidence in the article that they felt that need.

One of the joys of writing for the Observer is the huge range of backgrounds and perspectives that our readers bring to the discussion. A second job is the huge range of backgrounds and perspectives that my colleagues bring. Charles, in particular, can hear statistics sing. (He just spent a joyful week in conference studying discounted cash-flow models.) From time to time he tries, gently, to lift the veil of innumeracy from my eyes. The following essay flows from our extended e-mail exchanges in which I struggled to understand the vastly different judgments of particular funds implied by different ways of presenting their risk-adjusted statistics. 

We thought some of you might like to overhear that conversation.  

Morningstar’s Risk Adjusted Return Measure

Central to any fund rating system is the performance measure used to determine percentile rank order. MFO uses Martin ratio, as described Rating System Definitions. Morningstar developed its own risk adjusted return (MRAR), which Nobel Laureate William Sharpe once described as a measure that “…differs significantly from more traditional ones such as various forms of the Sharpe ratio.” While the professor referred to an earlier version of MRAR, the same holds true today.

Here is how Morningstar describes MRAR on its Data FAQ page: Morningstar adjusts for risk by calculating a risk penalty for each fund based on “expected utility theory,” a commonly used method of economic analysis. Although the math is complex, the basic concept is relatively straightforward. It assumes that investors are more concerned about a possible poor outcome than an unexpectedly good outcome and that those investors are willing to give up a small portion of an investment’s expected return in exchange for greater certainty. A “risk penalty” is subtracted from each fund’s total return, based on the variation in its month-to-month return during the rating period, with an emphasis on downward variation. The greater the variation, the larger the penalty. If two funds have the exact same return, the one with more variation in its return is given the larger risk penalty.

For the curious and mathematically inclined, the detailed equations are well documented in The Morningstar Rating Methodology. The following figure illustrates how MRAR behaves for three hypothetical funds over a 3 year period ending Dec 2013:

Each fund in the illustration delivers the same total return, but with varying levels of volatility. The higher the volatility, the lower the risk adjusted return. Fund 0 delivers consistent returns every month with zero volatility; consequently, it receives the highest MRAR, which in this case is the fund’s annualized total return minus the risk-free T-Bill (i.e., it’s the annualized “excess” return).

Morningstar computes MRAR for all funds over equivalent periods, and then percentile ranks them within their respective categories to assign appropriate levels, 1 star for those funds in the lowest group and the coveted 5 star rating for the highest.

It also computes a risk measure MRisk and performs a similar ranking to designate “low” to “high” risk funds within each category. MRisk is simply the difference between the annualized excess return of the fund and its MRAR.

The following figure provides further insight into how MRAR behaves for funds of varying volatility. This time, fund total returns have been scaled to match their category averages, again for the 3 year period ending Dec 2013. The figure includes results from several categories showing MRAR versus the tradition volatility measure, annualized standard deviation.

Once again we see that funds with higher volatility generally receive lower MRARs and that the highest possible MRAR is equal to a fund’s annualized excess return, which occurs at zero standard deviation.

A consequence of Morningstar’s methodology is that low volatility funds with below average returns can quite possibly be out-ranked by average volatility funds with average returns. Put another way, the methodology generally penalizes funds with high volatility more so than it rewards funds with low volatility, since with the latter the benefit is “capped.”

This behavior is different from other risk adjusted return measures based on say Sharpe ratio, as can be seen in the figure below. Here the same funds from above are plotted against Sharpe, but now funds with low volatility are rewarded handsomely, even if they have below average total returns.

Revisiting the Morningstar risk measure MRisk, one finds another observation: it appears to correlate rather satisfactorily against a simple function based on standard deviation (up to about 30% for funds of positive total return without load):

Which means that Morningstar’s risk adjusted return can be estimated from the following:

This simple approximation may come in handy, like when David wonders: “Why do RPHIX and ICMYX, which have superior 3 year Sharpe ratios, rate a very inferior 1 star by Morningstar?” He can use the above calculation to better understand, as illustrated here:

While both do indeed have great 3 year Sharpe ratios – RPHIX is highest of any US fund – they both have below average total returns relative to their current peer group, as represented by say VWEHX, a moderate risk and average returning high yield bond “reference” fund.

Their low volatilities simply get no love from Morningstar’s risk adjusted return measure.

27Feb2014/Charles

Celebrating one-starness

I was having a nice back-channel conversation with a substantially frustrated fund manager this week. He read Charles’s piece on fund categorization and wrote to express his own dismay with the process. He’s running a small fund. It hit its three-year mark and earned five stars. People noticed. Then Morningstar decided to recategorize the fund (into something he thinks he isn’t). And it promptly became one star. And, again, people – potential investors – noticed, but not in a good way.

Five to one, with the stroke of a pen? It happens, but tends not to get trumpeted. After all, it rather implies negligence on Morningstar’s part if they’ve been labeling something as, say, a really good conservative allocation fund for years but then, on further reflection, conclude that it’s actually a sucky high-yield bond or preferred stock fund.

Here’s what Morningstar’s explanation for such a change looks like in practice:

Morningstar Alert

Osterweis Strategic Income Fund OSTIX

12-03-13 01:00 PM

Change in Morningstar Fund Star Rating: The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 4 stars to 2 stars. For details, go to http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Fund/RatingsAndRisk.asp?Symbol=OSTIX.

Sadly, when you go to that page there are no details that would explain an overnight drop of that magnitude. On the “performance” page, you will find the clue:

I don’t have an opinion on the appropriateness of the category assignment but it would be an awfully nice touch, given the real financial consequences of such a redesignation, if Morningstar would take three sentences to explain their rationale at the point that they make the change.

Which got me to thinking about my own favorite one-star fund (RiverPark Short Term High Yield RPHYX and RPHIX, which is closed) and Charles’s favorite one-shot stat on a fund’s risk-adjusted returns (its Sharpe ratio).

And so, here’s the question: how many funds have a higher (i.e., better) Sharpe ratio than does RPHYX?

And, as a follow-up, how many have a Sharpe ratio even half as high as RiverPark’s?

That would be “zero” and “seven,” respectively, out of 6500 funds.

Taking up Rekenthaler’s offer

In concluding his response to Charles’s essay, John writes:

A sufficient critique is one that comes from a fund that truly does not behave like others in its category, that contains a proposal for a modification to the existing category system, that does not lead to rampant category proliferation, and that results in a significantly closer performance comparison between the fund and its new category. In such cases, Morningstar will consider the request carefully–and sometimes make the suggested change.

Ummm … short-term high-yield? In general, those are funds that are much more conservative than the high-yield group. The manager at RiverPark Short-Term High Yield (RPHYX) positions the fund as a “cash management” account. The managers at Intrepid Income (ICMYX) claim to be “absolute return” investors. Wells Fargo Advantage Short-Term High-Yield Bond (STHBX) seems similarly positioned. All are one-star funds (as of February 2014) when judged against the high-yield universe.

“Does not behave like others in its category” but “results in a significantly closer performance comparison [within] its new category.” The orange line is the high-yield category. That little cluster of parallel, often overlapping lines below it are the three funds.

“Does not lead to rampant category proliferation.” You mean, like creating a “preferred stock” category with seven funds? That sort of proliferation? If so, we’re okay – there are about twice as many short-term high-yield candidates as preferred stock ones.

I’m not sure this is a great idea. I am pretty sure that dumping a bunch of useful, creative funds into this particular box is a pretty bad one.

Next month’s unsought advice will highlight emerging markets balanced (or multi-asset) funds. We’re up to a dozen of them now and the same logic that pulled US balanced funds out of the equity category and global balanced funds out of the international equity category, seems to be operating here.

Two things you really should read

In general, most writing about funds has the same problem as most funds do: it’s shallow, unoriginal, unreflective. It contributes little except to fill space and get somebody paid (both honorable goals, by the way). Occasionally, though, there are pieces that are really worth some of our time, thought and reflection. Here are two.

I’m not a great fan of ETFs. They’ve always struck me as trading vehicles, tools for allowing hedge funds and others to “make bets” rather than to invest. Chuck Jaffe had a really solid piece entitled “The growing case against ETFs” (Feb. 23, 2014) that makes the argument that ETFs are bad for you. Why? Because the great advantage of ETFs are that you can trade them all day long. And, as it turns out, if you give someone a portfolio filled with ETFs that’s precisely – and disastrously – what they do.

The Observer was founded on the premise that small, independent, active funds are the only viable alternative to a low-cost indexed portfolio. As funds swell, two bad things happen: their investable universe shrinks and the cost of making a mistake skyrockets, both of which lead to bad investment choices. There’s a vibrant line of academic research on the issue. John Rekenthaler began dissecting some of that research – in particular, a recent study endorsing younger managers and funds – in a four-part series of The Rekenthaler Report. At this writing, John had posted two essays: “Are Young Managers All That?” (Feb. 27, 2014) and “Has Your Fund Become Too Large, Or Is Industry Size the Problem?” (Feb. 28, 2014).  The first essay walks carefully through the reasons why older, larger funds – even those with very talented managers – regress. To my mind, he’s making a very strong case for finding capacity-constrained strategies and managers who will close their funds tight and early. The second picks up an old argument made by Charles Ellis in his 1974 “The Loser’s Game” essay; that the growth and professionalization of the investment industry is so great that no one – certainly not someone dragging a load – can noticeably outrun the crowd. The problem is less, John argues, the bloat of a single fund as the effect of “$3 trillion in smart money chasing the same ideas.”  

Regardless of whether you disdain or adore ETFs, or find the industry’s difficulties located at the level of undisciplined funds or an unwieldy industry, you’ll come away from these essays with much to think about.

RiverPark Strategic Income: Another set of ears

I’m always amazed by the number of bright and engaging folks who’ve been drawn to the Observer, and humbled by their willingness to freely share some of their time, insights and experience with the rest of us. One of those folks is an investor and advisor named “Mark” who is responsible for extended family money, a “multi-family office” if you will. He had an opportunity to spend some time chatting with David Sherman in mid-January as he contemplated a rather sizeable investment in RiverPark Strategic Income (RSIVX) for some family members who would benefit from such a strategy. Herewith are some of the reflections he shared over the course of a series of emails with me.

Where he’s coming from

Mark wrote that to him it’s important to understand the “context” of RSIVX. Mr. Sherman manages private strategies and hedge fund monies at Cohanzick Management, LLC. He cut his teeth at Leucadia National (whose principal Ian Cumming is sometimes referred to as Canada’s Warren Buffett) and is running some sophisticated and high entry strategies that have big risks and big rewards. His shop is not as large as some, sure, but Mr. Sherman seems to prefer it that way.

Some of what Mr. Sherman does all day “informs” RSIVX. He comes across an instrument or an idea that doesn’t fit in one strategy but may in another. It has the risk/reward characteristics that he wants for a particular strategy and so he and his team perform their due diligence on it. More on that later.

Where he is

RSIVX only exists, according to Mr. Sherman, because it fills a need. The need is for an annuity like stream of income at a rate that “his mother could live off” and he did not see such a thing in the marketplace. (In 2007 you could park money at American Express Bank in a jumbo CD at 5.5%. No such luck today.) He saw many other total return products out there in the high yield space where an investor can get a bit higher returns than what he envisions. But some of those returns will be from capital appreciation, i.e., returns from in essence trading. Mr. Sherman did not want to rely on that. He wants a lower duration portfolio (3-4 years) that he can possibly but not necessarily hold to get nice, safe, relatively high coupons from. As long as his investor has that timeframe, Mr. Sherman believes he can compound the money at 6-8% annually, and the investor gets his money back plus his return.

Shorter timeframes, because of impatience or poor timing choices, carry no such assurances. It’s not a CD, it’s not a guaranteed annuity from an insurer, but it’s what is available and what he is able to get for an investor.

How? Well, one inefficiency he hopes to exploit is in the composition of SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond (JNK) and iShares High Yield Corporate Bond (HYG). He doesn’t believe they reflect the composition of high yield space accurately with their necessary emphasis on the most liquid names. He will play in a different sandbox with different toys. And he believes it’s no more risky and thinks it is less so. In addition, when the high yield market moves, especially down, those names move fast.

Mark wrote that he asked David whether the smoothness of his returns exhibited in RPHYX and presumably in RSIVX in the future was due or would be due to a laddering strategy that he employed. He said that it was not – RSIVX’s portfolio was more of a barbell presently- and he did not want to be pigeonholed into a certain formula or strategy. He would do whatever it took to produce the necessary safe returns and that may change from time to time depending upon the market.

What changing interest rates might mean

What if rates fall? If rates fall then, sure, the portfolio will have some capital appreciation. What if rates rise? Well, every day and every month, David said, the investor will grind toward the payday on the shorter duration instruments he is holding. Mark-to-market they will be “worth” less. The market will be demanding higher interest rates and what hasn’t rolled off yet will not be as competitive as the day he bought them. The investor will still be getting a relatively high 6-8% return and as opportunities present themselves and with cash from matured securities and new monies the portfolio will be repopulated over time in the new interest rate environment. Best he can do. He does not intend to play the game of hedging. 

Where he might be going

Mark said he also asked about a higher-risk follow-on to RSIVX. He said that David told him that if he doesn’t have something unique to bring that meets a need, he doesn’t want to do it. He believes RPHYX and RSIVX to be unique. He “knew” he could pull off RPHYX, that he could demonstrate its value, and then have the credibility to introduce another idea. That idea is the Strategic Income Fund.

He doesn’t see a need for him to step out on the spectrum right now. There are a hundred competitors out there and a lot of overlap. People can go get a total return fund with more risk of loss. Returns from them will vary a lot from year to year unless conditions are remarkably stable. This [strategy] almost requires a smaller, more nimble fund and manager. Here he is. Here it is. So the next step out isn’t something he is thinking [immediately] about, but he continually brings ideas to Morty.

Mark concludes: “We discussed a few of his strategies that had more risk. They are fascinating but definitely not vanilla or oatmeal and a few I had to write out by hand the mechanics afterward so I could “see” what he was doing. One of them took me about an hour to work through where the return came from and where it could go possibly wrong.

But he described it to me because working on it gave him the inspiration for a totally different situation that, if it came to pass, would be appropriate for RSIVX. It did, is much more vanilla and is in the portfolio. Very interesting and shows how he thinks. Would love to have a beer with this guy.”

Mark’s bottom line(s)

Mark wanted me to be sure to disclose that he and his family have a rather large position in RiverPark Strategic Income now, and will be holding it for an extended period assuming all goes well (years) so, yeah, he may be biased with his remarks. He says “the strategy is not to everyone’s taste or risk tolerance”. He holds it because it exactly fills a need that his family has.

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds. Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds. “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve.

Driehaus Emerging Markets Small Cap Growth (DRESX): There’s a lot to be said for EM small caps. They provide powerful diversification and performance benefits for a portfolio. The knock of them is that they’re too hot to handle. Driehaus’s carefully constructed, hedged portfolio seems to have cooled the handle by a lot.

Guinness Atkinson Inflation Managed Dividend (GAINX): It’s easy to agree that owning the world’s best companies, especially if you buy them on the cheap, is a really good strategy. GAINX approaches the challenge of constructing a very compact, high quality, low cost portfolio with quantitative discipline and considerable thought.

Intrepid Income (ICMUX): What’s not to like about this conservative little short-term, high-yield fund. It’s got it all: solid returns, excellent risk management and that coveted one-star rating! Intrepid, like almost all absolute value investors, is offering an object lesson on the important of fortitude in the face of frothy markets and serial market records.

RiverPark Gargoyle Hedged Value (RGHVX): The short story is this. Gargoyle’s combination of a compact, high quality portfolio and options-based hedging strategy has, over time, beaten just about every reasonable comparison group. Unless you anticipate a series of 20 or 30% gains in the stock market over the rest of the decade, it might be time to think about protecting some of what you’ve already made.

Elevator Talk: Ted Gardner, Salient MLP & Energy Infrastructure II (SMLPX)

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you. That’s about the number of words a slightly-manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half. In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site. Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share. These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more.

Master limited partnerships (MLPs) are an intriguing asset class which was, until very recently, virtually absent from both open-end fund and ETF portfolios.

MLPs are a form of business organization, in the same way corporations are a form of organization. Their shares trade on US exchanges (NYSE and NASDAQ) and they meet the same SEC security registration requirements as corporations do. They were created in the 1980s primarily as a tool to encourage increased energy production in the country and the vast majority of MLPs (75% or so) are in the energy sector.

MLPs are distinct from corporations in a number of ways:

• They’re organized around two groups: the limited partners (i.e., investors) and the general partners (i.e., managers). The limited partners provide capital and receive quarterly distributions.
• MLPs are required, by contract, to pay minimum quarterly distributions to their limited partners. That means that they produce very consistent streams of income for the limited partners.
• MLPs are required, by law, to generate at least 90% of their income from “qualified sources.” Mostly that means energy production and distribution.

The coolest thing about MLPs is the way they generate their income: they operate hugely profitable, economically-insensitive monopolies whose profits are guaranteed by law. A typical midstream MLP might own a gas or oil pipeline. The MLP receives a fee for every gallon of oil or cubic foot of gas moving through the pipe. That rate is set by a federal agency and that rate rises every year by the rate of inflation plus 1.3%. It doesn’t matter whether the price of oil soars or craters; the MLP gets its toll regardless. And it doesn’t really matter whether the economy soars or craters: people still need warm homes and gas to get to work. At worst, bad recessions eliminate a year’s demand rise but haven’t yet caused a net demand decrease. As the population grows and energy consumption rises, the amount moving through the pipelines rise and so does the MLPs income.

Those profits are protected by enormously high entry barriers: building new pipelines cost billions, require endless hearings and permits, and takes years. As a result, the existing pipelines function as de facto a regional monopoly, which means that the amount of material traveling through the pipeline won’t be driven down by competition for other pipelines.

Quick highlights of the benchmark Alerian MLP index:

• From inception through early 2013, the index returned 16% annually, on average.
• For that same period, it had a 7.1% yield which grew 7% annually.
• There is a low correlation – 50 – between the stock market and the index. REITs say at around 70 and utility stocks at 25, but with dramatically lower yield and returns.

Only seven of the 17 funds with “MLP” in their names have been around long enough to quality for a Morningstar rating; all seven are four- or five-star funds, measured against an “energy equity” peer group. Here’s a quick snapshot of Salient (the blue line) against the two five-star funds (Advisory Research MLP & Energy Income INFIX and MLP & Energy Infrastructure MLPPX) and the first open-end fund to target MLPs (Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP Alpha MLPAX):

The quick conclusion is that Salient was one of the best MLP funds until autumn 2013, at which point it became the best one. I did not include the Alerian MLP index or any of the ETFs which track it because they lag so far behind the actively-managed funds. Over the past year, for example, Salient has outperformed the Alerian MLP Index – delivering 20% versus 15.5%.

High returns and substantial diversification. Sounds perfect. It isn’t, of course. Nothing is. MLP took a tremendous pounding in the 2007-09 meltdown when credit markets froze and dropped again in August 2013 during a short-lived panic over changes in MLP’s favorable tax treatment. And it’s certainly possible for individual MLPs to get bid up to fundamentally unattractive valuations.

Ted Gardner is the co‐portfolio manager for Salient’s MLP Complex, one manifestation of which is SMLPX. He oversees and coordinates all investment modeling, due diligence, company visits, and management conferences. Before joining Salient he was both Director of Research and a portfolio manager for RDG Capital and a research analyst with Raymond James. Here are his 200 words on why you should consider getting into the erl bidness:

Our portfolio management team has many years of experience with MLP investing, as managers and analysts, in private funds, CEFs and separate accounts. We considered both the state of the investment marketplace and our own experiences and thought it might translate well into an open-end product.

As far as what we saw in the marketplace, most of the funds out there exist inside a corporate wrapper. Unfortunately C-Corp funds are subject to double taxation and that can create a real draw on returns. We felt like going the traditional mutual fund, registered investment company route made a lot of sense.

We are very research-intensive, our four analysts and I all have a sell side background. We take cash flow modeling very seriously. It’s a fundamental modeling approach, modeling down to the segment levels to understand cash flows. And, historically, our analysts have done a pretty good job at it.

We think we do things a bit differently than many investors. What we like to see is visible growth, which means we’re less yield-oriented than others might be. We typically like partnerships that have a strategic asset footprint with a lot of organic growth opportunities or those with a dropdown story, where a parent company drops more assets into a partnership over time. We tend to avoid firms dependent on third-party acquisitions for growth. And we’ve liked investing in General Partners which have historically grown their dividends at approximately twice the rate of the underlying MLPs.

The fund has both institutional and retail share classes. The retail classes (SMAPX, SMPFX) nominally carry sales loads, but they’re available no-load/NTF at Schwab. The minimum for the load-waived “A” shares is $2,500. Expenses are 1.60% on about $630 million in assets. Here’s the fund’s homepage, but I’d recommend that you click through to the Literature tab to grab some of the printed documentation.

River Park/Gargoyle Hedged Value Conference Call Highlights

On February 12th we spoke for an hour with Alan Salzbank and Josh Parker, both of the Gargoyle Group, and Morty Schaja, CEO of RiverPark Funds. Here’s a brief recap of the highlights:

Alan handles the long portfolio. Josh, a securities lawyer by training, handles the options portfolio. He’s also an internationally competitive bridge player (Gates, Buffett, Parker…) and there’s some reason to believe that the habits of mind that make for successful bridge play also makes for successful options trading. They have 35 and 25 years of experience, respectively, and all of the investment folks who support them at Gargoyle have at least 20 years of experience in the industry. Morty has been investigating buy-write strategies since the mid-1980s and he described the Gargoyle guys as “the team I’ve been looking for for 25 years.”

The fund combines an unleveraged long portfolio and a 50% short portfolio, for a steady market exposure of 50%. The portfolio rebalances between those strategies monthly, but monitors and trades its options portfolio “in real time” throughout the month.

The long portfolio is 80-120 stocks, and stock selection is algorithmic. They screen the 1000 largest US stocks on four valuation criteria (P/B, P/E, P/CF, P/S) and then assign a “J score” to each stock based on how its current valuation compares with (1) its historic valuation and (2) its industry peers’ valuation. They then buy the 100 more undervalued stocks, but maintain sector weightings that are close to the S&P 500’s.

The options portfolio is a collection of index call options. At base, they’re selling insurance policies to nervous investors. Those policies pay an average premium of 2% per month and rise in value as the market falls. That 2% is a long-term average, during the market panic in the fall of 2008, their options were generating 8% per month in premiums.

Why index calls? Two reasons: (1) they are systematically mispriced, and so they always generate more profit than they theoretically should. In particular, they are overpriced by about 35 basis points/month 88% of the time. For sellers, that means something like a 35 bps free lunch. And (2) selling calls on their individual stocks – that is, betting that the stocks in their long portfolio will fall – would reduce returns. They believe that their long portfolio is a collection of stocks superior to any index and so they don’t want to hedge away any of their upside.

And it works. Their long portfolio has outperformed the S&P 500 by an average of 5% per year for 15 years. The entire strategy has outperformed the S&P in the long-term and has matched its returns, with less volatility, in the shorter term. Throughout, it has sort of clubbed its actively-managed long-short peers. It also anticipates clubbing the emerging bevy of buy-write ETFs.

The guys identify two structural advantages they have over an ETF: (1) they buy stocks superior to those in broad indexes and (2) they manage their options portfolio moment by moment, while the ETF just sits and takes hits for 29 out of 30 days each month.

There’s evidence that they’re right. The ETFs are largely based on the CBOE S&P Buy-Write Index (BXM). Between 2000-12, the S&P 500 returned 24% and the BXM returned 52%; the options portion of the Gargoyle portfolio returned 110% while the long portfolio crushed the S&P.

Except not so much in 2008. The fund’s maximum drawdown was 48%, between 10/07 and 03/08. The guys attributed that loss to the nature of the fund’s long portfolio: it buys stocks in badly dented companies when the price of the stock is even lower than the company’s dents would warrant. Unfortunately in the meltdown, those were the stocks people least wanted to own so they got killed. The fund’s discipline kept them from wavering: they stayed 100% invested and rebalanced monthly to buy more of the stocks that were cratering. The payback comes in 2009 when they posted a 42% return against the S&P’s 26% and again in 2010 when they made 18% to the index’s 15%.

The managers believe that ’08 was exceptional, and note that the strategy actually made money from 2000-02 when the market suffered from the bursting of the dot-com bubble.

In general, the strategy fares poorest when the market has wild swings. It fares best in gently rising markets, since both the long and options portfolios can make money if the market rises but less than the strike price of the options – they can earn 2% a month on an option that’s triggered if the market rises by more than 1%. If the market rises but by less than 1%, they pay out nothing, pocket the 2% and pocket the capital appreciation from their long portfolio.

What’s the role of the fund in a portfolio? They view it as a substitute for a large-cap value investment; so if your asset allocation plan is 20% LCV, then you could profitably invest up to 20% of your portfolio in Gargoyle. For the guys, it’s 100% of their US equity exposure.

Morty Speaks!  The rationale for hedging a long-term portfolio.

The Gargoyle call sparked – here’s a surprise – considerable commentary on our discussion board. Some were impressed with Josh and Alan’s fortitude in maintaining their market exposure during the 2007-09 meltdown but others had a more quizzical response. “Expatsp” captured it this way: “Though this seems the best of the long/short bunch, I just don’t see the appeal of long/short funds for anyone who has a long-term horizon.”

No. Not Morty.

There’s a great scene in Big Bang Theory where the brilliant but socially-inept Sheldon clears up a misunderstanding surrounding a comment he made about his roommate: “Ah, I understand the confusion. Uh, I have never said that you are not good at what you do. It’s just that what you do is not worth doing.” Same theme.

Morty Schaja, RiverPark’s president, is in an interesting position to comment on the question. His firm not only advises a pure long/short fund (RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity RLSFX) and a long hedged with options fund (RiverPark Gargoyle), but it also runs a very successful long-only fund (RiverPark Large Cap Growth RPXFX, which he describes as “our five-star secret weapon”).

With the obvious disclaimer that Morty has a stake in the success of all of the RiverPark funds (and the less-obvious note that he has invested deeply in each), we asked him the obvious question: Is it worth doing?

Since RiverPark is one of the very few investment advisors to offer the whole range of hedged funds, I asked Morty to share a quick snapshot of each to illustrate how the different strategies are likely to play out in various sets of market conditions.

Let’s start with the RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity Fund.

How does this compare with the RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund?

And finally, tell us about the new Structural Alpha Fund.

Is the Structural Alpha Fund an absolute return strategy?

Conference Call Upcoming

We haven’t scheduled a call for March. We only schedule calls when we can offer you the opportunity to speak with someone really interesting and articulate.  No one has reached that threshold this month, but we’ll keep looking on your behalf.

Conference call junkies might want to listen in on the next RiverNorth call, which focuses on the RiverNorth Managed Volatility Fund (RNBWX). Managed Volatility started life as RiverNorth Dynamic Buy-Write Fund. Long/short funds comes in three very distinct flavors, but are all lumped in the same performance category. For now, that works to the detriment of funds like Managed Volatility that rely on an options-based hedging strategy. The fund trails the long/short peer group since inception but has performed slightly better than the $8 billion Gateway Fund (GATEX). If you’re interested in the potential of an options-hedged portfolio, you’ll find the sign-up link on RiverNorth’s Events page.  The webcast takes place March 13, 2014 at 3:15 Central.

Launch Alert: Conestoga SMid Cap (CCSMX)

On February 28, 2014, Conestoga Mid Cap (CCMGX) ceased to be. Its liquidation was occasioned by negative assessments of its “asset size, strategic importance, current expenses and historical performance.” It trailed its peers in all seven calendar quarters since inception, in both rising and falling periods. With under $2 million in assets, its disappearance is not surprising.

Two things are surprising, however. First, its poor relative performance is surprising given the success of its sibling, Conestoga Small Cap (CCASX). CCASX is a four-star fund that received a “Silver” designation from Morningstar’s analysts. Morningstar lauds the stable management team, top-tier long-term returns, low volatility (its less volatile than 90% of its peers) and disciplined focus on high quality firms. And, in general, small cap teams have had little problem in applying their discipline successfully to slightly-larger firms.

Second, Conestoga’s decision to launch (on January 21, 2014) a new fund – SMid Cap – in virtually the same space is surprising, given their ability simply to tweak the existing fund. It smacks of an attempt to bury a bad record.

My conclusion after speaking with Mark Clewett, one of the Managing Directors at Conestoga: yeah, pretty much. But honorably.

Mark made two arguments.

1. Conestoga fundamentally mis-fit its comparison group. Conestoga targeted stocks in the $2 – 10 billion market cap range. Both its Morningstar peers and its Russell Midcap Growth benchmark have substantial investments in stocks up to $20 billion. The substantial exposure to those large cap names in a mid-cap wrapper drove its peer’s performance.

   The evidence is consistent with that explanation. It’s clear from the portfolio data that Conestoga was a much purer mid-cap play that either its benchmark or its peer group.

   Portfolio	Conestoga Mid Cap	Russell Mid-cap Growth	Mid-cap Growth Peers
   % large to mega cap	0	35	23
   % mid cap	86	63	63
   % small to micro cap	14	2	14
   Average market cap	5.1M	10.4M	8.4M

    By 2013, over 48% of the Russell index was stocks with market caps above $10 billion.

   Mark was able to pull the attribution data for Conestoga’s mid-cap composite, which this fund reflects. The performance picture is mixed: the composite outperformed its benchmark in 2010 and 2011, then trailed in 2013 and 2013. The fund’s holdings in the $2-5 billion and $5–10 billion bands sometimes outperformed their peers and sometimes trailed badly.

2. Tweaking the old fund would not be in the shareholders’ best interest.  The changes would be expensive and time-consuming. They would, at the same time, leave the new fund with the old fund’s record; that would inevitably cause some hesitance on the part of prospective investors, which meant it would be longer before the fund reached an economically viable size.

The hope is that with a new and more appropriate benchmark, a stable management team, sensible discipline and clean slate, the fund will achieve some of the success that Small Cap’s enjoyed.  I’m hopeful but, for now, we’ll maintain a watchful, sympathetic silence.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details.

Funds in registration this month are eligible to launch in late April or early May 2014 and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

This month David Welsch battled through wicked viruses and wicked snowstorms to track down eight funds in registration, one of the lowest totals since we launched three years ago.

The clear standout in the group is Dodge & Cox Global Bond, which the Dodge & Cox folks ran as “a private fund” since the end of December 2012.  It did really well in its one full year of operation – it gained 2.6% while its benchmark lost the same amount – and it comes with D&C’s signature low minimum, low expenses, low drama, team management.

Three other income funds are at least mildly interesting: Lazard Emerging Markets Income, Payden Strategic Income and Whitebox Unconstrained Income.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 50 sets of fund manager changes. The most intriguing of those include fallout from the pissing match at Pimco as Marc Seidner, an El-Erian ally, leaves to become GMO’s head of fixed-income operations.

Updates: The Observer here and there

I had a long conversation with a WSJ reporter which led to a short quotation in “Infrastructure funds are intriguing, but ….” The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 4 2014.  My bottom line was “infrastructure funds appear to be an incoherent mish-mash, with no two funds even agreeing on what sectors are worth including much less what stocks.  I don’t see any evidence of them adding value to a portfolio,” an observation prompted in part by T. Rowe Price’s decision to close their own Global Infrastructure fund. The writer, Lisa Ward, delicately quotes me as saying “you probably already own these same stocks in your other funds.” 

I was quoted as endorsing Artisan Global Small Cap (ARTWX) in Six promising new funds (though the subtitle might have been: “five of which I wouldn’t go near”), Kiplinger’s, Feb. 12 2014.  ARTWX draws on one of the most storied international management teams around, led by Mark Yockey.  The other funds profiled include three mutual funds and two ETFs.  The funds are Miller Income Opportunity (I’ve written elsewhere that “The whole enterprise leaves me feeling a little queasy since it looks either like Miller’s late-career attempt to prove that he’s not a dinosaur or Legg’s post-divorce sop to him”), Fidelity Event-Driven (FARNX: no record that Fido can actually execute with new funds anymore, much less with niche funds and untested managers), and Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility (VMVFX: meh – they work backward from a target risk level to see what returns they can generate).  The ETFs are two of the “smart beta” sorts of products, iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor (QUAL) and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market (FNDB). 

Finally, there was a very short piece entitled “Actively managed funds with low volatility,” in Bottom Line, Feb. 15 2014.  The publication is not online, at least not in an accessible form.  The editors were looking for funds with fairly well-established track records that have a tradition of low volatility.  I offered up Cook & Bynum Fund (COBYX, I’ve linked to our 2013 profile of them), FPA Crescent (FPACX, in which I’m invested) and Osterweis Fund (OSTWX).

Updates: Forbes discovers Beck, Mack & Oliver Partners (BMPEX)

Forbes rank a nice article on BMPEX, “Swinging at Strikes,” in their February 10, 2014 issue. Despite the lunacy of describing a $175 million fund as “puny” and “tiny,” the author turns up some fun facts to know and tell (the manager, Zac Wydra, was a premed student until he discovered that the sight of blood made him queasy) and gets the fund’s basic discipline right. Zac offers some fairly lively commentary in his Q4 shareholder letter, including a nice swipe at British haughtiness and a reflection on the fact that the S&P 500 is at an all-time high at the same time that the number of S&P 500 firms issuing negative guidance is near an all-time high.

Briefly Noted . . .

BlackRock has added the BlackRock Emerging Markets Long/Short Equity Fund (BLSAX) and the BlackRock Global Long/Short Equity Fund (BDMAX) as part of the constituent fund lineup in its Aggressive Growth, Conservative , Growth and Moderate Prepared Portfolios, and its Lifepath Active-Date series. Global has actually made some money for its investors, which EM has pretty much flatlined while the emerging markets have risen over its lifetime.  No word on a target allocation for either.

Effective May 1, Chou Income (CHOIX) will add preferred stocks to the list of their principal investments: “fixed-income securities, financial instruments that provide exposure to fixed-income securities, and preferred stocks.” Morningstar categorizes CHOIX as a World Bond fund despite the fact that bonds are less than 20% of its current portfolio and non-U.S. bonds are less than 3% of it.

Rydex executed reverse share splits on 13 of its funds in February. Investors received one new share for between three and seven old shares, depending on the fund.

Direxion will follow the same path on March 14, 2014 with five of their funds. They’re executing reverse splits on three bear funds and splits on two bulls.  They are: 

 SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Auxier Focus (AUXIX) is reducing the minimum initial investment for their Institutional shares from $250,000 to $100,000. Investor and “A” shares remain at $5,000. The institutional shares cost 25 basis points less than the others.

TFS Market Neutral Fund (TFSMX) reopened to new investors on March 1, 2014.

At the end of January, Whitebox eliminated its Advisor share class and dropped the sales load on Whitebox Tactical. Their explanation: “The elimination of the Advisor share class was basically to streamline share classes … eliminating the front load was in the best interest of our clients.” The first makes sense; the second is a bit disingenuous. I’m doubtful that Whitebox imposed a sales load because it was “in the best interest of our clients” and I likewise doubt that’s the reason for its elimination.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Artisan Global Value (ARTGX) closed on Valentine’s Day.

Grandeur Peak will soft close the Emerging Markets Opportunities (GPEOX) and hard close the Global Opportunities (GPGOX) and International Opportunities (GPIOX) strategies on March 5, 2014.

 Effective March 5, 2014, Invesco Select Companies Fund (ATIAX) will close to all investors.

Vanguard Admiral Treasury Money Market Fund (VUSSX) is really, really closed.  It will “no longer accept additional investments from any financial advisor, intermediary, or institutional accounts, including those of defined contribution plans. Furthermore, the Fund is no longer available as an investment option for defined contribution plans. The Fund is closed to new accounts and will remain closed until further notice.”  So there.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective as of March 21, 2014, Brown Advisory Emerging Markets Fund (BIAQX) is being changed to the Brown Advisory – Somerset Emerging Markets Fund. The investment objective and the investment strategies of the Fund are not being changed in connection with the name change for the Fund and the current portfolio managers will continue. At the same time, Brown Advisory Strategic European Equity Fund (BIAHX) becomes Brown Advisory -WMC Strategic European Equity Fund.

Burnham Financial Industries Fund has been renamed Burnham Financial Long/Short Fund (BURFX).  It’s a tiny fund (with a sales load and high expenses) that’s been around for a decade.  It’s hard to know what to make of it since “long/short financial” is a pretty small niche with few other players.

Caritas All-Cap Growth Fund has become Goodwood SMID Cap Discovery Fund (GAMAX), a name that my 13-year-old keeps snickering at.  It’s been a pretty mediocre fund which gained new managers in October.

Compass EMP Commodity Long/Short Strategies Fund (CCNAX) is slated to become Compass EMP Commodity Strategies Enhanced Volatility Weighted Fund in May. Its objective will change to “match the performance of the CEMP Commodity Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index.”  It’s not easily searchable by name at Morningstar because they’ve changed the name in their index but not on the fund’s profile.

Eaton Vance Institutional Emerging Markets Local Debt Fund (EELDX) has been renamed Eaton Vance Institutional Emerging Markets Debt Fund and is now a bit less local.

Frost Diversified Strategies and Strategic Balanced are hitting the “reset” button in a major way. On March 31, 2014, they change name, objective and strategy. Frost Diversified Strategies (FDSFX) becomes Frost Conservative Allocation while Strategic Balanced (FASTX) becomes Moderate Allocation. Both become funds-of-funds and discover a newfound delight in “total return consistent with their allocation strategy.” Diversified currently is a sort of long/short, ETFs, funds and stocks, options mess … $4 million in assets, high expense, high turnover, indifferent returns, limited protection. Strategic Balanced, with a relatively high downside capture, is a bit bigger and a bit calmer but ….

Effective on or about May 30, 2014, Hartford Balanced Allocation Fund (HBAAX) will be changed to Hartford Moderate Allocation Fund.

At the same time, Hartford Global Research Fund (HLEAX) becomes Hartford Global Equity Income Fund, with a so far unexplained “change to the Fund’s investment goal.” 

Effective March 31, 2014, MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (MHOAX) will change its name to MFS Global High Yield Fund.

In mid-February, Northern Enhanced Large Cap Fund (NOLCX) became Northern Large Cap Core Fund though, at last check, Morningstar hadn’t noticed. Nice little fund, by the way.

Speaking of not noticing, the folks at Whitebox have accused of us ignoring “one of the most important changes we made, which is Whitebox Long Short Equity Fund is now the Whitebox Market Neutral Equity Fund.” We look alternately chastened by our negligence and excited to report such consequential news.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

BCM Decathlon Conservative Portfolio, BCM Decathlon Moderate Portfolio and BCM Decathlon Aggressive Portfolio have decided that they can best serve their shareholders by liquidating.  The event is scheduled for April 14, 2014.

BlackRock International Bond Portfolio (BIIAX) has closed and will liquidate on March 14, 2014.  A good move given the fund’s dismal record, though you’d imagine that a firm with BlackRock’s footprint would want a fund of this name.

Pending shareholder approval, City National Rochdale Diversified Equity Fund (AHDEX) will merge into City National Rochdale U.S. Core Equity Fund (CNRVX) of the Trust. I rather like the honesty of their explanation to shareholders:

This reorganization is being proposed, among other reasons, to reduce the annual operating expenses borne by shareholders of the Diversified Fund. CNR does not expect significant future in-flows to the Diversified Fund and anticipates the assets of the Diversified Fund may continue to decrease in the future. The Core Fund has significantly more assets [and] … a significantly lower annual expense ratio.

Goldman Sachs Income Strategies Portfolio merged “with and into” the Goldman Sachs Satellite Strategies Portfolio (GXSAX) and Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund with and into the Goldman Sachs Asia Equity Fund (GSAGX) in mid-February.

Huntington Rotating Markets Fund (HRIAX) has closed and will liquidate by March 28, 2014.

Shareholders of Ivy Asset Strategy New Opportunities Fund (INOAX) have been urged to approve the merger of their fund into Ivy Emerging Markets Equity Fund (IPOAX).  The disappearing fund is badly awful but the merger is curious because INOAX is not primarily an emerging markets fund; its current portfolio is split between developed and developing.

The Board of Trustees of the JPMorgan Ex-G4 Currency Strategies Fund (EXGAX) has approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund on or about March 10, 2014.  The “strategies” in question appear to involve thrashing around without appreciable gain.

After an entire year of operation (!), the KKR Board of Trustees of the Fund approved a Plan of Liquidation with respect to KKR Alternative Corporate Opportunities Fund (XKCPX) and KKR Alternative High Yield Fund (KHYZX). Accordingly, the Fund will be liquidated in accordance with the Plan on or about March 31, 2014 or as soon as practicable thereafter. 

Loomis Sayles Mid Cap Growth Fund (LAGRX) will be liquidated on March 14^th, a surprisingly fast execution given that the Board approved the action just the month before.

On February 13, 2014, the shareholders of the Quaker Small Cap Growth Tactical Allocation Fund (QGASX) approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund. 

In Closing . . .

We asked you folks, in January, what made the Observer worthwhile.  That is, what did we offer that brought you back each month?  We poured your answers into a Wordle in hopes of capturing the spirit of the 300 or so responses.

Three themes recurred:  (1) the Observer is independent. We’re not trying to sell you anything.  We’re not trying to please advertisers. We’re not desperate to write inflated drivel in order to maximize clicks. We don’t have a hidden agenda. 

(2) We talk about things that other folks do not. There’s a lot of appreciation for our willingness to ferret out smaller, emerging managers and to bring them to you in a variety of formats. There’s also some appreciate of our willingness to step back from the fray and try to talk about important long-term issues rather than sexy short-term ones.

(3) We’re funny. Or weird. Perhaps snarky, opinionated, cranky and, on a good day, curmudgeonly.

And that helps us a lot.  As we plan for the future of the Observer, we’re thinking through two big questions: where should we be going and how can we get there? We’ll write a bit next time about your answer to the final question: what should we be doing that we aren’t (yet)?

We’ve made a couple changes under the hood to make the Observer stronger and more reliable.  We’ve completed our migration to a new virtual private server at Green Geeks, which should help with reliability and allow us to handle a lot more traffic.  (We hit records again in January and February.)  We also upgraded the software that runs our discussion board.  It gives the board better security and a fresher look.  If you’ve got a bookmarked link to the discussion board, we need you to reset your link to http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussions.  If you use your old bookmark you’ll just end up on a redirect page.  

In April we celebrate our third anniversary. Old, for a website nowadays, and so we thought we’d solicit the insights of some of the Grand Old Men of the industry: well-seasoned, sometimes storied managers who struck out on their own after long careers in large firms. We’re trying hard to wheedle our colleague Ed, who left Oakmark full of years and honors, to lead the effort. While he’s at that, we’re planning to look again at the emerging markets and the almost laughable frenzy of commentary on “the bloodbath in the emerging markets.”  (Uhh … Vanguard’s Emerging Market Index has dropped 8% in a year. That’s not a bloodbath. It’s not even a correction. It’s a damned annoyance. And, too, talking about “the emerging markets” makes about as much analytic sense as talking about “the white people.”  It’s not one big undifferentiated mass).  We’ve been looking at fund flow data and Morningstar’s “buy the unloved” strategy.  Mr. Studzinski has become curious, a bit, about Martin Focused Value (MFVRX) and the arguments that have led them to a 90% cash stake. We’ll look into it.

Please do bookmark our Amazon link.  Every bit helps! 

 As ever,

Dear friends,

Given the intensity of the headlines, you’d think that Black Monday had revisited us weekly or, perhaps, that Smaug had settled his scaly bulk firmly atop our portfolios.  But no, the market wandered down a few percent for the month.  I have the same reaction to the near-hysterical headlines about the emerging markets (“rout,” “panic” and “sell-off” are popular headline terms). From the headlines, you’d think the emerging markets had lost a quarter of their value and that their governments were back to defaulting on debts and privatizing companies. They haven’t and they aren’t.  It makes you wonder how ready we are for the inevitable sharp correction that many are predicting and few are expecting.

Where are the customers’ yachts: The power of asking the wrong question

In 1940, Fred Schwed penned one of the most caustic and widely-read finance books of its time.  Where Are the Customers’ Yachts, now in its sixth edition, opens with an anecdote reportedly set in 1900 and popular on Wall Street in the 1920s.

That’s an almost irresistibly attractive tale since it so quickly captures the essence of what we all suspect: finance is a game rigged to benefit the financiers, a sort of reverse Robin Hood scheme in which we eagerly participate. Disclosure of rampant manipulation of the London currency exchanges is just the most recent round in the game.

As charming as it is, it’s also fundamentally the wrong question.  Why?  Because “buying a yacht” was not the goal for the vast majority of those customers.  Presumably their goals were things like “buying a house” or “having a rainy day cushion,” which means the right question would have been “where are the customer’s houses?”

We commit the same fallacy today when we ask, “can your fund beat the market?”  It’s the question that drives hundreds of articles about the failure of active management and of financial advisors more generally.  But it’s the wrong question.  Our financial goals aren’t expressed relative to the market; they’re expressed in terms of life goals and objectives to which our investments might contribute.

In short, the right question is “why does investing in this fund give me a better chance of achieving my goals than I would have otherwise?”  That might redirect our attention to questions far more important than whether Fund X lags or leads the S&P500 by 50 bps a year.  Those fractions of a percent are not driving your investment performance nearly as much as other ill-considered decisions are.  The impulse to jump in and out of emerging markets funds (or bond funds or U.S. small caps) based on wildly overheated headlines are far more destructive than any other factor.

Morningstar calculates “investor returns” for hundreds of funds. Investor returns are an attempt to answer the question, “did the investors show up after the party was over and leave as things got dicey?”  That is, did investors buy into something they didn’t understand and weren’t prepared to stick with? The gap between what an investor could have made – the fund’s long-term returns – and what the average investor actually seems to have made – the investor returns – can be appalling.  T. Rowe Price Emerging Market Stock (PRMSX) made 9% over the past decade, its average investor made 4%. Over a 15 year horizon the disparity is worse: the fund earned 10.7% while investors were around for 4.3% gains.  The gap for Dodge & Cox Stock (DODGX) is smaller but palpable: 9.2% for the fund over 15 years but 7.0% for its well-heeled investors. 

My colleague Charles has urged me to submit a manuscript on mutual fund investing to John Wiley’s Little Book series, along with such classics as The Little Book That Makes You Rich and The Little Book That Beats the Market. I might. But if I do, it will be The Little Book That Doesn’t Beat the Market: And Why That’s Just Fine. Its core message will be this:

If you spend less time researching your investments than you spend researching a new kitchen blender, you’re screwed.  If you base your investments on a belief in magical outcomes, you’re screwed.  And if you think that 9% returns will flow to you with the smooth, stately grace of a Rolls Royce on a country road, you’re screwed.

But if you take the time to understand yourself and you take the time to understand the strategies that will be used by the people you’re hiring to provide for your future, you’ve got a chance.

And a good, actively managed mutual fund can make a difference but only if you look for the things that make a difference.  I’ll suggest four:

Understanding: do you know what your manager plans to do?  Here’s a test: you can explain it to your utterly uninterested spouse and then have him or her correctly explain it back?  Does your manager write in a way that draws you closer to understanding, or are you seeing impenetrable prose or marketing babble?  When you have a question, can you call or write and actually receive an intelligible answer?

Alignment: is your manager’s personal best interests directly tied to your success?  Has he limited himself to his best ideas, or does he own a bit of everything, everywhere?  Has he committed his own personal fortune to the fund?  Have his Board of Directors?  Is he capable of telling you the limits of his strategy; that is, how much money he can handle without diluting performance? And is he committed to closing the fund long before you reach that sad point?

Independence: does your fund have a reason to exist? Is there any reason to believe that you couldn’t substitute any one of a hundred other strategies and get the same results? Does your fund publish its active share; that is, the amount of difference between it and an index? Does it publish its r-squared value; that is, the degree to which it merely imitates the performance of its peer group? 

Volatility: does your manager admit to how bad it could get? Not just the fund’s standard deviation, which is a pretty dilute measure of risk. No, do they provide their maximum drawdown for you; that is, the worst hit they ever took from peak to trough.  Are the willing to share and explain their Sharpe and Sortino ratios, key measures of whether you’re getting reasonably compensated for the hits you’ll inevitable take?  Are they willing to talk with you in sharply rising markets about how to prepare for the sharply falling ones?

The research is clear: there are structural and psychological factors that make a difference in your prospects for success.  Neither breathless headlines nor raw performance numbers are among them.

Then again, there’s a real question of whether it could ever compete for total sales with my first book, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (total 20-year sales: 650 copies).

Absolute value’s sudden charm

Jeremy Grantham often speaks of “career risk” as one of the great impediments to investment success. The fact that managers know they’re apt to be fired for doing the right thing at the wrong time is a powerful deterrent to them. For a great many, “the right thing” is refusing to buy overvalued stocks. Nonetheless, when confronted by a sharply rising market and investor ebullience, most conclude that it’s “the wrong time” to act on principle. In short, they buy when they know  they probably shouldn’t.

A handful of brave souls have refused to succumb to the pressure. In general, they’re described as “absolute value” investors. That is, they’ll only buy stocks that are selling at a substantial discount to their underlying value; the mere fact that they’re “the best of a bad lot” isn’t enough to tempt them.

And, in general, they got killed – at least in relative terms – in 2013. We thought it would be interesting to look at the flip side, the performance of those same funds during January 2014 when the equity indexes dropped 3.5 – 4%.  While the period is too brief to offer any major insights, it gives you a sense of how dramatically fortunes can reverse.

THE ABSOLUTE VALUE GUYS

Motion, not progress

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.

                                                                                                         Ambrose Bierce

One of the joys of having entered the investment business in the 1980’s is that you came in at a time when the profession was still populated by some really nice and thoughtful people, well-read and curious about the world around them.  They were and are generally willing to share their thoughts and ideas without hesitation. They were the kind of people that you hoped you could keep as friends for life.  One such person is my friend, Bruce, who had a thirty-year career on the “buy side” as both an analyst and a director of research at several well-known money management firms. He retired in 2008 and divides his time between homes in western Connecticut and Costa Rica.

Here in Chicago in January, with snow falling again and the wind chill taking the temperature below zero, I see that Bruce, sitting now in Costa Rica, is the smart one.  Then I reflected on a lunch we had on a warm summer day last August near the Mohawk Trail in western Massachusetts.  We stay in touch regularly but this was the first time the two of us had gotten together in several years. 

The first thing I asked Bruce was what he missed most about no longer being active in the business.  Without hesitation he said that it was the people. For most of his career he had interacted daily with other smart investors as well as company management teams.  You learned how they thought, what kind of people they were, whether they loved their businesses or were just doing it to make money, and how they treated their shareholders and investors. Some of his best memories were of one-on-one meetings or small group dinners.  These were events that companies used to hold for their institutional shareholders.  That ended with the implementation of Regulation FD (full disclosure), the purpose of which was to eliminate the so-called whisper number that used to be “leaked” to certain brokerage firm analysts ahead of earnings reporting dates. This would allow those analysts to tip-off favored clients, giving them an edge in buying or selling a position. Companies now deal with this issue by keeping tight control on investor meetings and what can be said in them, tending to favor multi-media analyst days (timed, choreographed, scripted, and rehearsed events where you find yourself one of three hundred in a room being spoon-fed drivel), and earnings conference calls (timed, choreographed, scripted, and rehearsed events where you find yourself one of a faceless mass listening to reporting without seeing any body language).  Companies will still visit current and potential investors by means of “road shows” run by a friendly brokerage firm coincidentally looking for investment banking business.  But the exchange of information can be less than free-flowing, especially if the brokerage analyst sits in on the meeting.  And, to prevent accidental disclosure, the event is still heavily scripted.  It has however created a new sideline business for brokerage firms in these days of declining commission rates.  Even if you are a large existing institutional shareholder, the broker/investment bankers think you should pay them $10,000 – $15,000 in commissions for the privilege of seeing the management of a company you already own.  This is apparently illegal in the United Kingdom, and referred to as “pay to play” there.  Here, neither the SEC nor the compliance officers have tumbled to it as an apparent fiduciary violation.

Next I asked him what had been most frustrating in his final years. Again without hesitation he said that it was difficult to feel that you were actually able to add value in evaluating large cap companies, given how the regulatory environment had changed. I mentioned to him that everyone seemed to be trying to replace the on-site leg work part of fundamental analysis with screening and extensive earnings modeling, going out multiple years. Unfortunately many of those using such approaches appear to have not learned the law of significant numbers in high school chemistry. They seek exactitude while in reality adding complexity.  At the same time, the subjective value of sitting in a company headquarters waiting room and seeing how customers, visitors, and employees are treated is no longer appreciated.

Bruce, like many value investors, favors private market value as the best underpinning for security valuation. That is, based on recent transactions to acquire a comparable business, what was this one worth? But you need an active merger & acquisition market for the valuation not to be tied to stale inputs. He mentioned that he had observed the increased use of dividend discount models to complement other valuation work. However, he thought that there was a danger in a low interest-rate environment that a dividend discount model could produce absurd results. One analyst had brought him a valuation write-up supported by a dividend discount model. Most of the business value ended up being in the terminal segment, requiring a 15 or 16X EBITDA multiple to make the numbers work.  Who in the real world pays that for a business?  I mentioned that Luther King, a distinguished investment manager in Texas with an excellent long-term record, insisted on meeting as many company managements as he could, even in his seventies, as part of his firm’s ongoing due diligence. He did not want his investors to think that their investments were being followed and analyzed by “three guys and a Bloomberg terminal.”  And in reality, one cannot learn an industry and company solely through a Bloomberg terminal, webcasts, and conference calls. 

Bruce then mentioned another potentially corrupting factor. His experience was that investment firms compensate analysts based on idea generation, performance of the idea, and the investment dollars committed to the idea. This can lead to gamesmanship as you get to the end of the measurement period for compensation. E.g., we tell corporate managements they shouldn’t act as if they were winding up and liquidating their business at the end of a quarter or year. Yet, we incent analysts to act that way (and lock in a profitable bonus) by recommending sale of an idea much too early. Or at the other extreme, they may not want to recommend sale of the idea when they should. I mentioned that one solution was to eliminate such compensation performance assessments as one large West Coast firm is reputed to have done after the disastrous 2008 meltdown. They were trying to restore a culture that for eighty years had been geared to producing the best long-term compounding investment ideas for the clients. However, they also had the luxury of being independent.      

Finally I asked Bruce what tipped him over the edge into retirement. He said he got tired of discussions about “scalability.” A brief explanation is in order. After the dot-com disaster at the beginning of the decade, followed by the debacle years of 2008-2009, many investment firms put into place an implicit policy. For an idea to be added to the investment universe, a full investment position had to be capable of being acquired in five days average trading volume for that issue. Likewise, one had to also be able to exit the position in five days average trading volume. If it could not pass those hurdles, it was not a suitable investment. This cuts out small cap and most mid-cap ideas, as well as a number of large cap ideas where there is limited investment float. While the benchmark universe might be the S&P 500, in actuality it ends up being something very different. Rather than investing in the best ideas for clients, one ends up investing in the best liquid ideas for clients (I will save for another day the discussion about illiquid investments consistently producing higher returns long-term, albeit with greater volatility). 

From Bruce’s perspective, too much money is chasing too few good ideas. This has resulted in what we call “style drift”.  Firms that had made their mark as small cap or mid cap investors didn’t want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs by shutting off new money, so they evolved to become large cap investors. But ultimately that is self-defeating, for as the assets come in, you either have to shut down the flows or change your style by adding more and larger positions, which ultimately leads to under-performance.

I mentioned to Bruce that the other problem of too much money chasing too few good new ideas was that it tended to encourage “smart guy investing,” a term coined by a mutual friend of ours in Chicago. The perfect example of this was Dell. When it first appeared in the portfolios of Southeastern Asset Management, I was surprised. Over the next year, the idea made its way in to many more portfolios at other firms. Why? Because originally Southeastern had made it a very large position, which indicated they were convinced of its investment merits. The outsider take was “they are smart guys – they must have done the work.” And so, at the end of the day after making their own assessments, a number of other smart guys followed. In retrospect it appears that the really smart guy was Michael Dell.

A month ago I was reading a summary of the 2013 annual investment retreat of a family office investment firm with an excellent reputation located in Vermont. A conclusion reached was that the incremental value being provided by many large cap active managers was not justified by the fees being charged. Therefore, they determined that that part of an asset allocation mix should make use of low cost index funds. That is a growing trend. Something else that I think is happening now in the industry is that investment firms that are not independent are increasingly being run for short-term profitability as the competition and fee pressures from products like exchange traded funds increases. Mike Royko, the Chicago newspaper columnist once said that the unofficial motto of Chicago is “Ubi est meum?” or “Where’s mine?” Segments of the investment management business seemed to have adopted it as well. As a long-term value investor in New York recently said to me, short-termism is now the thing. 

The ultimate lesson is the basic David Snowball raison d’etre for the Mutual Fund Observer. Find yourself funds that are relatively small and independent, with a clearly articulated philosophy and strategy. Look to see, by reading the reports and looking at the lists of holdings, that they are actually doing what they say they are doing, and that their interests are aligned with yours. Look at their active share, the extent to which the holdings do not mimic their benchmark index. And if you cannot be bothered to do the work, put your investments in low cost index vehicles and focus on asset allocation.  Otherwise, as Mr. Buffet once said, if you are seated at the table to play cards and don’t identify the “mark” you should leave, as you are it.

Edward Studzinski    

Impact of Category on Fund Ratings

The results for MFO’s fund ratings through quarter ending December 2013, which include the latest Great Owl and Three Alarm funds, can be found on the Search Tools page. The ratings are across 92 fund categories, defined by Morningstar, and include three newly created categories:

Corporate Bond. “The corporate bond category was created to cull funds from the intermediate-term and long-term bond categories that focused on corporate bonds,” reports Cara Esser.  Examples are Vanguard Interm-Term Invmt-Grade Inv (VFICX) and T. Rowe Price Corporate Income (PRPIX).

Preferred Stock. “The preferred stock category includes funds with a majority of assets invested in preferred stock over a three-year period. Previously, most preferred share funds were lumped in with long-term bond funds because of their historically high sensitivity to long-term yields.” An example is iShares US Preferred Stock (PFF).

Tactical Allocation. “Tactical Allocation portfolios seek to provide capital appreciation and income by actively shifting allocations between asset classes. These portfolios have material shifts across equity regions and bond sectors on a frequent basis.” Examples here are PIMCO All Asset All Authority Inst (PAUIX) and AQR Risk Parity (AQRIX).

An “all cap” or “all style” category is still not included in the category definitions, as explained by John Rekenthaler in Why Morningstar Lacks an All-Cap Fund Category. The omission frustrates many, including BobC, a seasoned contributor to the MFO board:

Osterweis (OSTFX) is a mid-cap blend fund, according to M*. But don’t say that to John Osterweis. Even looking at the style map, you can see the fund covers all of the style boxes, and it has about 20% in foreign stocks, with 8% in emerging countries. John would tell you that he has never managed the fund to a style box. In truth he is style box agnostic. He is looking for great companies to buy at a discount. Yet M* compares the fund with others that are VERY different.

In fairness, according to the methodology, “for multiple-share-class funds, each share class is rated separately and counted as a fraction of a fund within this scale, which may cause slight variations in the distribution percentages.” Truth is, fund managers or certainly their marketing departments are sensitive to what category their fund lands-in, as it can impact relative ratings for return, risk, and price.

As reported in David’s October commentary, we learned that Whitebox Funds appealed to the Morningstar editorial board to have its Tactical Opportunities Fund (WBMIX) changed from aggressive allocation to long/short equity. WBMIX certainly has the latitude to practice long/short; in fact, the strategy is helping the fund better negotiate the market’s rough start in 2014. But its ratings are higher and price is lower, relatively, in the new category.

One hotly debated fund on the MFO board, ASTON/River Road Independent Small Value (ARIVX), managed by Eric Cinnamond, would also benefit from a category change. As a small cap, the fund rates a 1 (bottom quintile) for 2013 in the MFO ratings system, but when viewed as a conservative or tactical allocation fund – because of significant shifts to cash – the ratings improve. Here is impact on return group rank for a couple alternative categories:

Of course, a conservative tactical allocation category would be a perfect antidote here (just kidding).

Getting It Wrong. David has commented more than once about the “wildly inappropriate” mis-categorization of Riverpark Short Term High Yield Fund (RPHIX), managed by David Sherman, which debuted with just a single star after its first three years of operation. The MFO community considers the closed fund more of a cash alternative, suited best to the short- or even ultrashort-term bond categories, but Morningstar placed it in the high yield bond category.

Exacerbating the issue is that the star system appears to rank returns after deducting for a so-called “risk penalty,” based on the variation in month-to-month return during the rating period. This is good. But it also means that funds like RPHIX, which have lower absolute returns with little or no downside, do not get credit for their very high risk-adjusted return ratios, like Sharpe, Sortino, or Martin.

Below is the impact of categorization, as well as return metrics, on its performance ranking. The sweet irony is that its absolute return even beat the US bond aggregate index!

RPHIX is a top tier fund by just about any measure when placed in a more appropriate bond category or when examined with risk-adjusted return ratios. (Even Modigliani’s M2, a genuinely risk-adjusted return, not a ratio, that is often used to compare portfolios with different levels of risk, reinforces that RPHIX should still be top tier even in the high yield bond category.) Since Morningstar states its categorizations are “based strictly on portfolio statistics,” and not fund names, hopefully the editorial board will have opportunity to make things right for this fund at the bi-annual review in May.

A Broader View. Interestingly, prior to July 2002, Morningstar rated funds using just four broad asset-class-based groups: US stock, international stock, taxable bond, and municipal bonds. It switched to (smaller) categories to neutralize market tends or “tailwinds,” which would cause, for example, persistent outperformance by funds with value strategies.

A consequence of rating funds within smaller categories, however, is more attention goes to more funds, including higher risk funds, even if they have underperformed the broader market on a risk-adjusted basis. And in other cases, the system calls less attention to funds that have outperformed the broader market, but lost an occasional joust in their peer group, resulting in a lower rating.

Running the MFO ratings using only the four board legacy categories reveals just how much categorization can alter the ratings. For example, the resulting “US stock” 20-year Great Owl funds are dominated by allocation funds, along with a high number of sector equity funds, particularly health. But rate the same funds with the current categories (Great Owl Funds – 4Q2013), and we find more funds across the 3 x 3 style box, plus some higher risk sector funds, but the absence of health funds.

Fortunately, some funds are such strong performers that they appear to transcend categorization. The eighteen funds listed below have consistently delivered high excess return while avoiding large drawdown and end-up in the top return quintile over the past 20, 10, 5, and 3 year evaluation periods using either categorization approach:

 Roy Weitz grouped funds into only five equity and six specialty “benchmark categories” when he established the legacy Three Alarm Funds list. Similarly, when Accipiter created the MFO Miraculous Multi-Search tool, he organized the 92 categories used in the MFO rating system into 11 groups…not too many, not too few. Running the ratings for these groupings provides some satisfying results:

A more radical approach may be to replace traditional style categories altogether! For example, instead of looking for best performing small-cap value funds, one would look for the best performing funds based on a risk level consistent with an investor’s temperament. Implementing this approach, using Risk Group (as defined in ratings system) for category, identifies the following 20-year Great Owls:

Bottom Line. Category placement can be as important to a fund’s commercial success as its people, process, performance, price and parent. Many more categories exist today on which peer groups are established and ratings performed, causing us to pay more attention to more funds. And perhaps that is the point. Like all chambers of commerce, Morningstar is as much a promoter of the fund industry, as it is a provider of helpful information to investors. No one envies the enormous task of defining, maintaining, and defending the rationale for several dozen and ever-evolving fund categories. Investors should be wary, however, that the proliferation may provide a better view of the grove than the forest.

28Jan2014/Charles

Our readers speak!

And we’re grateful for it. Last month we gave folks an opportunity to weigh-in on their assessment of how we’re doing and what we should do differently. Nearly 350 of you shared your reactions during the first week of the New Year. That represents a tiny fraction of the 27,000 unique readers who came by in January, so we’re not going to put as much weight on the statistical results as on the thoughts you shared.

We thought we’d share what we heard. This month we’ll highlight the statistical results.  In March we’ll share some of your written comments (they run over 30 pages) and our understanding of them.

Who are you?

80% identified themselves as private investors, 18% worked in the financial services industry and 2% were journalists, bloggers and analysts.

How often do you read the Observer?

The most common answer is “I just drop by at the start of the month” (36%). That combines with “I drop by once every month, but not necessarily at the start”) (14%) to explain about half of the results. At the same time, a quarter of you visit four or more times every month. (And thanks for it!)

Which features are most (or least) interesting to you?

By far, the greatest number of “great, do more!” responses came under “individual fund profiles.” A very distant second and third were the longer pieces in the monthly commentary (such as Motion, Not Progress and Impact of Category on Fund Ratings) and the shorter pieces (on fund liquidations and such) in the commentary. Folks had the least interest in our conference calls and funds in registration.

Hmmm … we’re entirely sympathetic to the desire for more fund profiles. Morningstar has an effective monopoly in the area and their institutional biases are clear: of the last 100 fund analyses posted, only 13 featured funds with under one billion in assets. Only one fund launched since January 2010 was profiled. In response, we’re going to try to increase the number of profiles each month to at least four with a goal of hitting five or six. 

We’re not terribly concerned about the tepid response to the conference calls since they’re useful in writing our profiles and the audience for them continues to grow. If you haven’t tried one, perhaps it might be worthwhile this month?

And so, in response to your suggestion, here’s the freshly expanded …

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds. “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve. 

ASTON/River Road Long Short (ARLSX): measured in the cold light of risk-return statistics, ARLSX is as good as it gets. We’d recommend that interested parties look at both this profile and at the conference call highlights, below.

Artisan Global Small Cap (ARTWX): what part of “phenomenally talented, enormously experienced management team now offers access to a poorly-explored asset class” isn’t interesting to you?

Grandeur Peak Emerging Opportunities (GPEOX): ditto!

RiverNorth Equity Opportunity (RNEOX): ditto! Equity Opportunity is a redesigned and greatly strengthened version of an earlier fund.  This new edition is all RiverNorth and that is, for folks looking for buffered equity exposure, a really interesting option.

We try to think strategically about which funds to profile. Part of the strategy is to highlight funds that might do you well in the immediate market environment, as well as others that are likely to be distinctly out of step with today’s market but very strong additions in the long-run. We reached out in January to the managers of two funds in the latter category: the newly-launched Meridian Small Cap Growth (MSGAX) and William Blair Emerging Markets Small Cap (WESNX). Neither has responded to a request for information (we were curious about strategy capacity, for instance, and risk-management protocols). We’ll continue reaching out; if we don’t hear back, we’ll profile the funds in March with a small caution flag attached.

RiverNorth conference call, February 25 2014

RiverNorth’s opportunistic CEF strategy strikes us as distinctive, profitable and very crafty. We’ve tried to explain it in profiles of RNCOX and RNEOX. Investors who are intrigued by the opportunity to invest with RiverNorth should sign up for their upcoming webcast entitled RiverNorth Closed-End Fund Strategies: Capitalizing on Discount Volatility. While this is not an Observer event, we’ve spoken with Mr. Galley a lot and are impressed with his insights and his ability to help folks make sense of what the strategy can and cannot do.

Navigate over to http://www.rivernorthfunds.com/events/ for free registration.

Conference Call Highlights:  ASTON River Road Long/Short (ARLSX)

We spoke with Daniel Johnson and Matt Moran, managers for the River Road Long-Short Equity strategy which is incorporated in Aston River Road Long-Short Fund (ARLSX). Mike Mayhew, one of the Partners at Aston Asset, was also in on the call to answer questions about the fund’s mechanics. About 60 people joined in.

The highlights, for me, were:

the fund’s strategy is sensible and straightforward, which means there aren’t a lot of moving parts and there’s not a lot of conceptual complexity. The fund’s stock market exposure can run from 10 – 90% long, with an average in the 50-70% range. The guys measure their portfolio’s discount to fair value; if their favorite stocks sell at a less than 80% of fair value, they increase exposure. The long portfolio is compact (15-30), driven by an absolute value discipline, and emphasizes high quality firms that they can hold for the long term. The short portfolio (20-40 names) is stocked with poorly managed firms with a combination of a bad business model and a dying industry whose stock is overpriced and does not show positive price momentum. That is, they “get out of the way of moving trains” and won’t short stocks that show positive price movements.

the fund grew from $8M to $207M in a year, with a strategy capacity in the $1B – 1.5B range. They anticipate substantial additional growth, which should lower expenses a little (and might improve tax efficiency – my note, not theirs). Because they started the year with such a small asset base, the expense numbers are exaggerated; expenses might have been 5% of assets back when they were tiny, but that’s no longer the case. 

shorting expenses were boosted by the vogue for dividend-paying stocks, which  drove valuations of some otherwise sucky stocks sharply higher; that increases the fund’s expenses because they’ve got to repay those dividends but the managers believe that the shorts will turn out to be profitable even so.

the guys have no client other than the fund, don’t expect ever to have one, hope to manage the fund until they retire and they have 100% of their liquid net worth in it.

their target is “sleep-at-night equity exposure,” which translates to a maximum drawdown (their worst-case market event) of no more than 10-15%. They’ve been particularly appalled by long/short funds that suffered drawdowns in the 20-25% range which is, they say, not consistent with why folks buy such funds.

they’ve got the highest Sharpe ratio of any long-short fund, their longs beat the market by 900 bps, their shorts beat the inverse of the market by 1100 bps and they’ve kept volatility to about 40% of the market’s while capturing 70% of its total returns.

A lot of the Q&A focused on the fund’s short portfolio and a little on the current state of the market. The guys note that they tend to generate ideas (they keep a watchlist of no more than 40 names) by paging through Value Line. They focus on fundamentals (let’s call it “reality”) rather than just valuation numbers in assembling their portfolio. They point out that sometimes fundamentally rotten firms manage to make their numbers (e.g., dividend yield or cash flow) look good but, at the same time, the reality is that it’s a poorly managed firm in a failing industry. On the flip side, sometimes firms in special situations (spinoffs or those emerging from bankruptcy) will have little analyst coverage and odd numbers but still be fundamentally great bargains. The fact that they need to find two or three new ideas, rather than thirty or sixty, allows them to look more carefully and think more broadly. That turns out to be profitable.

Bottom Line: this is not an all-offense all the time fund, a stance paradoxically taken by some of its long-short peers.  Neither is it a timid little “let’s short an ETF or two and hope” offering.”  It has a clear value discipline and even clearer risk controls.  For a conservative equity investor like me, that’s been a compelling combination.

Folks unable to make the call but interested in it can download or listen to the .mp3 of the call, which will open in a separate window.

As with all of these funds, we have a featured funds page for ARLSX which provides a permanent home for the mp3 and highlights, and pulls together all of the best resources we have for the fund.

Would An Additional Heads Up Help?

Over 220 readers have signed up for a conference call mailing list. About a week ahead of each call, I write to everyone on the list to remind them of what might make the call special and how to register. If you’d like to be added to the conference call list, just drop me a line.

Conference Call Upcoming:  Joshua B. Parker and Alan Salzbank, RiverPark / Gargoyle Hedged Value

Josh Parker and Alan Salzbank, Co-Portfolio Managers of the RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund (RGHVX) and Morty Schaja, RiverPark’s CEO; are pleased to join us for a conference call scheduled for Wednesday, February 12 from 7:00 – 8:00 PM Eastern. We profiled the fund in June 2013, but haven’t spoken with the managers before.  

Why speak with them now?  Three reasons.  First, you really need to have a strategy in place for hedging the substantial gains booked by the stock market since its March 2009 low. There are three broad strategies for doing that: an absolute value strategy which will hold cash rather than overpriced equities, a long-short equity strategy and an options-based strategy. Since you’ve had a chance to hear from folks representing the first two, it seems wise to give you access to the third. Second, RiverPark has gotten it consistently right when it comes to both managers and strategies. I respect their ability and their record in bringing interesting strategies to “the mass affluent” (and me). Finally, RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund ranks as a top performing fund within the Morningstar Long/Short category since its inception 14 years ago. The Fund underwent a conversion from its former partnership hedge fund structure in April 2012 and is managed using the same approach by the same investment team, but now offers daily liquidity, low  minimums and a substantially lower fee structure for shareholders.

I asked Alan what he’d like folks to know ahead of the call. Here’s what he shared:

Alan and Josh have spent the last twenty-five years as traders and managers of options-based investment strategies beginning their careers as market makers on the option floor in the 1980’s. The Gargoyle strategy involves using a disciplined quantitative approach to find and purchase what they believe to be undervalued stocks. They have a unique approach to managing volatility through the sale of relatively overpriced index call options to hedge the portfolio. Their strategy is similar to traditional buy/write option strategies that offer reduced volatility and some downside protection, but gains an advantage by selling index rather single stock options. This allows them to benefit from both the systemic overpricing of index options while not sacrificing the alpha they hope to realize on their bottom-up stock picking, 

The Fund targets a 50% net market exposure and manages the option portfolio such that market exposure stays within the range of 35% to 65%. Notably, using this conservative approach, the Fund has still managed to outperform the S&P 500 over the last five years. Josh and Alan believe that over the long term shareholders can continue to realize returns greater than the market with less risk. Gargoyle’s website features an eight minute video “The Options Advantage” describing the investment process and the key differences between their strategy and a typical single stock buy-write (click here to watch video).

That call is scheduled for Wednesday, February 12, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern. We’ll provide additional details in our February issue.  

HOW CAN YOU JOIN IN?

If you’d like to join in, just click on register and you’ll be taken to the Chorus Call site. In exchange for your name and email, you’ll receive a toll-free number, a PIN and instructions on joining the call. If you register, I’ll send you a reminder email on the morning of the call.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details.

Funds in registration this month are eligible to launch in late March or early April 2014, and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

This month David Welsch celebrated a newly-earned degree from SUNY-Sullivan and still tracked down 18 no-load retail funds in registration, which represents our core interest.

Four sets of filings caught our attention. First, DoubleLine is launching two new and slightly edgy funds (the “wherever I want to go” Flexible Income Fund managed by Mr. Gundlach and an emerging markets short-term bond fund). Second, three focused value funds from Pzena, a well-respected institutional manager. Third, Scout Equity Opportunity Fund which will be managed by Brent Olson, a former Aquila Three Peaks Opportunity Growth Fund (ATGAX) manager. While I can’t prove a cause-and-effect relationship, ATGAX vastly underperformed its mid-cap growth peers for the decade prior to Mr. Olson’s arrival and substantially outperformed them during his tenure. 

Finally, Victory Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund will join the small pool of EM small cap funds. I’d normally be a bit less interested, but their EM small cap separate accounts have substantially outperformed their benchmark with relatively low volatility over the past five years. The initial expense ratio will be 1.50% and the minimum initial investment is $2500, reduced to $1000 for IRAs.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 39 sets of fund manager changes. The most intriguing of those include what appears to be the surprising outflow of managers from T. Rowe Price, Alpine’s decision to replace its lead managers with an outsider and entirely rechristen one of their funds, and Bill McVail’s departure after 15 years at Turner Small Cap Growth.

Updates

We noted a couple months ago that DundeeWealth was looking to exit the U.S. fund market and sell their funds. Through legal maneuvers too complicated for me to follow, the very solid Dynamic U.S. Growth Fund (Class II, DWUHX) has undergone the necessary reorganization and will continue to function as Dynamic U.S. Growth Fund with Noah Blackstein, its founding manager, still at the helm. 

Briefly Noted . . .

Effective March 31 2014, Alpine Innovators Fund (ADIAX) transforms into Alpine Small Cap Fund.  Following the move, it will be repositioned as a domestic small cap core fund, with up to 30% international.  Both of Innovator’s managers, the Liebers, are being replaced by Michael T. Smith, long-time manager of Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend Fund (LSBAX).  Smith’s fund had a very weak record over its last five years and was merged out of existence in July, 2013; Smith left Lord Abbett in February of that year.

Effective April 1, 2014, the principal investment strategy of the Green Century Equity Fund (GCEQX) will be revised to change the index tracked by the Fund, so as to exclude the stocks of companies that explore for, process, refine or distribute coal, oil or gas. 

The Oppenheimer Steelpath funds have decided to resort to English. It’s kinda refreshing. The funds’ current investment Objectives read like this:

The investment objective of Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP Alpha Fund (the “Fund” or “Alpha Fund”) is to provide investors with a concentrated portfolio of energy infrastructure Master Limited Partnerships (“MLPs”) which the Advisor believes will provide substantial long-term capital appreciation through distribution growth and an attractive level of current income.

As of February 28, it becomes:

The Fund seeks total return.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

The Board of Trustees of the Fund has approved an increase in the Congressional Effect Fund’s (CEFFX) expense cap from 1.50% to 3.00%. Since I think their core strategy – “go to cash whenever Congress is in session” – is not sensible, a suspicion supported by their 0.95% annual returns over the past five years, becoming less attractive to investors is probably a net good.

Driehaus Mutual Funds’ Board approved reductions in the management fees for the Driehaus International Discovery Fund (DRIDX) and the Driehaus Global Growth Fund (DRGGX) which became effective January 1, 2014.  At base, it’s a 10-15 bps drop. 

Effective February 3, 2014, Virtus Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund (HEMZX) will be open to new investors. Low risk, above average returns but over $7 billion in the portfolio. Technically that’s capped at “two cheers.”

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Effective February 14, 2014, American Beacon Stephens Small Cap Growth Fund (STSGX) will act to limit inflows by stopping new retirement and benefit plans from opening accounts with the fund.

Artisan Global Value Fund (ARTGX) will soft-close on February 14, 2014.  Its managers were just recognized as Morningstar’s international-stock fund managers of the year for 2013. We’ve written about the fund four times since 2008, each time ending with the same note: “there are few better offerings in the global fund realm.”

As of the close of business on January 28, 2014, the GL Macro Performance Fund (GLMPX) will close to new investments. They don’t say that the fund is going to disappear, but that’s the clear implication of closing an underperforming, $5 million fund even to folks with automatic investment plans.

Effective January 31, the Wasatch International Growth Fund (WAIGX) closed to new investors.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective February 1, 2014, the name of the CMG Tactical Equity Strategy Fund (SCOTX) will be changed to CMG Tactical Futures Strategy Fund.

Effective March 3, 2014, the name of the Mariner Hyman Beck Portfolio (MHBAX) has been changed to Mariner Managed Futures Strategy Portfolio.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

On January 24, 2014, the Board of Trustees approved the closing and subsequent liquidation of the Fusion Fund (AFFSX, AFFAX).

ING will ask shareholders in June 2014 to approve the merger of five externally sub-advised funds into three ING funds.   

The Board of Trustees of iShares voted to close and liquidate ten international sector ETFs, effective March 26, 2014.  The decedents are:  

• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Consumer Discretionary ETF (AXDI)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Consumer Staples ETF (AXSL)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Energy ETF (AXEN)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Financials ETF (AXFN)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Healthcare ETF (AXHE)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Industrials ETF (AXID)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Information Technology ETF (AXIT)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Materials ETF (AXMT)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Telecommunication Services ETF (AXTE) and
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Utilities ETF (AXUT)

The Nomura Funds board has authorized the liquidation of their three funds:

• Nomura Asia Pacific ex Japan Fund (NPAAX)
• Nomura Global Emerging Markets Fund (NPEAX)
• Nomura Global Equity Income Fund (NPWAX)

The liquidations will occur on or about March 19, 2014.

On January 30, 2014, the shareholders of the Quaker Akros Absolute Return Fund (AARFX) approved the liquidation of the Fund which has banked five-year returns of (0.13%) annually. 

The Vanguard Growth Equity Fund (VGEQX)is to be reorganized into the Vanguard U.S. Growth Fund (VWUSX) on or about February 21, 2014. The Trustees helpfully note: “The reorganization does not require shareholder approval, and you are not being asked to vote.”

Virtus Greater Asia ex Japan Opportunities Fund (VGAAX) is closing on February 21, 2014, and will be liquidated shortly thereafter.  Old story: decent but not stellar returns, no assets.

In Closing . . .

Thanks a hundred times over for your continued support of the Observer, whether through direct contributions or using our Amazon link.  I’m a little concerned about Amazon’s squishy financial results and the risk that they’re going to go looking for ways to pinch pennies. Your continued use of that program provides us with about 80% of our monthly revenue.  Thanks, especially, to the folks at Evergreen Asset Management and Gardey Financial Advisors, who have been very generous over the years; while the money means a lot, the knowledge that we’re actually making a difference for folks means even more.

The next month will see our migration to a new, more reliable server, a long talk with the folks at Gargoyle and profiles of four intriguing small funds.  Since you make it all possible, I hope you join us for it all.

As ever,

Dear friends,

Welcome to the New Year.  At least as we calculate it.  The Year of the Horse begins January 31, a date the Vietnamese share.  The Iranians, like the ancient Romans, sensibly celebrate the New Year at the beginning of spring.  A bunch of cultures in South Asia pick mid-April. Rosh Hashanah (“head of the year”) rolls around in September.  My Celtic ancestors (and a bunch of modern Druidic wannabees) preferred Samhain, at the start of November.

Whatever your culture, the New Year is bittersweet.  We seem obsessed with looking back in regret at all the stuff we didn’t do, as much as we look forward to all of the stuff we might yet do.

My suggestion: can the regrets, get off yer butt, and do the stuff now that you know you need to do.  One small start: get rid of that mutual fund.  You know the one.  You’ve been regretting it for years.  You keep thinking “maybe I’ll wait to let it come back a bit.”  The one that you tend to forget to mention whenever you talk about investments.

Good gravy.  Dump it!  It takes about 30 seconds on the phone and no one is going to hassle you about it; it’s not like the manager is going to grab the line and begin pleading for a bit more time.  Pick up a lower cost replacement.  Maybe look into a nice ETF or index fund. Track down a really good fund whose manager is willing to put his own fortune and honor at risk along with yours.

You’ll feel a lot better once you do.

We can talk about your gym membership later.

Voices from the bottom of the well

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

Thos. Paine, The Crisis, 23 December 1776

Investors highly value managers who are principled, decisive, independent, active and contrarian.  Right up to the moment that they have one. 

Then they’re appalled.

There are two honorable approaches to investing: relative value and absolute value.  Relative value investors tend to buy the best-priced securities available, even if the price quoted isn’t very good.  They tend to remain fully invested even when the market is pricey and have, as their mantra, “there’s always a bull market in something.”  They’re optimistic by nature, enjoy fruity wines and rarely wear bowties.

Absolute value investors tend to buy equities only when they’re selling for cheap.  Schooled in the works of Graham and Dodd, they’re adamant about having “a margin of safety” when investing in an inherently risk asset class like stocks.  They tend to calculate the fair value of a company and they tend to use cautious assumptions in making those calculations.  They tend to look for investments selling at a 30% discount to fair value, or to firms likely to produce 10% internal returns of return even if things turn ugly.  They’re often found sniffing around the piles that trendier investors have fled.  And when they find no compelling values, they raise cash.  Sometimes lots of cash, sometimes for quite a while.  Their mantra is, “it’s not ‘different this time’.”  They’re slightly-mournful by nature, contemplate Scotch, and rather enjoyed Andy Rooney’s commentaries on “60 Minutes.”

If you’re looking for a shortcut to finding absolute value investors today, it’s a safe bet you’ll find them atop the “%age portfolio cash” list.  And at the bottom of the “YTD relative return” list.  They are, in short, the guys you’re now railing against.

But should you be?

I spent a chunk of December talking with guys who’ve managed five-star funds and who were loved by the crowds but who are now suspected of having doubled-up on their intake of Stupid Pills.  They are, on whole, stoic. 

Take-aways from those conversations:

1. They hate cash.  As a matter of fact, it’s second on their most-hated list behind only “risking permanent impairment of capital”.
2. They’re not perma-bears. They love owning stocks. These are, by and large, guys who sat around reading The Intelligent Investor during recess and get tingly at the thought of visiting Omaha. But they love them for the prospect of the substantial, compounded returns they might generate.  The price of those outsized returns, though, is waiting for one of the market’s periodic mad sales.
3. They bought stocks like mad in early 2009, around the time that the rest of us were becoming nauseated at the thought of opening our 401(k) statements. Richard Cook and Dowe Bynum, for example, were at 2% cash in March 2009.  Eric Cinnamond was, likewise, fully invested then.
4. They’ve been through this before though, as Mr. Cinnamond notes, “it isn’t very fun.”  The market moves in multi-year cycles, generally five years long more or less. While each cycle is different in composition, they all have similar features: the macro environment turns accommodative, stocks rise, the fearful finally rush in, stocks overshoot fair value by a lot, there’s an “oops” and a mass exit for the door.  Typically, the folks who arrived late inherit the bulk of the pain.
5. And they know you’re disgusted with them. Mr. Cinnamond, whose fund has compounded at 12% annually for the past 15 years, allows “we get those long-term returns by looking very stupid.”  Richard Cook agrees, “we’re going to look silly, sometimes for three to five years at a stretch.”  Zac Wydra admits that he sometimes looks at himself in the mirror and asks “how can you be so stupid?”

And to those investors who declare, “but the market is reasonably priced,” they reply: “we don’t buy ‘the market.’  We buy stocks.  Find the individual stocks that meet the criteria that you hired us to apply, and we’ll buy them.”

What do they think you should do now?  In general, be patient.  Mr. Cook points to Charlie Munger’s observation:

I think the [Berkshire Hathaway’s] record shows the advantage of a peculiar mind-set – not seeking action for its own sake, but instead combining extreme patience with extreme decisiveness. It takes character to sit there with all that cash and do nothing. I didn’t get to where I am by going after mediocre opportunities.

Which is hard.  Several of the guys pointed to Seth Klarman’s decision to return $4 billion in capital to his hedge fund investors this month. Klarman made the decision in principle back in September, arguing that if there were no compelling investment opportunities, he’d start mailing out checks.  Two things are worth noting about Klarman: (1) his hedge funds have posted returns in the high teens for over 30 years and (2) he’s willing to sit at 33-50% cash for a long time if that’s what it takes to generate big long-term returns.

Few managers have Klarman’s record or ability to wait out markets.  Mr. Cinnamond noted, “there aren’t many fund managers with a long track record doing this because you’re so apt to get fired.”  Jeremy Grantham of GMO nods, declaring that “career risk” is often a greater driver of a manager’s decisions than market risk is.

In general, the absolute value guys suggest you think differently about their funds than you think about fully-invested relative value ones.  Cook and Bynum’s institutional partners think of them as “alternative asset managers,” rather than equity guys and they regard value-leaning hedge funds as their natural peer group.  John Deysher, manager of Pinnacle Value (PVFIX), recommends considering “cash-adjusted returns” as a viable measure, though Mr. Cinnamond disagrees since a manager investing in unpopular, undervalued sectors in a momentum driven market is still going to look inept.

Our bottom line: investors need to take a lot more responsibility if they’re going to thrive.  That means we’ve got to look beyond simple return numbers and ask, instead, about what decisions led to those returns.  That means actually reading your managers’ commentaries, contacting the fund reps with specific questions (if your questions are thoughtful rather more than knee-jerk, you’d be surprised at the quality of answers you receive) and asking the all-important question, “is my manager doing precisely what I hired him to do: to be stubbornly independent, fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful?” 

Alternately: buy a suite of broadly diversified, low-cost index funds.  There are several really solid funds-of-index-funds that give you broad exposure to market risk with no exposure to manager risk.  The only thing that you need to avoid at all costs is the herd: do not pay active management prices for the services of managers whose only goal is to be no different than every other timid soul out there.

The Absolute Value Guys

* FPACX’s “moderate allocation” competitors were caught holding bonds this year, dumber even than holding cash.

Don’t worry, relative value guys.  Morningstar’s got your back.

Earnings at S&P500 companies grew by 11% in 2013, through late December, and they paid out a couple percent in dividends.  Arguably, then, stocks are worth about 13% more than they were in January.  Unfortunately, the prices paid for those stocks rose by more than twice that amount.  Stocks rose by 32.4% in 2013, with the Dow setting 50 all-time record highs in the process. One might imagine that if prices started at around fair value and then rose 2.5 times as much as earnings did, valuations would be getting stretched.  Perhaps overvalued by 19% (simple subtraction of the earnings + dividend rise from the price + dividend rise)?

Not to worry, Morningstar’s got you covered.  By their estimation, valuations are up only 5% on the year – from fully valued in January to 5% high at year’s end.  They concluded that it’s certainly not time to reconsider your mad rush into US equities.  (Our outlook for the stock market, 12/27/2013.) While the author, Matthew Coffina, did approvingly quote Warren Buffett on market timing:

Charlie and I believe it’s a terrible mistake to try to dance in and out of it based upon the turn of tarot cards, the predictions of “experts,” or the ebb and flow of business activity. The risks of being out of the game are huge compared to the risks of being in it.

He didn’t, however, invoke what Warren Buffett terms “the three most important words in all of investing,” margin of safety.  Because you can’t be sure of a firm’s exact value, you always need to pay less than you think it’s worth – ideally 30 or 40% less – in order to protect your investors against your own fallible judgment. 

Quo Vadis Japan

I go out of the darkness

Onto a road of darkness

Lit only by the far off

Moon on the edge of the mountains.

Izumi

One of the benefits of having had multiple careers and a plethora of interests is that friends and associates always stand ready with suggestions for you to occupy your time. In January of 2012, a former colleague and good friend from my days with the Navy’s long-range strategic planning group suggested that I might find it interesting to attend the Second China Defense and Security Conference at the Jamestown Foundation. That is how I found myself seated in a conference room in February with roughly a hundred other people. My fellow attendees were primarily from the various alphabet soup governmental agencies and mid-level military officers. 

The morning’s presentations might best be summed up as grudging praise about the transformation of the Chinese military, especially their navy, from a regional force to one increasingly able to project power throughout Asia and beyond to carry out China’s national interests. When I finally could not stand it any longer, after a presentation during Q&A, I stuck my hand up and asked why there was absolutely no mention of the 600 pound gorilla in the corner of the room, namely Japan and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force. The JMSDF was and is either the second or third largest navy in the world. It is considered by many professional observers to be extraordinarily capable. The silence that greeted my question was akin to what one would observe if I had brought in a dog that had peed on the floor. The moderator muttered a few comments about the JMSDF having fine capabilities. We then went on with no mention of Japan again. At that point I realized I had just learned the most important thing that I was going to take from the conference, that Japan (and its military) had become the invisible country of Asia. 

The New Year is when as an investor you reflect back on successes and mistakes. And if one is especially introspective, one can ponder why. For most of 2013, I was banging the drum on two investment themes that made sense to me:  (a) the Japanese equity market and (b) the Japanese currency – the yen – hedged back into U.S. dollars. The broad Japanese market touched highs this month not seen before this century. The dollar – yen exchange rate moved from 89.5 at the beginning of the year to 105.5. In tandem, the themes have proven to be quite profitable. Had an investment been made solely in the Wisdom Tree: Japan Hedged Equity ETF, a total return of 41.8% would have been achieved by the U.S. dollar investor. So, is this another false start for both the Japanese stock market and economy? Or is Japan on the cusp of an economic and political transformation?   

When I mention to institutional investors that I think the change in Japan is real, the most common response I get is a concern about “Abenomics.” This is usually expressed as “They are printing an awful lot of money.”  Give me a break.  Ben Bernanke and his little band of merry Fed governors have effectively been printing money with their various QE efforts. Who thinks that money will be repaid or the devaluation of the U.S. dollar will be reversed?  The same can be said of the EU central bankers.  If anything, the U.S. has been pursuing a policy of beggar thy creditor, since much of our debt is owed to others.  At least in Japan, they owe the money to themselves. They have also gone through years of deflation without the social order and fabric of society breaking down. One wonders how the U.S. would fare in a similar long-term deflationary environment. 

I think the more important distinction is to emphasize what “Abenomics” is not.  It is not a one-off program of purchasing government bonds with a view towards going from a multi-year deflationary spiral to generating a few points of inflation.  It is a comprehensive program aimed at reversing Japan’s economic, political, and strategic slide of the past twenty years. Subsumed under the rubric of “Abenomics” are efforts to increase and widen the acceptance of child care facilities to enable more of Japan’s female talent pool to actively participate in the workforce, a shift in policy for the investments permitted in pension funds to dramatically increase domestic equity exposure, and incentives to transform the Japanese universities into research and resource engines. Similarly, the Japanese economy is beginning to open from a closed economy to one of free trade, especially in agriculture, as Japan has joined the Trans Pacific Partnership. Finally, public opinion has shifted dramatically to a willingness to contemplate revision of Japan’s American-drafted post-war Constitution. This would permit a standing military and a more active military posture. It would normalize Japan as a global nation, and restore a balance of interests and power in East Asia. The ultimate goal then is to restore the self-confidence of the Japanese nation.  So, what awakened Japan and the Japanese?

Strangely enough, the Chinese did it. I have been in Japan four times in the last twenty-two months, which does not make me an expert on anything. But it has allowed me to discern a shift in the mood of the country. Long-time Japan hands had told me that when public opinion in Japan shifts, it shifts all at once and moves together in the same direction. Several months ago, I asked a friend and investment manager who is a long-time resident of Tokyo what had caused that shift in opinion. His response was that most individuals, he as well, traced it to the arrest and detention by the Japanese Coast Guard, of a Chinese fishing vessel and its captain who had strayed into Japanese waters. China responded aggressively, embargoing rare earth materials that the Japanese electronics and automobile industries needed, and made other public bellicose noises. Riots and torching of Japanese plants in China followed, with what seemed to be the tacit approval of the Chinese government. Japan released the ship and its captain, and in Asian parlance, lost face. As my friend explained it, the Japanese public came to the conclusion that the Chinese government was composed of bad people whose behavior was unacceptable. Concurrently, Japan Inc. began to relocate its overseas investment away from China and into countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore.

From an investment point of view, what does it all mean? First, one should not look at Prime Minister Abe, Act II (remember that he was briefly in office for 12 months in 2006-2007) in a vacuum. Like Reagan and Churchill, he used his time in the “wilderness years” to rethink what he wanted to achieve for Japan and how he would set about doing it. Second, one of the things one learns about Japan and the Japanese is that they believe in their country and generally trust their government, and are prepared to invest in Japan. This is in stark contrast to China, where if the rumors of capital flows are to be believed, vast sums of money are flowing out of the country through Hong Kong and Singapore. So, after the above events involving China, Abe’s timing in return to office was timely. 

While Japanese equities have surged this year, that surge has been primarily in the large cap liquid issues that are easily studied and invested in by global firms. Most U.S. firms follow the fly-by approach. Go to Tokyo for a week of company meetings, and invest accordingly. Few firms make the commitment of having resources on the ground. That is why if you look at most U.S.-based Japan specialist mutual funds, they all own pretty much the same large cap liquid names, with only the percentages and sector weightings varying. There are tiers of small and mid-cap companies that are under-researched and under-invested in.  If this is the beginning of a secular bull market, as we saw start in the U.S. in 1982, Japan will just be at the beginnings of eliminating the value gap between intrinsic value and the market price of securities, especially in the more inefficiently-traded and under-researched companies. 

So, as Lenin once famously asked, “What is to be done?”  For most individuals, individual stock investments are out of the question, given the currency, custody, language, trading, and tax issues. For exposure to the asset class, there is a lot to be said for a passive approach through an index fund or exchange-traded fund, of which there are a number with relatively low expense ratios. Finally, there are the fifteen or so Japan-only mutual funds. I am only aware of three that are small-cap vehicles – DFA, Fidelity, and Hennessy. There are also two actively-managed closed end funds. I will look to others to put together performance numbers and information that will allow you to research the area and draw your own conclusions.  

Finally, it should be obvious that Japan does not lend itself to simple explanations. As Americans, we are often in a time-warp, thinking that with the atomic bombs, American Occupation and force-fed Constitution, we successfully transformed Japan into a pacifist democratically-styled Asian theme park.  My conclusion is rather that what you see in Japan is not reality (whatever that is) but what they are comfortable with you seeing. I think for instance of the cultural differences with China in a business sense.  With the Chinese businessman, a signed contract is in effect the beginning of the negotiation.  For the Japanese businessman, a signed contract is a commitment to be honored to the letter.

I will leave you with one thing to ponder shared with me by a Japanese friend. She told me that the samurai have been gone for a long time in Japan. But, everyone in Japan still knows who the samurai families are and everyone knows who is of those families and who is not. And she said, everyone from those families still tends to marry into other samurai families.  So I thought, perhaps they are not gone after all.  

Edward Studzinski

From Day One …

… the Observer’s readers were anxious to have us publish lists of Great Funds, as FundAlarm did with its Honor Roll funds.  For a long time I demurred because I was afraid folks would take such a list too seriously.  That is, rather than viewing it as a collection of historical observations, they’d see it as a shopping list. 

After two years and unrelenting inquires, I prevailed upon my colleague Charles to look at whether we could produce a list of funds that had great track records but, at the same time, highlight the often-hidden data concerning those funds’ risks.  With that request and Charles’s initiative, the Great Owl Funds were launched.

And now Charles returns to that troubling original question: what can we actually learn about the future from a fund’s past?

In Search of Persistence

It outperformed nearly 3/4ths of the time, while it under-performed only 5%. NAINX essentially equaled or beat its peers 194 out of 205 periods. Encouraged, the investor purchases the fund making a long-term commitment to buy-and-hold.

It’s now 2013, twenty years later. How has NAINX performed? To the investor’s horror, Virtus Tactical Allocation underperformed 3/4ths of the time since purchased! And the fund that outperformed most persistently? Mairs & Power Balanced (MAPOX), of course.

Back to 1993. This time a more aggressive investor applies the same methodology to the large growth category and finds an extraordinary fund, named Fidelity Magellan (FMAGX).  This fund outperformed nearly 100% of the time across 205 rolling 3-year periods over 20 years versus 31 other long-time peers. But during the next 20 years…? Not well, unfortunately. This investor would have done better choosing Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX). How can this be? Most industry experts would attribute the colossal shift in FMAGX performance to the resignation of legendary fund manager Peter Lynch in 1990.

MJG, one of the heavy contributors to MFO’s discussion board, posts regularly about the difficulty of staying on top of one’s peer group, often citing results from Standard & Poor’s Index Versus Active Indexing (SPIVA) reports. Here is the top lesson-learned from ten years of these reports:

“Over a five-year horizon…a majority of active funds in most categories fail to outperform indexes. If an investing horizon is five years or longer, a passive approach may be preferable.”

The December 2013 SPIVA “Persistence Scorecard” has just been published, which Joshua Brown writes insightfully about in “Persistence is a Killer.” The scorecard once again shows that only a small fraction of top performing domestic equity mutual funds remain on top across any 2, 3, or 5 year period.

What does mutual fund non-persistence look like across 40 years? Here’s one depiction:

The image (or “mural”) represents monthly rank by color-coded quintiles of risk-adjusted returns, specifically Martin Ratio, for 101 funds across five categories. The funds have existed for 40 years through September 2013. The calculations use total monthly returns of oldest share class only, ignoring any load, survivor bias, and category drift.  Within each category, the funds are listed alphabetically.

There are no long blue/green horizontal streaks. If anything, there seem to be more extended orange/red streaks, suggesting that if mutual fund persistence does exist, it’s in the wrong quintiles! (SPIVA actually finds similar result and such bottom funds tend to end-up merged or liquated.)

Looking across the 40 years of 3-year rolling risk-adjusted returns, some observations:

• 98% of funds spent some periods in every rank level…top, bottom, and all in-between
• 35% landed in the bottom two quintiles most of the time…that’s more than 1/3^rd of all funds
• 13% were in the top two bottom quintiles…apparently harder to be persistently good than bad
• Sequoia (SEQUX) was the most persistent top performer…one of greatest mutual funds ever
• Wall Street (WALLX) was the most persistent cellar dweller…how can it still exist?

The difference in overall return between the most persistent winner and loser is breathtaking: SEQUX delivered 5.5 times more than SP500 and 16 times more than WALLX. Put another way, $10K invested in SEQUX in October 1973 is worth nearly $3M today. Here’s how the comparison looks:

So, while attaining persistence may be elusive, the motivation to achieve it is clear and present.

The implication of a lack of persistence strikes at the core of all fund rating methodologies that investors try to use to predict future returns, at least those based only on historical returns. It is, of course, why Kiplinger, Money, and Morningstar all try to incorporate additional factors, like shareholder friendliness, experience, and strategy, when compiling their Best Funds lists. An attempt, as Morningstar well states, to identify “funds with the highest potential of success.”

The MFO rating system was introduced in June 2013. The current 20-year Great Owls, shown below for moderate allocation and large growth categories, include funds that have achieved top performance rank over the past 20, 10, 5, and 3 year evaluation periods. (See Rating Definitions.)

But will they be Great Owls next year? The system is strictly quantitative based on past returns, which means, alas, a gentle and all too ubiquitous reminder that past performance is not a guarantee of future results. (More qualitative assessments of fund strategy, stewardship, and promise are provided monthly in David’s fund profiles.) In any case and in the spirit of SPIVA, we will plan to publish periodically a Great Owl “Persistence Scorecard.”

31Dec2013/Charles

It’s not exciting just because the marketers say it is

Most mutual funds don’t really have any investment reason to exist: they’re mostly asset gathering tools that some advisor created in support of its business model. Even the funds that do have a compelling case to make often have trouble receiving a fair hearing, so I’m sympathetic to the need to find new angles and new pitches to try to get journalists’ and investors’ attention.

But the fact that a marketer announces it doesn’t mean that journalists need to validate it through repetition. And it doesn’t mean that you should just take in what we’ve written.

Case in point: BlackRock Emerging Markets Long/Short Fund (BLSAX).  Here’s the combination of reasonable and silly statements offered in a BlackRock article justifying long/short investing:

For example, our access to information relies on cutting edge infrastructure to compile vast amounts of obvious and less-obvious sources of publicly available information. In fact, we consume a massive amount of data from more than 25 countries, with a storage capacity 4 times the Library of Congress and 8 times the size of Wikipedia. We take that vast quantity of publicly available information and filter and identify relevant pieces.

Reasonable statement: we do lots of research.  Silly statement: we have a really big hard drive on our computer (“a storage capacity of…”).  Why on earth would we care?  And what on earth does it mean?  “4 times the Library of Congress”?  The LoC digital collection – a small fraction of its total collection – holds three petabytes of data, a statement that folks immediately recognize as nonsensical.  3,000,000 gigabytes.  So the BlackRock team has a 12 petabyte hard drive?  12 petabytes of data?  How’s it used?  How much is reliable, consistent, contradictory or outdated?  How much value do you get from data so vast that you’ll never comprehend it?

NSA’s biggest “data farm” consumes 65 megawatts of power, has melted down 10 times, and – by the fed’s own reckoning – still hasn’t produced demonstrable security gains.  Data ≠ knowledge.

The Google, by the way, processes 20 petabytes of user-generated content per day.

Nonetheless, Investment News promptly and uncritically gloms onto the factoid, and then gets it twice wrong:

The Scientific Active Equity team takes quantitative investing to a whole new level. In fact, the team has amassed so much data on publicly traded companies that its database is now four times the size of Wikipedia and eight times the size of the Library of Congress (Jason Kephart, Beyond black box investing: Fund uses database four times the size of Wikipedia, 12/26/13).

Error 1: reversing the LoC and the Wikipedia.  Error 2: conflating “storage capacity” with “data.” (And, of course, confusing “pile o’ data” with “something meaningful.”)

MFWire promptly grabs the bullhorn to share the errors and the credulity:

This Fund Uses the Data of Eight Libraries of Congress (12/26/13, Boxing Day for our British friends)

The team managing the fund uses gigantic amounts of data — four times the size of Wikipedia and eight times the size of the Library of Congress — on public company earnings, analyst calls, news releases, what have you, to gain on insights into different stocks, according to Kephart.

Our second, perhaps larger, point of disagreement with Jason (who, in fairness, generally does exceptionally solid work) comes in his enthusiasm for one particular statistic:

That brings us to perhaps the fund’s most impressive stat, and the one advisers really need to keep their eyes on: its correlation to global equities.

Based on weekly returns through the third quarter, the most recent data available, the fund has a correlation of just 0.38 to the MSCI World Index and a correlation of 0.36 to the S&P 500. Correlations lower than 0.5 lead to better diversification and can lead to better risk-adjusted returns for the entire portfolio.

Uhhh.  No?

Why, exactly, is correlation The Golden Number?  And why is BlackRock’s correlation enough to make you tingle?  The BlackRock fund has been around just one year, so we don’t know its long-term correlation.  In December, it had a net market exposure of just 9% which actually makes a .36 correlation seem oddly high. BlackRock’s correlation is not distinctively low (Whitebox Long/Short WBLSX has a three-year correlation of 0.33, for instance). 

Nor is low correlation the hallmark of the best long-term funds in the group.  By almost any measure, the best long/short fund in existence is the closed Robeco Boston Partners L/S Equity Fund (BPLEX).  BPLEX is a five-star fund, a Lipper Leader, a Great Owl fund, with returns in the top 4% of its peer group over the past decade. And its long term correlation to the market: 75.  Wasatch Long/Short (FMLSX), another great fund with a long track record: 90. Marketfield (MFLDX), four-star, Great Owl: 67.

The case for BlackRock EM L/S is it’s open. It’s got a good record, though a short one.  In comparison to other, more-established funds, it substantially trails Long-Short Opportunity (LSOFX) since inception, is comparable to ASTON River Road (ARLSX) and Wasatch Long Short (FMLSX), while it leads Whitebox Long-Short (WBLSX), Robeco Boston Partners (BPLEX) and RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity (RLSFX). The fund has nearly $400 million in assets after one year and charges 2% expenses plus a 5.25% front load.  That’s more than ARLSX, WBLSX or FMLSX, though cheaper than LSOFX. 

Bottom Line: as writers, we need to guard against the pressures created by deadlines and the desire for “clicks.”  As readers, you need to realize we have good days and bad and you need to keep asking the questions we should be asking: what’s the context of this number?  What does it mean?  Why am I being given it? How does it compare?  And, as investors, we all need to remember that magic is more common in the world of Harry Potter than in the world we’re stuck with.

Wells Fargo and the Roll Call of the Wretched

Our Annual Roll Call of the Wretched highlights those funds which consistently, over a period of many years, trail their benchmark.  We noted that inclusion on the list signaled one of two problems:

• Bad fund or
• Bad benchmark.

The former problem is obvious.  The latter takes a word of explanation.  There are 7055 distinct mutual funds, each claiming – more or less legitimately – to be different from all of the others.   For the purpose of comparison, Morningstar and Lipper assign them to one of 108 categories.  Some funds fit easily and well, others are laughably misfit.  One example is RiverPark Short-Term High Yield Fund (RPHYX), which is a splendid cash management fund whose performance is being compared to the High-Yield group which is dominated by longer-duration bonds that carry equity-like risks and returns.

You get a sense of the mismatch – and of the reason that RPHYX was assigned one-star – when you compare the movements of the fund to the high-yield group.

That same problem afflicts Wells Fargo Advantage Short-Term High Yield Bond (SSTHX), an entirely admirable fund that returns around 4% per year over the long term in a category that delivers 50% greater returns with 150% greater volatility.  In Morningstar’s eyes, one star.

Joel Talish, one of the managing directors at Wells Fargo Advisors, raised the entirely reasonable objection that SSTHX isn’t wretched – it’s misclassified – and it shouldn’t be in the Roll Call at all. He might well be right. Our strategy has been to report all of the funds that pass the statistical screen, then to highlight those whose performance is better than the peer data suggest.  We don’t tend to remove funds from the list just because we believe that the ratings agencies are wrong. We’ve made that decision consciously: investors need to read these ubiquitous statistical screens more closely and more skeptically.  A pattern of results arises from a series of actions, and they’re meaningful only if you take the time to understand what’s going on. By highlighting solid funds that look bad because of a rater’s unexplained assignments, we’re trying to help folks learn how to look past the stars.

It might well be the case that highlighting and explaining SSTHX’s consistently one-star performance did a substantial disservice to the management team. It was a judgment call on our part and we’ll revisit it as we prepare future features.  For now, we’re hopeful that the point we highlighted at the start of the list: 

Use lists like the Roll Call of the Wretched or the Three Alarm Funds as a first step, not a final answer.  If you see a fund of yours on either list, find out why.  Call the adviser, read the prospectus, try the manager’s letter, post a question on our board.  There might be a perfectly good reason for their performance, there might be a perfectly awful one.  In either case, you need to know.

Observer Fund Profile

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of notable funds that you’d otherwise not hear of.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds.  “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve. 

RiverPark Strategic Income (RSIVX): RSIVX sits at the core of Cohanzick’s competence, a conservative yet opportunistic strategy that they’ve pursued for two decades and that offers the prospect of doubling the returns of its very fine Short-Term High Yield Fund.

Elevator Talk: Oliver Pursche, GMG Defensive Beta Fund (MPDAX)

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you. That’s about the number of words a slightly-manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half. In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site. Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share. These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more. 

The traditional approach to buffering the stock market’s volatility without entirely surrendering the prospect of adequate returns was to divide the portfolio between (domestic, large cap) stocks and (domestic, investment grade) bonds, at a ratio of roughly 60/40.  That strategy worked passably well as long as stocks could be counted on to produce robust returns and bonds could be counted on to post solid though smaller gains without fail.  As the wheels began falling off that strategy, advisors began casting about for alternative strategies. 

Some, like the folks at Montebello Partners, began drawing lessons from the experience of hedge funds and institutional alternatives managers.  Their conclusion was that each asset class had one or two vital contributions to make to the health of the portfolio, but that exposure to those assets had to be actively managed if they were going to have a chance of producing equity-like (perhaps “equity-lite”) returns with substantial downside protection.

Their strategy is manifested in GMG Defensive Beta, which launched in the summer of 2009.  Its returns have generally overwhelmed those of its multi-alternative peers (top 3% over the past three years, substantially higher returns since inception) though at the cost of substantially higher volatility.  Morningstar rates it as a five-star fund, while Lipper gives it four stars for both Total Return and Consistency of Return and five stars for Capital Preservation.

Oliver Pursche is the president of Gary M Goldberg Financial Services (hence GMG) one of the four founding co-managers of MPDAX.  Here are his 218 words (on whole, durn close to target) on why you should consider a multi alternative strategy:

Markets are up, and as a result, so are the risks of a correction. I don’t think that a 2008-like crash is in the cards, but we could certainly see a 20% correction at some point. If you agree with me, protecting your hard fought gains makes all the sense in the world, which is why I believe low-volatility and multi-alternative funds like our GMG Defensive Beta Fund will continue to gain favor with investors. The problem is that most of these new funds have no, or only a short track-record, so it’s difficult to know how they will actually perform in a prolonged downturn. One thing is certain, in the absence of a longer-term track record, low fees and low turnover tend to be advantageous to investors. This is why our fund is a no-load fund and we cap our fees at 1.49%, well below most of our peers, and our cap gain distributions have been minimal.

From my perspective, if you’re looking to continue to have market exposure, but don’t want all of the risks associated with investing in the S&P 500, our fund is ideally suited. We’re strategic and tactical at the same time and have demonstrated our ability to remain disciplined, which is (I think) why Morningstar has awarded us a 5 Star ranking.

MPDAX is a no-load fund with a single share class.  The minimum initial investment is $1,000.   Expenses are 1.49% on about $27 million in assets.

The fund’s website is functional but spare.  You get the essential information, but there’s no particular wealth of insight or commentary on this strategy.  There’s a Morningstar reprint available but you should be aware that the file contains one page of data reporting and five pages of definitions and disclaimers.

Our earlier Elevator Talks were:

1. February 2013: Tom Kerr, Rocky Peak Small Cap Value (RPCSX), whose manager has a 14 year track record in small cap investing and a passion for discovering “value” in the intersection of many measures.  We’re saddened to report that Tom chose to liquidate the fund.
2. March 2013: Dale Harvey, Poplar Forest Partners (PFPFX and IPFPX), a concentrated, contrarian value stock fund that offers “a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest with a successful American Funds manager who went out on his own.”
3. April 2013: Bayard Closser, Vertical Capital Income Fund (VCAPX), “a closed-end interval fund, VCAPX invests in whole mortgage loans and first deeds of trust. We purchase the loans from lenders at a deep discount and service them ourselves.”
4. May 2013: Jim Hillary, LS Opportunity Fund (LSOFX), a co-founder of Marsico Capital Management whose worry that “the quality of research on Wall Street continues to decline and investors are becoming increasingly concerned about short-term performance” led to his faith in “in-depth research and long-term orientation in our high conviction ideas.”
5. July 2013: Casey Frazier, Versus Capital Multi-Manager Real Estate Income Fund (VCMRX), a second closed-end interval fund whose portfolio “includes real estate private equity and debt, public equity and debt, and broad exposure across asset types and geographies. We target a mix of 70% private real estate with 30% public real estate to enhance liquidity, and our objective is to produce total returns in the 7 – 9% range net of fees.”
6. August 2013: Brian Frank, Frank Value Fund (FRNKX), a truly all-cap value fund with a simple, successful discipline: if one part of the market is overpriced, shop elsewhere.
7. August 2013: Ian Mortimer and Matthew Page of Guinness Atkinson Inflation Managed Dividend (GAINX), a global equity fund that pursues firms with “sustainable and potentially rising dividends,” which also translates to firms with robust business models and consistently high return on capital.
8. September 2013: Steven Vannelli of GaveKal Knowledge Leaders (GAVAX), which looks to invest in “the best among global companies that are tapping a deep reservoir of intangible capital to generate earnings growth,” where “R&D, design, brand and channel” are markers of robust intangible capital. From launch through the end of June, 2013, the fund modestly outperformed the MSCI World Index and did so with two-thirds less volatility
9. October 2013: Bashar Qasem of Wise Capital (WISEX), which provides investors with an opportunity for global diversification in a fund category (short term bonds) mostly distinguished by bland uniformity.
10. November 2013: Jeffrey Ringdahl of American Beacon Flexible Bond (AFXAX) gives teams from Brandywine Global, GAM and PIMCO incredible leeway wth which to pursue “positive total return regardless of market conditions.” Since inception the fund has noticeably outrun its “nontraditional bond” peers with reasonable volatility.

Conference Call Highlights

On December 9^th, about 50 of us spent a rollicking hour with David Sherman of Cohanzick Asset Management, discussing his new fund: RiverPark Strategic Income Fund (RSIVX).  I’m always amazed at how excited folks can get about short-term bonds and dented credits.  It’s sort of contagious.

David’s first fund with RiverPark, the now-closed Short Term High Yield (RPHYX), was built around Cohanzick’s strategy for managing its excess cash.  Strategic Income represents their seminal, and core, strategy to fixed-income investing.  Before launching Cohanzick in 1996, David was a Vice President of Leucadia National Corporation, a holding company that might be thought of as a mini-Berkshire Hathaway. His responsibilities there included helping to manage a $3 billion investment portfolio which had an opportunistic distressed securities flair.  When he founded Cohanzick, Leucadia was his first client.  They entrusted him with $150 million, this was the strategy he used to invest it.

Rather than review the fund’s portfolio, which we cover in this month’s profile of it (below), we’ll highlight strategy and his response to listener questions.

The fund focuses on “money good” securities.  Those are securities where, if held to maturity, he’s confident that he’ll get his entire principal and all of the interest due to him.  They’re the sorts of securities where, if the issuer files for bankruptcy, he still anticipates eventually receiving his principal and interest plus interest on his interest.  Because he expects to be able to hold securities to maturity, he doesn’t care about “the taper” and its effects – he’ll simply hold on through any kerfuffle and benefit from regular payments that flow in much like an annuity stream.  These are, he says, bonds that he’d have his mother hold.

Given that David’s mother was one of the early investors in the fund, these are bonds his mother holds.  He joked that he serves as a sort of financial guarantor for her standard of living (if her portfolio doesn’t produce sufficient returns to cover her expenses, he has to reach for his checkbook), he’s very motivated to get this right.

While the fund might hold a variety of securities, they hold little international exposure and no emerging markets debt. They’re primarily invested in North American (77%) and European(14%)  corporate debt, in firms where the accounting is clear and nations where the laws are. The fund’s investment mandate is very flexible, so they can actively hedge portfolio positions (and might) and they can buy income-producing equities (but won’t).

The portfolio focuses on non-investment grade securities, mostly in the B – BB range, but that’s consistent with his intention not to lose his investors’ money. He values liquidity in his investments; that is to say, he doesn’t get into investments that he can’t quickly get out of.  The fund has been letting cash build, and it’s now about 30% of the portfolio.  David’s general preference is to get out too early and lose some potential returns, rather than linger too long and suffer the risk of permanent impairment.

There were rather more questions from callers than we had time to field.  Some of the points we did get to talk about:

David is not impressed with the values available in one- to three-year bonds, they’ve been subject to too much buying by the anxious herd.  He’s currently finding better values in three- to five-year bonds, especially those which are not included in the major bond indexes.  There is, he says, “a lot of high yield value outside of indexed issues.”

About 50% of the corporate bond market qualifies as “high yield,” which gives him lots of opportunities.

This could function as one’s core bond portfolio.  While there will be more NAV volatility because of mark-to-market rules (that is, you have to ask “what would I get if I stupidly decided to sell my entire portfolio in the midst of a particular day’s market panic”), the risk of permanent impairment of capital occurs only if he’s made a mistake.

Munis are a possibility, but they’re not currently cheap enough to be attractive.

If there’s a limited supply of a security that would be appropriate for both Short-Term and here, Short-Term gets dibs.

Cohanzick is really good at pricing their portfolio securities.  At one level, they use an independent pricing service.  At another, getting the price right has been a central discipline since the firm’s founding and he’s comfortable with his ability to do so even with relatively illiquid names.

At base, David believes the fund can generate returns in the 7-8% range with minimal risk of capital loss.  Given his record with Cohanzick and RPHYX, we are confident that he’s capable of delivering on that promise.  By way of full disclosure: In aligning our mouths and our money, both Chip and I added RSIVX to our personal portfolios this fall.  Once we work out all of the Observer’s year-end finances, we also intend to transfer a portion of the money now in MFO’s credit union savings account into an investment in this fund.

For folks interested but unable to join us, here’s the complete audio of the hour-long conversation.

The RSIVX conference call

As with all of these funds, we’ve created a new featured funds page for the RiverPark Strategic Income Fund, pulling together all of the best resources we have for the fund.

January Conference Call: Matt Moran, ASTON River Road Long/Short

Last winter we spent time talking with the managers of really promising hedged funds, including a couple who joined us on conference calls.  The fund that best matched my own predilections was ASTON River Road Long/Short (ARLSX), extensive details on which appear on our ARLSX Featured Fund Page.   In our December 2012 call, manager Matt Moran argued that:

1. The fund might outperform the stock market by 200 bps/year over a full, 3-5 year market cycle.
2. The fund can maintain a beta at 0.3 to 0.5, in part because of their systematic Drawdown Plan.
3. Risk management is more important than return management, so all three of their disciplines are risk-tuned.

I was sufficiently impressed that I chose to invest in the fund.  That does not say that we believe this is “the best” long/short fund (an entirely pointless designation), just that it’s the fund that best matched my own concerns and interests.  The fund returned 18% in 2013, placing it in the top third of all long/short funds.

Matt and co-manager Dan Johnson have agreed to join us for a second conversation.  That call is scheduled for Wednesday, January 15, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern.  Please note that this is one day later than our original announcement. Matt has been kicking around ideas for what he’d like to talk about.  His short-list includes:

• How we think about our performance in 2013 and, in particular, why we’re satisfied with it given our three mandates (equity-like returns, reduced volatility, capital preservation)
• Where we are finding value on the long side.  It’s a struggle…
• How we’re surviving on the short side.  It’s a huge challenge.  Really, how many marginal businesses can keep hanging on because of the Fed’s historic generosity?  Stocks must ultimately earn what underlying business earns and a slug of these firms are earning …
• But, too, our desire not to be carried out in body bags on short side.
• The fact that we sleep better at night with Drawdown Plan in place.  

HOW CAN YOU JOIN IN?

If you’d like to join in, just click on register and you’ll be taken to the Chorus Call site. In exchange for your name and email, you’ll receive a toll-free number, a PIN and instructions on joining the call. If you register, I’ll send you a reminder email on the morning of the call.

Remember: registering for one call does not automatically register you for another. You need to click each separately. Likewise, registering for the conference call mailing list doesn’t register you for a call; it just lets you know when an opportunity comes up. 

For those of you new to our conference calls, here’s the short version: we set up an audio-only phone conversation, you register and receive an 800-number and a PIN, our guest talks for about 20 minutes on his fund’s genesis and strategy, I ask questions for about 20, and then our listeners get to chime in with questions of their own.  A couple days later we post an .mp3 of the call and highlights of the conversation. 

WOULD AN ADDITIONAL HEADS UP HELP?

Over two hundred readers have signed up for a conference call mailing list. About a week ahead of each call, I write to everyone on the list to remind them of what might make the call special and how to register. If you’d like to be added to the conference call list, just drop me a line.

February Conference Call: Joshua B. Parker and Alan Salzbank, RiverPark / Gargoyle Hedged Value

We extend our conversation with hedged fund managers in a conversation with Messrs. Parker and Salzbank, whose RiverPark / Gargoyle Hedged Value (RGHVX) we profiled last June, but with whom we’ve never spoken. 

Gargoyle is a converted hedge fund.  The hedge fund launched in 1999 and the strategy was converted to a mutual fund on April 30, 2012.  Rather than shorting stocks, the strategy is to hold a diversified portfolio mid- to large-cap value stocks, mostly domestic, and to hedge part of the stock market risk by selling a blend of index call options. That value focus is both distinctive and sensible; the strategy’s stock portfolio has outperformed the S&P500 by 4.5% per year over the past 23 years. The options overlay generates 1.5 – 2% in premium income per month. The fund ended 2013 with a 29% gain, which beat 88% of its long/short peers.

That call is scheduled for Wednesday, February 12, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern.  We’ll provide additional details in our February issue.  

HOW CAN YOU JOIN IN?

If you’d like to join in, just click on register and you’ll be taken to the Chorus Call site. In exchange for your name and email, you’ll receive a toll-free number, a PIN and instructions on joining the call. If you register, I’ll send you a reminder email on the morning of the call.

Launch Alert: Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility Fund (VMVFX)

Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility Fund (VMVFX) launched on December 12, 2013.  It’s Vanguard’s answer to the craze for “smart beta,” a strategy that seemingly promises both higher returns and lower risk over time.  Vanguard dismisses the possibility with terms like “new-age investment alchemy,” and promise instead to provide reasonable returns with lower risk than an equity investor would otherwise be subject to.  They are, they say, “trying to deliver broadly diversified exposure to the equity asset class, with lower average volatility over time than the market. We will use quantitative models to assess the expected volatility of stocks and correlation to one another.”  They also intend to hedge currency risk in order to further dampen volatility. 

Most portfolios are constructed with an eye to maximizing returns within a set of secondary constraints (for example, market cap).  Volatility is then a sort of fallout from the system.  Vanguard reverses the process here by working to minimize the volatility of an all-equity portfolio within a set of secondary constraints dealing with diversification and liquidity.  Returns are then a sort of fallout from the design.  Vanguard recently explained the fund’s distinctiveness in Our new fund offering: What it is and what it isn’t.

The fund will be managed by James D. Troyer, James P. Stetler, and Michael R. Roach.  They are members of the management teams for about a dozen other Vanguard funds.

The Investor share class has a $3,000 minimum initial investment.  The opening expense ratio is 0.30%.

MFS made its first foray into low-volatility investing this month, launching MFS Low Volatility Equity (MLVAX) and MFS Low Volatility Global Equity (MVGAX) just one week before Vanguard. The former will target a volatility level that is 20% lower than that of the S&P 500 Index over a full market cycle, while the latter will target 30% less volatility than the MSCI All Country World Index.  The MFS funds charge about four times what Vanguard does.

Launch Alert II: Meridian Small Cap Growth Advisor (MSGAX)

Meridian Small Cap Growth Fund launched on December 16^th.  The prospectus says very little about what the managers will be doing: “The portfolio managers apply a ‘bottom up’ fundamental research process in selecting investments. In other words, the portfolio managers analyze individual companies to determine if a company presents an attractive investment opportunity and if it is consistent with the Fund’s investment strategies and policies.”

Nevertheless, the fund warrants – and will receive – considerable attention because of the pedigree of its managers.  Chad Meade and Brian Schaub managed Janus Triton (JATTX) together from 2006 – May 2013.  During their tenure, they managed to turn an initial $10,000 investment into $21,400 by the time they departed; their peers would have parlayed $10,000 into just over $14,000.  The more remarkable fact is that the managed it with a low turnover (39%, half the group average), relatively low risk (beta = .80, S.D. about 3 points below their peers) strategy.  Understandably, the fund’s assets soared to $6 billion and it morphed from focused on small caps to slightly larger names.  Regrettably, Janus decided that wasn’t grounds for closing the fund.

Messrs Meade and Schaub joined Arrowpoint Partners in May 2013.  Arrowpoint famously is the home of a cadre of Janus alumni (or escapees, depending):  David Corkins, Karen Reidy, Tony Yao, Minyoung Sohn and Rick Grove.  Together they managed over $2 billion.  In June, they purchased Aster Investment Management, advisor to the Meridian funds, adding nearly $3 billion more in assets.  We’ll reach out to the Arrowpoint folks early in the new year.

The Advisor share class is available no-load and NTF through brokerages like Scottrade, with a $2,500 minimum initial investment.  The opening expense ratio is 1.60%.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details.

Funds in registration this month are eligible to launch in March, 2014 and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

And there were a lot of funds targeting a year-end launch. Every day David Welsch, firefighter/EMT/fund researcher, scours new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves. This month he tracked down 15 no-load retail funds in registration, which represents our core interest. That number is down from what we’d normally see because these funds won’t launch until February 2014; whenever possible, firms prefer to launch by December 30^th and so force a lot of funds into the pipeline in October.

Interesting entries this month include:

Artisan High Income Fund will invest in high yield corporate bonds and debt.  There are two major distinctions here.  First, it is Artisan’s first fixed-income fund.  Second, Artisan has always claimed that they’re only willing to hire managers who will be “category-killers.”  If you look at Artisan’s returns, you’ll get a sense of how very good they are at that task.  Their new high-yield manager, and eventual head of a new, autonomous high-yield team, is Bryan C. Krug who ran the $10 billion, five star Ivy High Income Fund (WHIYX) for the past seven years.  The minimum initial investment will be $1000 for Investor shares and $250,000 for Advisor shares.  The initial expense ratio will be 1.25% for both Investor and Advisor shares.

Brown Advisory Japan Alpha Opportunities Fund will pursue total return by investing principally in Japanese stocks.  The fund will be constructed around a series of distinct “sleeves,” each with its own distinct risk profile but they don’t explain what they might be. They may invest in common and preferred stock, futures, convertibles, options, ADRs and GDR, REITs and ETFs.  While they advertise an all-cap portfolio, they do flag small cap and EM risks.  The fund will be managed by a team from Wellington Management.  The minimum initial investment will be $5000.  The initial expense ratio will be 1.36%. 

Perritt Low Priced Stock Fund will pursue long-term capital appreciation by investing in small cap stocks priced at $15 or less.  I’m a bit ambivalent but could be talked into liking it.  The lead manager also runs Perritt Microcap (PRCGX) and Ultra MicroCap (PREOX), both of which are very solid funds with good risk profiles.  Doubtless he can do it here.  That said, the whole “under $15” thing strikes me as a marketing ploy and a modestly regrettable one. What benefit does that stipulation really offer the investors?  The minimum initial investment will be $1000, reduced to $250 for all sorts of good reasons, and the initial expense ratio will be 1.5%. 

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 40 fund manager changes.  The most intriguing of those include what appears to be the abrupt dismissal of Ken Feinberg, one of the longest-serving managers in the Davis/Selected Funds, and PIMCO’s decision to add to Bill Gross’s workload by having him fill in for a manager on sabbatical.

Updates

There are really very few emerging markets investors which whom I’d trust my money.  Robert Gardiner and Andrew Foster are at the top of the list.  There are notable updates on both this month.

Grandeur Peak Emerging Opportunities (GPEOX) launched two weeks ago, hasn’t released a word about its portfolio, has earned one half of one percent for its investors . . . and has drawn nearly $100 million in assets.  Mr. Gardiner and company have a long-established plan to close the fund at $200 million.  I’d encourage interested parties to (quickly!) read our review of Grandeur Peak’s flagship Global Reach fund.  If you’re interested in a reasonably assertive, small- to mid-cap fund, you may have just a few weeks to establish your account before the fund closes.  The advisor does not intend to market the fund to the general public until February 1, by which time it might well be at capacity.

Investors understandably assume that an e.m. small cap fund is necessarily, and probably substantially, riskier than a more-diversified e.m. fund. That assumption might be faulty. By most measures (standard deviation and beta, for example) it’s about 15% more volatile than the average e.m. fund, but part of that volatility is on the upside. In the past five years, emerging markets equities have fallen in six of 20 quarters.   We can look at the performance of DFA’s semi-passive Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund (DEMSX) to gauge the downside of these funds. 

The same pattern is demonstrated by Templeton E.M. Small Cap (TEMMX): higher beta but surprising resilience in declining quarters.  For aggressive investors, a $2,000 foot-in-the-door position might well represent a rational balance between the need for more information and the desire to maintain their options.

Happily, there’s an entirely-excellent alternative to GPEOX and it’s not (yet) near closing to new investors.

Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX and SIGIX) is beginning to draw well-earned attention. Seafarer offers a particularly risk-conscious approach to emerging markets investing.  It offers a compact (40 names), all-cap portfolio (20% in small- and microcap names and 28% in mid-caps, both vastly higher than its peers) that includes both firms domiciled in the emerging markets (about 70%) and those headquartered in the developing world but profiting from the emerging one (30%). It finished 2013 up 5.5%, which puts it in the top tier of all emerging markets funds. 

That’s consistent with both manager Andrew Foster’s record at his former charge (Matthews Asian Growth & Income MACSX which was one of the two top Asian funds in existence through his time there) and Seafarer’s record since launch (it has returned 20% since February 2012 while its average peer made less than 4%). Assets had been growing briskly through the fund’s first full year, plateaued for much of 2013 then popped in December: the fund moved from about $40 million in AUM to $55 million in a very short period. That presumably signals a rising recognition of Seafarer’s strength among larger investors, which strikes me as a very good thing for both Seafarer and the investors.

On an unrelated note, Oakseed Opportunity (SEEDX) has added master limited partnerships to its list of investable securities. The guys continue negotiating distribution arrangements; the fund became available on the Fidelity platform in the second week of December, 2013. They were already available through Schwab, Scottrade, TDAmeritrade and Vanguard.

Briefly Noted . . .

The Gold Bullion Strategy Fund (QGLDX) has added a redemption fee of 2.00% for shares sold within seven days of purchase because, really, how could you consider yourself a long-term investor if you’re not willing to hold for at least eight days?

Legg Mason Capital Management Special Investment Trust (LMSAX) will transition from being a small- and mid-cap fund to a small cap and special situations fund. The advisor warns that this will involve an abnormal turnover in the portfolio and higher-than-usual capital gains distributions. The fund has beaten its peers precisely twice in the past decade, cratered in 2007-09, got a new manager in 2011 and has ascended to … uh, mediocrity since then. Apparently “unstable” and “mediocre” is sufficient to justify someone’s decision to keep $750 million in the fund. 

PIMCO’s RealRetirement funds just got a bit more aggressive. In an SEC filing on December 30, PIMCO shifted the target asset allocations to increase equity exposure and decrease real estate, commodities and fixed income.  Here’s the allocation for an individual with 40 years until retirement

Real estate and commodities are an inflation hedge (that’s the “real” part of RealRetirement) and PIMCO’s commitment to them has been (1) unusually high and (2) unusually detrimental to performance.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Effective January 2, 2014, BlackRock U.S. Opportunities Portfolio (BMEAX) reopened to new investors. Skeptics might note that the fund is large ($1.6 billion), overpriced (1.47%) and under-performing (having trailed its peers in four of the past five years), which makes its renewed availability a distinctly small win.

Speaking of “small wins,” the Board of Trustees of Buffalo Funds has approved a series of management fees breakpoints for the very solid Buffalo Small Cap Fund (BUFSX).  The fund, with remains open to new investors despite having nearly $4 billion in assets, currently pays a 1.0% management fee to its advisor.  Under the new arrangement, the fee drops by five basis points for assets from $6 to $7 billion, another five for assets from $7-8 and $8-9 then it levels out at 80 bps for assets over $9 billion.  Those gains are fairly minor (the net fee on the fund at $7 billion is $69.5 million under the new arrangement versus $70 million under the old) and the implication that the fund might remain open as it swells is worrisome.

Effective January 1, 2014, Polaris Global Value Fund (PGVFX) has agreed to cap operating expenses at 0.99%.  Polaris, a four-star fund with a quarter billion in assets, currently charges 1.39% so the drop will be substantial. 

The investment minimum for Institutional Class shares of Yacktman Focused Fund (YAFFX) has dropped from $1,000,000 to $100,000.

Vanguard High-Yield Corporate Fund (VWEHX) has reopened to new investors.  Wellington Management, the fund’s advisor, reports that  “Cash flow to the fund has subsided, which, along with a change in market conditions, has enabled us to reopen the fund.”

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Driehaus Select Credit Fund (DRSLX) will close to most new investors on January 31, 2014. The strategy capacity is about $1.5 billion and the fund already holds $1 billion, with more flowing in, so they decided to close it just as they closed its sibling, Driehaus Active Income (LCMAX). You might think of it as a high-conviction, high-volatility fixed income hedge fund.

Hotchkis & Wiley Mid-Cap Value (HWMIX) is slated to close to new investors on March 1, 2014. Ted, our board’s most senior member, opines “Top notch MCV fund, 2.8 Billion in assets, and superior returns.”  I nod.

Sequoia (SEQUX) closed to new investors on December 10^th. Their last closure lasted 25 years.

Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund (VHCOX), managed by PRIMECAP Management Company, has closed again. It closed in 2004, opened the door a crack in 2007 and fully reopened in 2009.  Apparently the $2 billion in new assets generated a sense of concern, prompting the reclosure.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Aberdeen Diversified Income Fund (GMAAX), a tiny fund distinguished more for volatility than for great returns, can now invest in closed-end funds.  Two other Aberdeen funds, Dynamic Allocation (GMMAX) and Diversified Alternatives (GASAX), are also now permitted  to invest, to a limited extent, in “certain direct investments” and so if you’ve always wanted exposure to certain direct investments (as opposed to uncertain ones), they’ve got the funds for you.

American Independence Core Plus Fund (IBFSX) has changed its name to the American Independence Boyd Watterson Core Plus Fund, presumably in the hope that the Boyd Watterson name will work marketing magic.  Not entirely sure why that would be the case, but there it is.

Effective December 31, 2013, FAMCO MLP & Energy Income Fund became Advisory Research MLP & Energy Income Fund. Oddly, the announcement lists two separate “A” shares with two separate ticker symbols (INFIX and INFRX).

In February Compass EMP Long/Short Fixed Income Fund (CBHAX) gets rechristened Compass EMP Market Neutral Income Fund and it will no longer be required to invest at least 80% in fixed income securities.  The change likely reflects the fact that the fund is underwater since its November 2013 inception (its late December NAV was $9.67) and no one cares (AUM is $28 million).

In yet another test of my assertion that giving yourself an obscure and nonsensical name is a bad way to build a following (think “Artio”), ING reiterated its plan to rebrand itself as Voya Financial.  The name change will roll out over the first half of 2014.

As of early December, Gabelli Value Fund became Gabelli Value 25 Fund (GABVX). And no, it does not hold 25 stocks (the portfolio has nearly 200 names).  Here’s their explanation: “The name change highlights the Fund’s overweighting of its core 25 equity positions and underscores the upcoming 25^th anniversary of the Fund’s inception.” And yes, that does strike me as something that The Mario came up with and no one dared contradict.

GMO, as part of a far larger fund shakeup (see below), has renamed and repurposed four of its institutional funds.  GMO International Core Equity Fund becomes GMO International Large/Mid Cap Equity Fund, GMO International Intrinsic Value Fund becomes GMO International Equity Fund, GMO International Opportunities Equity Allocation Fund becomes GMO International Developed Equity Allocation Fund, and GMO World Opportunities Equity Allocation Fund morphs (slightly) into GMO Global Developed Equity Allocation Fund, all on February 12, 2014. Most of the funds tweaked their investment strategy statements to comply with the SEC’s naming rules which say that if you have a distinct asset class in your name (large/midcap equity), you need to have at least 80% of your portfolio in that class. 

Effective February 28, MainStay Intermediate Term Bond Fund (MTMAX) becomes MainStay Total Return Bond Fund.

Nuveen NWQ Flexible Income Fund (NWQIX), formerly Nuveen NWQ Equity Income Fund has been rechristened as Nuveen NWQ Global Equity Income Fund, with James Stephenson serving as its sole manager.  If you’d like to get a sense of what “survivorship bias” looks like, you might check out Nuveen’s SEC distributions filing and count the number of funds with lines through their names.

Old Westbury Global Small & Mid Cap Fund (OWSMX) has been rechristened as Old Westbury Small & Mid Cap Fund. It’s no longer required to have a global portfolio, but might.  It’s been very solid, with about 20% of its portfolio in ETFs and the rest in individual securities.

At the meeting on December 3, 2013, the Board approved a change in Old Westbury Global Opportunities Fund’s (OWGOX) name to Old Westbury Strategic Opportunities Fund.  Let’s see: 13 managers, $6 billion in assets, and a long-term record that trails 70% of its peers.  Yep, a name change is just what’s needed!

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Jeez, The Shadow is just a wild man here.

On December 6, 2013, the Board of the Conestoga Funds decided to close and liquidate the Conestoga Mid Cap Fund (CCMGX), effective February 28, 2014.  At the same time, they’re launched a SMid cap fund with the same management team.  I wrote the advisor to ask why this isn’t just a scam to bury a bad track record and get a re-do; they could, more easily, just have amended Mid Cap’s principal investment strategy to encompass small caps and called it SMid Cap.  They volunteered to talk then reconsidered, suggesting that they’d be freer to walk me through their decision once the new fund is up and running. I’m looking forward to the opportunity.

Dynamic Energy Income Fund (DWEIS), one of the suite of former DundeeWealth funds, was liquidated on December 31, 2013.

Fidelity has finalized plans for the merger of Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation Fund (FECAX) into Fidelity Europe Fund (FIEUX), which occurs on March 21.

The institutional firm Grantham, Mayo, van Otterloo (GMO) is not known for precipitous action, so their December announcement of a dozen fund closures is striking.  One set of funds is simply slated to disappear:

In addition, the Board has approved the termination of GMO Asset Allocation International Small Companies Fund and GMO International Large/Mid Cap Value Fund, neither of which had commenced operations.

They then added two sets of fund mergers: GMO Debt Opportunities Fund into GMO Short-Duration Collateral Fund (with the freakish coda that “GMO Short-Duration Collateral Fund is not pursuing an active investment program and is gradually liquidating its portfolio” but absorbing Debt Opportunities gives it reason to live) and GMO U.S. Flexible Equities Fund into GMO U.S. Core Equity Fund, which is expected to occur on or about January 24, 2014.

Not to be outdone, The Hartford Mutual Funds announced ten fund mergers and closures themselves.  Hartford Growth Fund (HGWAX) is merging with Hartford Growth Opportunities Fund (HGOAX), Hartford Global Growth (HALAX) merges with Hartford Capital Appreciation II (HCTAX) and Hartford Value (HVFAX) goes into Hartford Value Opportunities (HV)AX), all effective April 7, 2014. None of which, they note, requires shareholder approval. I have real trouble seeing any upside for the funds’ investors, since most going from one sub-par fund into another and will see expenses drop by just a few basis points. The exceptions are the value funds, both of which are solid and economically viable on their own. In addition, Hartford is pulling the plug on its entire target-date retirement line-up. The funds slated for liquidation are Hartford Target Retirement 2010 through 2050. That dirty deed will be done on June 30, 2014. 

Highbridge Dynamic Commodities Strategy Fund (HDSAX) is slated to be liquidated and dissolved (an interesting visual image) on February 7, 2014. In the interim, it’s going to cash.

John Hancock Sovereign Investors Fund (SOVIX) will merge into John Hancock Large Cap Equity Fund (TAGRX), on or about April 30, 2014.

Principal SmallCap Growth Fund II (PPMIX) will be absorbed by SmallCap Growth Fund I (PGRTX) on or about April 25, 2014.

It’s with some sadness that we bid adieu to Tom Kerr and his Rocky Peak Small Cap Value Fund (RPCSX), which liquidated on December 30.  The fund sagged from “tiny” to “microscopic” by the end of its run, with under a million in assets.  Its performance in 2013 was pretty much calamitous, which was both curious and fatal.  Tom was an experienced manager and sensible guy who will, we hope, find a satisfying path forward. 

In a sort of three-for-one swap, Pax World International Fund (PXIRX) and Pax MSCI EAFE ESG Index ETF (EAPS) are merging to form the Pax World International ESG Index Fund.

On October 21, 2013, the Board of Directors of the T. Rowe Price Summit GNMA Fund (PRSUX) approved a proposed merger with, and into, T. Rowe Price GNMA Fund (PRGMX).

The Vanguard Managed Payout Growth Focus Fund (VPGFX) and Vanguard Managed Payout Distribution Focus Fund (VPDFX) are each to be reorganized into the Vanguard Managed Payout Growth and Distribution Fund (VPGDX) on or about January 17, 2014.

W.P. Stewart & Co. Growth Fund (WPSGX) is merging into the AllianceBernstein Concentrated Growth Fund (WPCSX), which has the same manager, investment discipline and expenses of the WPS fund.  Alliance acquired WPS in December, so the merger was a sort of foregone conclusion.

Wegener Adaptive Growth Fund (WAGFX) decided, on about three days’ notice, to close and liquidate at the end of December, 2013.  It had a couple very solid years (2008 and 2009) then went into the dumper, ending with a portfolio smaller than my retirement account.

A small change

Our navigation menu is growing. If you look along the top of our page, you’ll likely notice that “Featured Funds” is no longer a top-level menu item. Instead the “Featured Funds” category can now be found under the “Fund” or “The Best” menus. Replacing it as a new top-level menu is “Search Tools”, which is the easiest way to directly access new search functionality that Accipiter, Charles, and Chip have been working on for the past few months.

Under Search Tools, you’ll find:

1. Risk Profile – designed to help you understand the different measures of a fund’s risk profile. No one measure of risk captures the full picture and most measures of risk are not self-explanatory. Our Risk Profile reporter allows you to enter a single ticker symbol for any fund and it will generate a short, clear report, in simple, conversational English, that walks you through the various means of risk and returns and will provide you with the profiles for a whole range of possible benchmarks. Alternatively, entering multiple ticker symbols will return a tabular results page, making side-by-side comparisons more convenient.
2. Great Owls – allows you to screen our Great Owl Funds – those which have top tier performance in every trailing period of three years or more – by category or profile. We know that past performance should never be the primary driver of your decision-making, but working from a pool of consistently superior performers and learning more about their risk-return profile strikes us as a sensible place to start.
3. Fund Dashboard – a snapshot of all of the funds we’ve profiled, is updated monthly and is available both as a .pdf and as a searchable and sortable search.
4. Miraculous Multi-Search – Accipiter’s newest screening tool helps us search Charles’ database of risk elements. Searches are available by fund name, category, risk group and age group. There’s even an option to restrict the results to GreatOwl funds. Better yet, you can search on multiple criteria and further refine your results list by choosing to hide certain results.

In Closing . . .

Thank you, dear friends.  It’s been a remarkable year.  In December of 2012, we served 9000 readers.  A year later, 24,500 readers made 57,000 visits to the Observer in December – a gain of 150%.  The amount of time readers spend on site is up, too, by about 50% over last year.  The percentage of new visitors is up 57%.  But almost 70% of visits are by returning readers.

It’s all the more striking because we’re the antithesis of a modern news site: our pieces tend to be long, appear once a month and try to be reflective and intelligent.  NPR had a nice piece that lamented the pressure to be “first, loud and sensational” (This is (not) the most important story of the year, 12/29/2013).  The “reflective and intelligent” part sort of reflects our mental image of who you are. 

We’ve often reminded folks of their ability to help the Observer financially, either through our partnership with Amazon (they rebate us about 7% of the value of items purchased through our link) or direct contributions.  Those are both essential and we’re deeply grateful to the dozens of folks who’ve acted on our behalf.  This month we’d like to ask for a different sort of support, one which might help us make the Observer better in the months ahead.

Would you tell us a bit about who you are and why you’re here?  We do not collect any information about you when you visit. The cosmically-talented Chip found a way to embed an anonymous survey directly in this essay, so that you could answer a few questions without ever leaving the comfort of your chair.  What follows are six quick questions.  We’re setting aside questions about our discussion board for now, since it’s been pretty easy to keep in touch with the folks there.  Complete as many as you’re comfortable with.

We’ll share as soon as we hear back from you.

Thanks to Deb (the first person ever to set up an automatic monthly contribution to the site, which was really startling when we found out), to David and the other contributors scattered (mostly) in warm states (and Indianapolis), and to friends who’ve shared books, cookies, well-wishes and holiday cheer.

Finally, thanks to the folks whose constant presence makes the Observer happen: the folks who’ve spent this entire century supporting the discussion board (BobC, glampig, rono, Slick, the indefatigable Ted, and Whakamole among them) and the hundred or so folks regularly on the board; The Shadow, who can sense the presence of interesting SEC filings from a mile away; Accipiter, whose programming skills – generally self-taught – lie behind our fund searches; Ed, who puzzles and grumbles; Charles, who makes data sing; and the irreplaceable Chip, friend, partner and magician.  I’m grateful to you all and look forward to the adventures of the year ahead.

As ever,

Dear friends,

Occasionally Facebook produces finds that I’m at a loss to explain.  Ecce:

(Thanks to Nina K., a really first-rate writer and first-rate property/insurance lawyer in the Bay State for sharing Mr. Takei’s post with us. Now if I could just get her to restrain the impulse to blurt out, incredulous, “you really find this stuff interesting?”)

Let’s see.  Should I be more curious about the fact that Mr. Takei (iconically Ensign Sulu on Star Trek) manages just a basso profundo “oh myyy” on his post or the fact that he was recently lounging in a waiting room at the University of Iowa Hospitals, a bit west of here?  Perhaps it would be better to let his friends weigh in?

Chip’s vote was to simply swipe her favorite image from the thread, one labeled “a real hedge fund.”

Which is to say, a market that tacks on 29% in a year makes it easy to think of investing as fun and funny again. 

Now if only that popular sentiment could be reconciled with the fact that a bunch of very disciplined, very successful managers are quietly selling down their stocks and building their cash reserves again.

Here’s today’s “know your Morningstar!” quiz.  

Here are the total return charts for two short-term bond funds.  One is the sole Morningstar Gold Medalist in the group, representing “one of the industry’s best managers, and one of the category’s best funds.”  The other is a lowly one-star fund unworthy of Morningstar’s notice 

Question: do you …know your Morningstar!?  Which is the golden child?  Is it blue or orange?

Would it help to know that one of these funds is managed by a multi-trillion dollar titan and the other by a small, distinctive boutique?  Or that one of the funds invests quite conventionally and fits neatly into a style-box while the other is one-of-a-kind?

If you know your Morningstar, you’ll know that “small, distinctive and hard to pigeonhole” is pretty much the kiss of death.  The orange (or gold) line represents PIMCO Low Duration, “D” shares (PLDDX).  It’s a $24 billion “juggernaut” (Morningstar’s term) that’s earned four stars and a Gold designation.  It tends to be in the top quarter of the short-term bond group, though not at its top, and is a bit riskier than average.

The blue line represents RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX), an absolutely first-rate cash management fund about which we’ve written a lot. And which Morningstar just designated as a one-star fund. Why so?  Because Morningstar classifies it as a “high yield bond” fund and benchmarks it against an investment class that has outperformed the stock market over the past 15 years but with the highest volatility in the fixed-income universe. To be clear: there is essentially no overlap between RiverPark’s portfolio and the average high-yield bond funds and they have entirely different strategies, objectives and risk profiles. Which is to say, Morningstar has managed a classic “walnuts to lug nuts” comparison.

Here’s the defense Morningstar might reasonably make: “we had to put it somewhere.  It says ‘high yield.’  We put it there.”

Here’s our response: “that’s a sad and self-damning answer.  Yes, you had to put it somewhere.  But having put it in a place that you know is wildly inappropriate, you also need to accept the responsibility – to your readers, to RiverPark’s investors and to yourselves – to address your decision.  You’ve got the world’s biggest and best supported corps of analysts in the world. Use them! Don’t ignore the funds that do well outside of the comfortable framework of style boxes, categories and corporate investing! If the algorithms produce palpably misleading ratings, speak up.”

But, of course, they didn’t.

The problem is straightforward: Morningstar’s ratings are most reliable when you least need them. For funds with conventional, straightforward, style-pure disciplines – index funds and closet index funds – the star ratings probably produce a fair snapshot across the funds. But really, how hard is it – even absent Morningstar’s imprimatur – to find the most solid offering among a gaggle of long-only, domestic large cap, growth-at-a-reasonable price funds? You’ll get 90% of the way there with three numbers: five year returns, five year volatility and expense ratio. Look for ones where the first is higher and the second two are lower.

When funds try not to follow the herd, when the manager appears to have a brain and to be using it to pursue different possibilities, is when the ratings system is most prone to misleading readers. That’s when you need to hear an expert’s analysis. 

So why, then, deploy your analysts to write endless prose about domestic large cap funds? Because that’s where the money is.

Morningstar ETF Invest: Rather less useful content than I’d imagined

Morningstar hosted their ETF-focused conference in Chicago at the beginning of October.  The folks report that the gathering has tripled in size over the last couple years, turned away potential registrants and will soon need to move to a new space.  After three days there, though, I came away with few strong reactions.  I was struck by the decision of one keynote speaker to refer to active fixed-income managers as “the enemy” (no, dude, check the mirror) and the apparent anxiety around Fidelity’s decision to enter the ETF market (“Fidelity is coming.  We know they’re coming.  It’s only a matter of time,” warned one).

My greatest bewilderment was at the industry’s apparent insistence on damaging themselves as quickly and thoroughly as possible.  ETFs really have, at most, three advantages: they’re cheap, transparent and liquid.  The vogue seems to be for frittering that away.  More and more advisors are being persuaded to purchase the services of managed portfolio advisors who, for a fee, promise to custom-package (and trade) dozens of ETFs.  I spoke with representatives of a couple index providers, including FTSE, who corroborated Morningstar’s assertion that there are likely two million separate security indexes in operation with more being created daily. And many of the exchange-traded products rely in derivatives to try to capture the movements of those 2,000,000.  On whole, it feels like a systematic attempt to capture the most troubling features of the mutual fund industry – all while preening about your Olympian superiority to the mutual fund industry.

Odd.

The most interesting presentation at the conference was made by Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist and former chief of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, who addressed a luncheon crowd. It was a thoroughly unexpected performance: there’s a strong overtone of Jon Stewart from The Daily Show, an almost antic energy. The presentation was one-third Goolsbee family anecdotes (“when I’d complain about a problem, gramma would say ‘80% of us don’t care. . . and the other 20% are glad about it'”), one-third White House anecdotes and one-third economic arguments.

The short version:

• The next 12-18 months will be tough because the old drivers of recovery aren’t available this time. Over the last century, house prices appreciated by 40 basis points annually for the first 90 years. From 2000-08, it appreciated 1350 bps annually. In the future, 40 bps is likely about right which means that a recovery in the housing industry won’t be lifting all boats any time soon.
• We’ll know the economy is recovering when 25 year olds start moving out of their parents’ basements, renting little apartments, buying futons and cheap pots and pans. (Technically, an uptick in household formation. Since the beginning of the recession, the US population has grown by 10 million but the number of households has remained flat.) One optimistic measure that Goolsbee did not mention but which seems comparable: the number of Americans choosing to quit their jobs (presumably for something better) is rising.
• The shutdown is probably a good thing, since it will derail efforts to create an unnecessary crisis around the debt ceiling.
• In the longer term, the US will recover and grow at 3.5% annually, driven by a population that’s growing (we’ll likely peak around 400 million while Japan, Western Europe and Russia contract), the world’s most productive workforce and relatively light taxation. While Social Security faces challenges, they’re manageable. Given the slow rolling crisis in higher education and the near collapse of new business launches over the past decade, I’m actually somewhere between skeptical and queasy on this one.
• The Chinese economic numbers can’t be trusted at all. The US reports quarterly economic data after a 30 day lag and frequently revises the numbers 30 days after that. China reports their quarterly numbers one day after the end of the quarter and has never revised any of the numbers. A better measure of Chinese activity is derivable from FedEx volume (it’s way down) since China is so export driven.

One highlight was his report of a headline from The Onion: “recession-plagued nation demands a new bubble to invest in … so we can get the economy going again. We need a concrete way to create illusory wealth in the near future.”

One of the great things about having Messrs Studzinski and Boccadoro contributing to the Observer is that they’re keen, experienced observers and very good writers.  The other great thing about it is that I no longer have to bear the label, “the cranky one.” In the following essay, Ed Studzinkski takes on one of the beloved touchstones of shareholder-friendly management: “skin in the game.”  Further down, Charles Boccadoro casts a skeptical eye, in a data-rich piece, on the likelihood that an investor’s going to avoid permanent loss of capital.

Skin in the Game, Part Two

The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be.

Paul Valery

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of The Black Swan as well as Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, has recently been giving a series of interviews in which he argues that current investment industry compensation practices lead to subtle conflicts of interest, that end up inuring to the disadvantage of individual investors. Nowhere is this more apparent than when one looks at the mutual fund complexes that have become asset gatherers rather than investment managers.

By way of full disclosure I have to tell you that I am an admirer of Mr. Taleb’s. I was not always the most popular boy in the classroom as I was always worrying about the need to consider the potential for “Black Swan” or outlier events. Unfortunately all one has to have is one investment massacre like the 2008-2009 period. This gave investors a lost decade of investment returns and a potentially permanent loss of capital if they panicked and liquidated their investments. To have a more in-depth appreciation of the concept and its implications, I commend those of you with the time to a careful study of the data that the Mutual Fund Observer has compiled and begun releasing regularly. You should pay particular attention to a number called the “Maximum Drawdown.” There you will see that as a result of that dark period, looking back five years it is a rarity to find a domestic fund manager who did not lose 35-50% of his or her investors’ money. The same is to be said for global and international fund managers who likewise did not distinguish themselves, losing 50-65% of investors’ capital, assuming the investors panicked and liquidated their investments, and many did.

A number of investment managers that I know are not fans of Mr. Taleb’s work, primarily because he has a habit of bringing attention to inconvenient truths. In Fooled by Randomness, he made the case that given the large number of people who had come into the investment management business in recent years, there were a number who had to have generated good records randomly. They were what he calls “spurious winners.” I would argue that the maximum drawdown numbers referred to above confirm that thesis.

How then to avoid the spurious winner? Taleb argues that the hedge fund industry serves as a model, by truly having managers with “skin in the game.” In his experience a hedge fund manager typically has twenty to fifty times the exposure of his next biggest client. That of necessity makes them both more careful and as well as aware of the consequences if they have underinvested in the necessary talent to remain competitive. Taleb quite definitively states, “You don’t get that with fund managers.”

I suspect the counterargument I am going to hear is that fund managers are now required to disclose, by means of reporting within various ranges, the amount of money they have invested in the fund they are managing. Just go to the Statement of Additional Information, which is usually found on a fund website. And if the SAI shows that the manager has more than $1 million invested in his or her fund, then that is supposed to be a good sign concerning alignment of interests. Like the old Hertz commercial, the real rather than apparent answer is “not exactly.”

The gold standard in this regard has been set by Longleaf Partners with their funds. Their employees are required to limit their publicly offered equity investments to funds advised by Southeastern Asset Management, Longleaf’s advisor, unless granted a compliance exception. Their trustees also must obtain permission before making a publicly offered equity investment. That is rather unique in the fund industry, since what you usually see in the marketing brochures or periodic fund reports is something like “the employees and families of blah-blah have more than $X million invested in our funds.” If you are lucky this may work out to be one percent of assets under management in the firm, hardly hedge-fund like metrics. At the same time, you often find trustees of the fund with de minimis investments.

The comparison becomes worse when you look at a fund with $9 billion in assets and the “normal” one percent investment management fee, which generates $90 million in revenue. The fund manager may tell you that his largest equity investment is in the fund and is more than $1 million. But if his annual compensation runs somewhere between $1million and $10 million, and this is Taleb’s strongest point, the fund manager does not have a true disincentive for losing money. The situation becomes even more blurred where compliance policy allows investment in ETF’s or open-ended mutual funds, which in today’s world will often allow a fund manager to construct his own personal market neutral or hedged portfolio, to offset his investment in the fund he is managing.

Is there a solution? Yes, a fairly easy one – adopt as an industry standard through government regulation the requirement that all employees in the investment firm are required to limit their publicly offered equity investments to the funds in the complex. To give credit where credit is due, just as we have a Volcker rule, we can call it the “Southeastern Asset Management” rule. If that should prove too restrictive, I would suggest as an alternative that the SEC add another band of investment ranges above the current $1 million limit, at perhaps $5 million. That at least would give a truer picture for the investor, especially given the money flows now gushing into a number of firms, which often make a $1 million investment not material to the fund manager. Such disclosure will do a better job of attuning investment professionals to what should be their real concern – managing risk with a view towards the potential downside, rather than ignoring risk with other people’s money.

Postscript:

What does it say when such well known value managers as Tweedy, Browne and First Pacific Advisors are letting cash positions rise in their portfolios as they sell and don’t replace securities that have reached their target valuations? Probably the same thing as when one of the people I consider to be one of the outstanding money managers of our time, Seth Klarman at Baupost Partners, announces that he will be returning some capital to his partnership investors at year end. Stay tuned.

So, if it’s “the best,” why can’t people just agree on what it is?

Last month David pointed out how little overlap he found between three popular mutual fund lists: Kiplinger 25, Money 70, and Morningstar’s Fantastic 51. David mused: “You’d think that if all of these publications shared the same sensible goal – good risk-adjusted returns and shareholder-friendly practices – they’d also be stumbling across the same funds. You’d be wrong.”

He found only one fund, Dodge & Cox International Fund DODFX, on all three lists. Just one! Although just one is a statistically better outcome than randomly picking three such lists from the 6600 or so mutual funds and 1000 ETFs, it does seem surprisingly small. 

Opening up the field a little, by replacing the Fantastic 51 with a list of 232 funds formed from Morningstar’s current “Gold-Rated Funds” and “Favorite ETFs,” the overlap does not improve much. Just two funds appear in all three publications: DODFX and Habor Bond Institutional HABDX. Just two!

While perhaps not directly comparable, the table below provides a quick summary of the criteria used by each publication. Money 70 criteria actually include Morningstar’s so-called stewardship grade, which must be one of the least maintained measures. For example, Morningstar awarded Bruce Berkowitz Fund Manager of the Decade, but it never published a stewardship grade for Fairholme.

Overall, however, the criteria seem quite similar, or as David described “good risk-adjusted returns and shareholder-friendly practices.”  Add in experienced managers for good measure and one would expect the lists to overlap pretty well. But again, they don’t.

How do the “forward-looking” recommendations in each of these lists fare against Morningstar’s purely quantitative “backward-looking” performance rating system? Not as well as you might think. There are just seven 5-star funds on Money’s list, or 1-in-10. Kiplinger does the best with six, from a percentage perspective, or almost 1-in-4. (They must have peeked.) Morningstar’s own list includes 44 5-star funds, or about 1-in-5. So, as well intentioned and “forward looking” as these analysts certainly try to be, only a small minority of their “best funds” have delivered top-tier returns.

On the other hand, they each do better than picking funds arbitrarily, if not unwittingly, since Morningstar assigns 5 stars to only about 1-in-17 funds. Neither of the two over-lapping funds that appear on all three lists, DODFX and HABDX, have 5 stars. But both have a commendable 4 stars, and certainly, that’s good enough.

Lowering expectations a bit, how many funds appear on at least two of these lists? The answer: 38, excluding the two trifectas. Vanguard dominates with 14. T. Rowe Price and American Funds each have 4. Fidelity has just one. Most have 4 stars, a few have 3, like SLASX, probably the scariest.

But there is no Artisan. There is no Tweedy. There is no Matthews. There is no TCW or Doubleline. There are no PIMCO bond funds. (Can you believe?) There is no Yacktman. Or Arke. Or Sequoia. There are no funds less than five years old. In short, there’s a lot missing.

There are, however, nine 5-star funds among the 38, or just about 1-in-4. That’s not bad. Interestingly, not one is a fixed income fund, which is probably a sign of the times. Here’s how they stack-up in MFO’s own “backward looking” ratings system, updated through September:

Four are moderate allocation funds: FPACX, PRWCX, VWELX, and TRRBX. Three are Vanguard funds: VWELX, VDIGX, and VASVX. One FMI fund FMIHX and one Oakmark fund OAKIX. Hard to argue with any of these funds, especially the three Great Owls: PRWCX, VWELX, and OAKIX.

These lists of “best funds” are probably not a bad place to start, especially for those new to mutual funds. They tend to expose investors to many perfectly acceptable, if more mainstream, funds with desirable characteristics: lower fees, experienced teams, defensible, if not superior, past performance.

They probably do not stress downside potential enough, so any selection needs to also take risk tolerance and investment time-frame into account. And, incredulously, Morningstar continues to give Gold ratings to loaded funds, about 1-in-7 actually.

The lists produce surprisingly little overlap, perhaps simply because there are a lot of funds available that satisfy the broad screening criteria. But within the little bit of overlap, one can find some very satisfying funds.

Money 70 and Kiplinger 25 are free and online. Morningstar’s rated funds are available for a premium subscription. (Cheapest path may be to subscribe for just one month each year at $22 while performing an annual portfolio review.)

As for a list of smaller, less well known mutual funds with great managers and intriguing strategies? Well, of course, that’s the niche MFO aspires to cover.

23Oct2013/Charles

The Great Owl search engine has arrived

Great Owls are the designation that my colleague Charles Boccadoro gives to those funds which are first in the top 20% of their peer group for every trailing period of three years or more. Because we know that “risk” is often more durable and a better predictor of investor actions than “return” is, we’ve compiled a wide variety of risk measures for each of the Great Owl funds.

Up until now, we’ve been limited to publishing the Great Owls as a .pdf while working on a search engine for them. We’re pleased to announce the launch of the Great Owl Search, 1.0. We expect in the months ahead to widen the engine’s function and to better integrate it into the site. We hope you like it.

For JJ and other fans of FundAlarm’s Three-Alarm and Most Alarming fund lists, we’re working to create a predefined search that will allow you to quickly and reliable identify the most gruesome investments in the fund world. More soon!

Who do you trust for fund information?

The short answer is: not fund companies.  On October 22, the WSJ’s Karen Damato hosted an online poll entitled Poll: The Best Source of Mutual-Fund Information? 

Representing, as I do, Column Three, I should be cheered.  Teaching, as I do, Journalism 215: News Literacy, I felt compelled to admit that the results were somewhere between empty (the margin of error is 10.89, so it’s “somewhere between 16% and 38% think it’s the fund company’s website and marketing materials”) and discouraging (the country’s leading financial newspaper managed to engage the interest of precisely 81 of its readers on this question).

Nina Eisenman, President of Eisenman Associates which oversees strategic communications for corporations, and sometime contributor to the Observer

Asking which of the 3 choices individual investors find “most useful” generates data that creates an impression that they don’t use the other two at all when, in fact, they may use all 3 to varying degrees. It’s also a broad question. Are investors responding based on what’s most useful to them in conducting their initial research or due diligence? For example, I may read about a fund in the Mutual Fund Observer (“other website”) and decide to check it out but I would (hopefully) look at the fund’s website, read the manager’s letters and the fund prospectus before I actually put money in.

When I surveyed financial advisors and RIAs on the same topic, but gave them an option to rate the importance of various sources of information they use, the vast majority used mutual funds’ own websites to some extent as part of their due diligence research. [especially for] fund-specific information (including the fund prospectus which is generally available on the website) that can help investors make educated investment decisions.

Both Nina’s own research and the results of a comparable Advisor Perspectives poll can be found at FundSites, her portal for addressing the challenges and practices of small- to medium sizes fund company websites.

The difference between “departures” and “succession planning”

Three firms this month announced the decisions of superb managers to move on. Happily for their investors, the departures are long-dated and seem to be surrounded by a careful succession planning process.

Mitch Milias will be retiring at the end of 2013

Primecap Management was founded by three American Funds veterans. That generation is passing. Howard Schow has passed away at age 84 in April 2012. Vanguard observer Dan Weiner wrote at the time that “To say that he was one of the best, and least-known investors would be a vast understatement.”  The second of the triumvirate, Mitch Milias, retires in two months at 71.  That leaves Theo Kolokotrones who, at 68, is likely in the latter half of his investing career.  Milias has served as comanager of four Gold-rated funds: Vanguard Primecap  (VPMCX) Vanguard Primecap Core (VPCCX), Primecap Odyssey Growth (POGRX), and  Primecap Odyssey Stock (POSKX).

Neil Woodford will depart Invesco in April, 2014

British fund manager Neil Woodford is leaving after 25 years of managing Invesco Perpetual High Income Fund and the Invesco Perpetual Income Fund. Mr. Woodford apparently is the best known manager in England and described as a “hero” in the media for his resolute style.  He’s decided to set up his own English fund company.  In making the move he reports:

My decision to leave is a personal one based on my views about where I see long-term opportunities in the fund management industry.  My intention is to establish a new fund management business serving institutional and retail clients as soon as possible after 29th April 2014.

His investors seem somehow less sanguine: they pulled over £1 billion in the two weeks after his announcement.  Invesco’s British president describes that reaction as “calm.”

Given Mr. Woodford’s reputation and the global nature of the securities market, I would surely flag 1 May 2014 as a day to peer across the Atlantic to see what “long-term opportunities” he’s pursuing.

Scott Satterwhite will be retiring at the end of September, 2016

Scott Satterwhite joined Artisan from Wachovia Securities in 1997 and was the sole manager of Artisan Small Cap Value (ARTVX) from its launch. ARTVX is also the longest-tenured fund in my non-retirement portfolio; I moved my Artisan Small Cap (ARTSX) investment into Satterwhite’s fund almost as soon as it launched and I’ve never had reason to question that decision.  Mr. Satterwhite then extended his discipline into Artisan Mid Cap Value (ARTQX) and the large cap Artisan Value (ARTLX).  All are, as is typical of Artisan, superb.

Artisan has a really strong internal culture and focus on creating coherent, self-sustaining investment teams.  Three years after launch, Satterwhite’s long-time analyst Jim Kieffer became a co-manager.  George Sertl was added six years after that and Dan Kane six years later.  Mr. Kane is now described as “the informal lead manager” with Satterwhite on ARTVX.  This is probably one of the two most significant manager changes in Artisan’s history (the retirement of its founder was the other) but the firm seems exceptionally well-positioned both to attract additional talent and to manage the required three year transition.

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds.  “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve. 

T. Rowe Price Global Allocation (RPGAX): T. Rowe is getting bold, cautiously.  Their newest and most innovative fund offers a changing mix of global assets, including structural exposure to a single hedge fund, is also broadly diversified, low-cost and run by the team responsible for their Spectrum and Personal Strategy Funds.  So far, so good!

Oops! The fund profile is slightly delayed. Please check back tomorrow.

Elevator Talk: Jeffrey K. Ringdahl of American Beacon Flexible Bond (AFXAX)

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you. That’s about the number of words a slightly-manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half. In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site. Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share. These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more.

In a fundamentally hostile environment, investors need to have a flexible approach to income investing. Some funds express that flexibility by investing in emerging market bonds, financial derivatives such as options, or illiquid securities (think: “lease payments from the apartment complex we just bought”).

American Beacon’s decision was to target “positive total return regardless of market conditions” in their version.  Beacon, like Harbor, positions itself as “a manager of managers” and assembles teams of institutional sub-advisors to manage the actual portfolio.  In this case, they’ve paired Brandywine Global, GAM and PIMCO and have given the managers extraordinarily leeway in pursuing the fund’s objective.  One measure of that flexibility is the fund’s duration, a measure of interest rate sensitivity.  They project a duration of anything from negative five years (effectively shorting the market) to plus eight years (generally the preferred spot for long-term owners of bond funds).  Since inception the fund has noticeably outrun its “nontraditional bond” peers with reasonable volatility.

Jeff Ringdahl is American Beacon’s Chief Operating Officer and one of the primary architects of the Flexible Bond Strategy. He’s worked with a bunch of “A” tier management firms including Touchstone Investments, Fidelity and State Street Global Advisors.   Here are his 245 words (I know, he overshot) on why you should consider a flexible bond strategy:

In building an alternative to a traditional bond fund, our goal was to stay true to what we consider the three tenets of traditional bond investing: current income, principal preservation and equity diversification.  However, we also sought to protect against unstable interest rates and credit spreads.

The word “unconstrained” is often used to describe similar strategies, but we believe “flexible” is a better descriptor for our approach. Many investors associate the word “unconstrained” with higher risk.  We implemented important risk constraints which help to create a lower risk profile. Our multi-manager structure is a key distinguishing characteristic because of its built-in risk management. Unconstrained or flexible bond funds feature a great degree of investment flexibility. While investment managers may deliver compelling risk-adjusted performance by using this enhanced flexibility, there may be an increased possibility of underperformance because there are fewer risk controls imposed by many of our peer funds. In our opinion, if you would ever want to diversify your managers you would do so where the manager had the greatest latitude. We think that this product style is uniquely designed for multi-manager diversification.

Flexible bond investing allows asset managers the ability to invest long and short across the global bond and currency markets to capitalize on opportunities in the broad areas of credit, currencies and yield curve strategies. We think focusing on the three Cs: Credit, Currency and Curve gives us an advantage in seeking to deliver positive returns over a complete market cycle.

The fund has five share classes. The minimum initial investment for the no-load Investor class is $2,500.   Expenses are 1.27% on about $300 million in assets.

The fund’s website is functional but spare.  You get the essential information, but there’s no particular wealth of insight or commentary on this strategy (and there is one odd picture of a bunch of sailboats barely able to get out of one another’s way).

Our earlier Elevator Talks were:

1. February 2013: Tom Kerr, Rocky Peak Small Cap Value (RPCSX), whose manager has a 14 year track record in small cap investing and a passion for discovering “value” in the intersection of many measures: discounted cash flows, LBO models, M&A valuations and traditional relative valuation metrics.
2. March 2013: Dale Harvey, Poplar Forest Partners (PFPFX and IPFPX), a concentrated, contrarian value stock fund that offers “a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest with a successful American Funds manager who went out on his own.”
3. April 2013: Bayard Closser, Vertical Capital Income Fund (VCAPX), “a closed-end interval fund, VCAPX invests in whole mortgage loans and first deeds of trust. We purchase the loans from lenders at a deep discount and service them ourselves.”
4. May 2013: Jim Hillary, LS Opportunity Fund (LSOFX), a co-founder of Marsico Capital Management whose worry that “the quality of research on Wall Street continues to decline and investors are becoming increasingly concerned about short-term performance” led to his faith in “in-depth research and long-term orientation in our high conviction ideas.”
5. July 2013: Casey Frazier, Versus Capital Multi-Manager Real Estate Income Fund (VCMRX), a second closed-end interval fund whose portfolio “includes real estate private equity and debt, public equity and debt, and broad exposure across asset types and geographies. We target a mix of 70% private real estate with 30% public real estate to enhance liquidity, and our objective is to produce total returns in the 7 – 9% range net of fees.”
6. August 2013: Brian Frank, Frank Value Fund (FRNKX), a truly all-cap value fund with a simple, successful discipline: if one part of the market is overpriced, shop elsewhere.
7. August 2013: Ian Mortimer and Matthew Page of Guinness Atkinson Inflation Managed Dividend (GAINX), a global equity fund that pursues firms with “sustainable and potentially rising dividends,” which also translates to firms with robust business models and consistently high return on capital.
8. September 2013: Steven Vannelli of GaveKal Knowledge Leaders (GAVAX), which looks to invest in “the best among global companies that are tapping a deep reservoir of intangible capital to generate earnings growth,” where “R&D, design, brand and channel” are markers of robust intangible capital. From launch through the end of June, 2013, the fund modestly outperformed the MSCI World Index and did so with two-thirds less volatility
9. October 2013: Bashar Qasem of Wise Capital (WISEX), which provides investors with an opportunity for global diversification in a fund category (short term bonds) mostly distinguished by bland uniformity.

Conference Call Highlights: Zac Wydra of Beck, Mack & Oliver Partners

We looked for a picture of Zac Wydra on the web but found Wydra the Otter instead. We decided that Zac is cute but Wydra is cuter, so… If we can find a t-shirt with Wydra’s picture on it, we might send it along to Zac with our best wishes.

In mid-October we spoke for about an hour with Zac Wydra of Beck, Mack & Oliver Partners Fund (BMPEX). There were about 30 other participants on the call. I’ve elsewhere analogized Beck, Mack to Dodge & Cox: an old money, white shoe firm whose core business is helping the rich stay rich. In general, you need a $3 million minimum investment to engage with them. Partners was created in 1991 as a limited partnership to accommodate the grandkids or staff of their clients, folks who might only have a few hundred thousand to commit. (Insert about here: “Snowball gulps”) The “limited” in limited partnership signals a maximum number of investors, 100. The partnership filled up and prospered. When the managing partner retired, Zac made a pitch to convert the partnership to a ’40 fund and make it more widely available. He argued that he thought there was a wider audience for a disciplined, concentrated fund.

He was made the fund’s inaugural manager. He’s 41 and anticipates running BMPEX for about the next quarter century, at which point he’ll be required – as all partners are – to move into retirement and undertake a phased five year divestment of his economic stake in the firm. His then-former ownership stake will be available to help attract and retain the best cadre of younger professionals that they can find. Between now and retirement he will (1) not run any other pooled investment vehicle, (2) not allow BMPEX to get noticeably bigger than $1.5 billion – he’ll return capital to investors first – and (3) will, over a period of years, train and oversee a potential successor.

In the interim, the discipline is simple:

1. never hold more than 30 securities – he can hold bonds but hasn’t found any that offer a better risk/return profile than the stocks he’s found.
2. only invest in firms with great management teams, a criterion that’s met when the team demonstrates superior capital allocation decisions over a period of years
3. invest only in firms whose cash flows are consistent and predictable. Some fine firms come with high variable flows and some are in industries whose drivers are particularly hard to decipher; he avoids those altogether.
4. only buy when stocks sell at a sufficient discount to fair value that you’ve got a margin of safety, a patience that was illustrated by his decision to watch Bed, Bath & Beyond for over two and a half years before a short-term stumble triggered a panicky price drop and he could move in. In general, he is targeting stocks which have the prospect of gaining at least 50% over the next three years and which will not lose value over that time.
5. ignore the question of whether it’s a “high turnover” or “low turnover” strategy. His argument is that the market determines the turnover rate. If his holdings become overpriced, he’ll sell them quickly. If the market collapses, he’ll look for stocks with even better risk/return profiles than those currently in the portfolio. In general, it would be common for him to turn over three to five names in the portfolio each year, though occasionally that’s just recycling: he’ll sell a good firm whose stock becomes overvalued then buy it back again once it becomes undervalued.

Two listener questions, in particular, stood out:

Kevin asked what Zac’s “edge” was. A focus on cash, rather than earnings, seemed to be the core of it. Businesses exist to generate cash, not earnings, and so BM&O’s valuations were driven by discounted cash flow models. Those models were meaningful only if it were possible to calculate the durability of cash flows over 5 years. In industries where cash flows have volatile, it’s hard to assign a meaningful multiple and so he avoids them.

Seth asked what mistakes have you made and what did you learn from them? Zac hearkened back to the days when the fund was still a private partnership. They’d invested in AIG which subsequently turned into a bloody mess. Ummm, “not an enjoyable experience” was his phrase. He learned from that that “independent” was not always the same as “contrary.” AIG was selling at what appeared to be a lunatic discount, so BM&O bought in a contrarian move. Out of the resulting debacle, Zac learned a bit more respect for the market’s occasionally unexplainable pricings of an asset. At base, if the market says a stock is worth twenty cents a share, you’d better than remarkably strong evidence in order to act on an internal valuation of twenty dollars a share.

Bottom Line: On whole, it strikes me as a remarkable strategy: simple, high return, low excitement, repeatable, sustained for near a quarter century and sustainable for another.

For folks interested but unable to join us, here’s the complete audio of the hour-long conversation.

The BMPEX Conference Call

As with all of these funds, we’ve created a new featured funds page for Beck, Mack & Oliver Partners Fund, pulling together all of the best resources we have for the fund, including a brand new audio profile in .mp3 format.

When you click on the link, the file will load in your browser and will begin playing after it’s partially loaded. If the file downloads, instead, you may have to double-click to play it.

As promised, my colleague Charles Boccadoro weighs in on your almost-magical ability to turn a temporary loss of principal into a …

Permanent Loss of Capital

The father of value investing, Benjamin Graham, employed the concept of “Margin of Safety” to minimize risk of permanent loss. His great student, Warren Buffett, puts it like this: “Rule No. 1: never lose money; rule No. 2: don’t forget rule No. 1.”

Zachary Wydra, portfolio manager of the 5-star Beck Mack & Oliver Partners (BMPEX) fund, actually cited Mr. Buffett’s quote during the recent MFO conference call.

But a look at Berkshire Hathaway, one of the great stocks of all time, shows it dropped 46% between December 2007 and February of 2009. And, further back, it dropped about the same between June 1998 and February 2002. So, is Mr. Buffett not following his own rule? Similarly, a look at BMPEX shows an even steeper decline in 2009 at -54%, slightly worse than the SP500.

The distinction, of course, is that drawdown does not necessarily mean loss, unless one sells at what is only a temporary loss in valuation – as opposed to an unrecoverable loss, like experienced by Enron shareholders. Since its 2009 drawdown, BMPEX is in fact up an enviable 161%, beating the SP500 by 9%.

Robert Arnott, founder of Research Associates, summarizes as follows: “Temporary losses of value are frequent; at times they can become so frightening that they become permanent—for those that sell.” Distinguishing between temporary drawdown and permanent loss of capital (aka “the ultimate risk”) is singularly the most important, if unnerving, aspect of successful value investing.

Mr. Wydra explains his strategy is to target stocks that have an upside potential over the next three years of at least 50% and will not lose value over that time. Translation: “loss,” as far as BMPEX is concerned, equates to no drawdown over a three year period. A very practical goal indeed, since any longer period would likely not be tolerated by risk averse investors.

And yet, it is very, very hard to do, perhaps even impossible for any fund that is primarily long equities.

Here is downside SP500 total return performance looking back about 52 years:

It says that 3-year returns fall below zero over nearly 30% of the time and the SP500 shows a loss of 20% or more in 15% of 3-year returns. If we compare returns against consumer price index (CPI), the result is even worse. But for simplicity (and Pete’s) sake, we will not. Fact is, over this time frame, one would need to have invested in the SP500 for nearly 12 years continuously to guarantee a positive return. 12 years!

How many equity or asset allocation funds have not experienced a drawdown over any three year period? Very few. In the last 20 years, only four, or about 1-in-1000. Gabelli ABC (GABCX) and Merger (MERFX), both in the market neutral category and both focused on merger arbitrage strategies. Along with Permanent Portfolio (PRPFX) and Midas Perpetual Portfolio (MPREX), both in the conservative allocation category and both with large a percentage of their portfolios in gold. None of these four beat the SP500. (Although three beat bonds and GABCX did so with especially low volatility.)

So, while delivering equity-like returns without incurring a “loss” over a three year period may simply prove too high a goal to come true, it is what we wish was true.

29Oct2013/Charles

Conference Call Upcoming: John Park and Greg Jackson, Oakseed Opportunity, November 18, 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern

On November 18, Observer readers will have the opportunity to hear from, and speak to John Park and Greg Jackson, co-managers of Oakseed Opportunity Fund (SEEDX and SEDEX). John managed Columbia Acorn Select for five and a half years and, at his 2004 departure, Morningstar announced “we are troubled by his departure: Park had run this fund since its inception and was a big driver behind its great long-term record. He was also the firm’s primary health-care analyst.” Greg co-managed Oakmark Global (OAKGX) for over four years and his departure in 2003 prompted an Eeyore-ish, “It’s never good news when a talented manager leaves.”

The guys moved to Blum Capital, a venture capital firm.  They did well, made money but had less fun than they’d like so they decided to return to managing a distinctly low-profile mutual fund.

Oakseed is designed to be an opportunistic equity fund.  Its managers are expected to be able to look broadly and go boldly, wherever the greatest opportunities present themselves.  It’s limited by neither geography, market cap nor stylebox.   John Park laid out its mission succinctly: “we pursue the maximum returns in the safest way possible.”

I asked John where he thought they’d focus their opening comments.  Here’s his reply:

We would like to talk about the structure of our firm and how it relates to the fund at the outset of the call.  I think people should know we’re not the usual fund management company most people think of when investing in a fund. We discussed this in our first letter to shareholders, but I think it’s worthwhile for our prospective and current investors to know that Oakseed is the only client we have, primarily because we want complete alignment with our clients from not only a mutual investment perspective (“skin in the game”), but also that all of our time is spent on this one entity. In addition, being founders of our firm and this fund, with no intentions of ever starting and managing a new fund, there is much less risk to our investors that one or both of us would ever leave. I think having that assurance is important.

Our conference call will be Monday, November 18, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern.  It’s free.  It’s a phone call.

How can you join in?

If you’d like to join in, just click on register and you’ll be taken to the Chorus Call site.  In exchange for your name and email, you’ll receive a toll-free number, a PIN and instructions on joining the call.  If you register, I’ll send you a reminder email on the morning of the call.

Remember: registering for one call does not automatically register you for another.  You need to click each separately.  Likewise, registering for the conference call mailing list doesn’t register you for a call; it just lets you know when an opportunity comes up. 

WOULD AN ADDITIONAL HEADS UP HELP?

Nearly two hundred readers have signed up for a conference call mailing list.  About a week ahead of each call, I write to everyone on the list to remind them of what might make the call special and how to register.  If you’d like to be added to the conference call list, just drop me a line.

Conference Call Queue: David Sherman, RiverPark Strategic Income, December 9, 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern

On Monday, December 9, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern, you’ll have a chance to meet David Sherman, manager of RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX) and the newly-launched RiverPark Strategic Income Fund (RSIVX). David positions RSIVX as the next step out on the risk-return ladder from RPHYX: capable of doubling its sibling’s returns with entirely manageable risk.  If you’d like to get ahead of the curve, you can register for the call with David though I will highlight his call in next month’s issue.

Launch Alert: DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced CAPE

On October 29, DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced CAPE (DSEEX and DSENX) launched. The fund will use derivatives to try to outperform the Shiller Barclays CAPE US Sector Total Return Index.  CAPE is an acronym for “cyclically-adjusted price/earnings.”  The measure was propounded by Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Shiller as a way of taking some of the hocus-pocus out of the calculation of price/earnings ratios.  At base, it divides today’s stock price by the average, inflation-adjusted earnings from the past decade.  Shiller argues that current earnings are often deceptive since profit margins tend over time to regress to the mean and many firms earnings run on three to five year cycles.  As a result, the market might look dirt cheap (high profit margins plus high cyclical earnings = low conventional P/E) when it’s actually poised for a fall.  Looking at prices relative to longer-term earnings gives you a better chance of getting sucked into a value trap.

The fund will be managed by The Gundlach and Jeffrey Sherman. Messrs Gundlach and Sherman also work together on the distinctly disappointing Multi-Asset Growth fund (DMLAX), so the combination of these guys and an interesting idea doesn’t translate immediately into a desirable product.  The fact that it, like many PIMCO funds, is complicated and derivatives-driven counsels for due caution in one’s due diligence. The “N” share class has a $2000 minimum initial investment and 0.91% expense ratio.  The institutional shares are about one-third cheaper.

Those interested in a nice introduction to the CAPE research might look at Samuel Lee’s 2012 CAPE Crusader essay at Morningstar. There’s a fact sheet and a little other information on the fund’s homepage.

Funds in Registration (The New Year’s Edition)

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details. Any fund that wanted to launch before the end of the year needed to be in registration by mid- to late October.

And there were a lot of funds targeting a year-end launch. Every day David Welsch, firefighter/EMT/fund researcher, scours new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves.  This month he tracked down 24 no-load retail funds in registration, which represents our core interest.  But if you expand that to include ETFs, institutional funds, reorganized funds and load-bearing funds, you find nearly 120 new vehicles scheduled for Christmas delivery.

Close readers might find the answers to four funds in reg quiz questions:

1. Which manager of a newly-registered fund had the schmanciest high society wedding this year?
2. Which fund in registration gave Snowball, by far, the biggest headache as he tried to translate their prose to English?
3. Which hedge fund manager decided that the perfect time to launch a mutual fund was after getting bludgeoned on returns for two consecutive years?
4. Which managers seem most attuned to young investors, skippering craft that might be described as Clifford the Big Red Mutual Fund and the Spongebob Fund?

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 51 fund manager changes.

Updates

One of the characteristics of good managers is their ability to think clearly and one of the best clues to the existence of clear thinking is clear writing. Here’s a decent rule: if they can’t write a grocery list without babbling, you should avoid them. Contrarily, clear, graceful writing often reflects clear thinking.

Many managers update their commentaries and fund materials quarterly and we want to guide you to the most recent discussions and data possible for the funds we’ve written about. The indefatigable Mr. Welsch has checked (and updated) every link and linked document for every fund we’ve profiled in 2013 and for most of 2012. Here’s David’s summary table, which will allow you to click through to a variety of updated documents.

Briefly Noted 

A big ol’ “uhhh” to Advisory Research Emerging Markets All Cap Value Fund (the “Fund”) which has changed both manager (“Effective immediately, Brien M. O’Brien is no longer a portfolio manager of the Fund”) and name (it will be Advisory Research Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund), both before the fund even launched.  A few days after that announcement, AR also decided that Matthew Dougherty would be removed as a manager of the still-unlaunched fund.  On the bright side, it didn’t close to new investors before launch, so that’s good.  Launch date is November 1, 2013.

In a singularly dark day, Mr. O’Brien was also removed as manager of Advisory Research Small Micro Cap Value Fund, which has also not launched and has changed its name: Advisory Research Small Company Opportunities Fund.”

A Centaur arises!  The Tilson funds used to be a two-fund family: the one that Mr. Tilson ran and the one that was really good. After years of returns that never quite matched the hype, Mr. Tilson liquidated his Tilson Focus (TILFX) fund in June 2013.  That left behind the Tilson-less Tilson Dividend Fund (TILDX) which we described as “an awfully compelling little fund.”

Effective November 1, Tilson Dividend became Centaur Total Return Fund (TILDX), named after its long-time sub-adviser, Centaur Capital Partners.  Rick Schumacher, the operations guy at the Centaur funds, elaborates:

Since Tilson is no longer involved in the mutual fund whatsoever, and since the Dividend Fund has historically generated as much (if not more) income from covered call premiums rather than pure dividends, we felt that it was a good time to rebrand the fund.  So, effective today, our fund is now named the Centaur Total Return Fund.  We have kept the ticker (TILDX), as nothing’s really changed as far as the investment objective or strategy of the fund, and besides, we like our track record.  But, we’re very excited about our new Centaur Mutual Funds brand, as it will provide us with potential opportunities to launch other strategies under this platform in the future.

They’ve just launched a clean and appropriate dignified website that both represents the new fund and archives the analytic materials relevant to its old designation.  The fund sits at $65 million in assets with cash occupying about a quarter of its portfolio.  All cap, four stars, low risk. It’s worth considering, which we’ll do again in our December issue.

Laudus Growth Investors U.S. Large Cap Growth Fund is having almost as much fun.  On September 24, its Board booted UBS Global Asset Management as the managers of the fund in favor of BlackRock.  They then changed the name (to Laudus U.S. Large Cap Growth Fund) and, generously, slashed the fund’s expense ratio by an entire basis point from 0.78% to 0.77%.

But no joy in Mudville: the shareholder meeting being held to vote on the merger of  Lord Abbett Classic Stock Fund (LRLCX) into Lord Abbett Calibrated Dividend Growth Fund (LAMAX) has been adjourned until November 7, 2013 for lack of a quorum.

Scout Funds are sporting a redesigned website. Despite the fact that our profiles of Scout Unconstrained Bond and Scout Low Duration don’t qualify as “news” for the purposes of their media list (sniffles), I agree with reader Dennis Green’s celebration of the fact the new site is “thoughtful, with a classy layout, and—are you sitting down?— their data are no longer stale and are readily accessible!”  Thanks to Dennis for the heads-up.

Snowball’s portfolio: in September, I noted that two funds were on the watchlist for my own, non-retirement portfolio.  They were Aston River Road Long Short (ARLSX) and RiverPark Strategic Income (RSIVX). I’ve now opened a small exploratory position in Aston (I pay much more attention to a fund when I have actual money at risk) as I continue to explore the possibility of transferring my Northern Global Tactical Asset Allocation (BBALX) investment there.  The Strategic Income position is small but permanent and linked to a monthly automatic investment plan.

For those interested, John Waggoner of USA Today talked with me for a long while about the industry and interesting new funds.  Part of that conversation contributed to his October 17 article, “New Funds Worth Mentioning.”

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Eaton Vance Asian Small Companies Fund (EVASX) will eliminate its danged annoying “B” share class on November 4, 2013. It’s still trying to catch up from having lost 70% in the 2007-09 meltdown. 

Green Owl Intrinsic Value Fund (GOWLX) substantially reduced its expense cap from 1.40% to 1.10%. It’s been a very solid little large cap fund since its launch in early 2012.

Invesco Balanced-Risk Commodity Strategy Fund (BRCAX) will reopen to new investors on November 8, 2013. The fund has three quarters of a billion in assets despite trailing its peers and losing money in two of its first three years of existence.

As of December, Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index (VDAIX) will have new Admiral shares with a 0.10% expense ratio and a $10,000 minimum investment. That’s a welcome savings on a fund currently charging 0.20% for the Investor share class.

At eight funds, Vanguard will rename Signal shares as Admiral shares and will lower the minimum investment to $10,000 from $100,000.

Zeo Strategic Income Fund (ZEOIX) dropped its “institutional” minimum to $5,000.  I will say this for Zeo: it’s very steady.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

The Brown Capital Management Small Company Fund (BCSIX) closed to new investors on October 18, 2013.

Buffalo Emerging Opportunities Fund (BUFOX) formally announced its intention to close to new investors when the fund’s assets under management reach $475 million. At last check, they’re at $420 million.  Five star fund with consistently top 1% returns.  If you’re curious, check quick!

GW&K Small Cap Equity Fund (GWETX) is slated to close to new investors on November 1, 2013.

Matthews Pacific Tiger Fund (MAPTX) closed to new investors on October 25, 2013.

Oakmark International (OAKIX) closed to most new investors as of the close of business on October 4, 2013

Templeton Foreign Smaller Companies (FINEX) will close to new investors on December 10^th.  I have no idea of why: it’s a small fund with an undistinguished but not awful record. Liquidation seems unlikely but I can’t imagine that much hot money has been burning a hole in the managers’ pockets.

Touchstone Merger Arbitrage Fund (TMGAX), already mostly closed, will limit access a bit more on November 11, 2013.  That means closing the fund to new financial advisors.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Advisory Research Emerging Markets All Cap Value Fund has renamed itself, before launch, as Advisory Research Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund.

Aegis Value Fund (AVALX) has been reorganized as … Aegis Value Fund (AVALX), except with a sales load (see story above).

DundeeWealth US, LP (the “Adviser”) has also changed its name to “Scotia Institutional Investments US, LP” effective November 1, 2013.

The Hatteras suite of alternative strategy funds (Hatteras Alpha Hedged Strategies, Hedged Strategies Fund, Long/Short Debt Fund, Long/Short Equity Fund and Managed Futures Strategies Fund) have been sold to RCS Capital Corporation and Scotland Acquisition, LLC.  We know this because the SEC filing avers the “Purchaser will purchase from the Sellers and the Sellers will sell to the Purchaser, substantially all the assets related to the business and operations of the Sellers and … the “Hatteras Funds Group.” Morningstar has a “negative” analyst rating on the group but I cannot find a discussion of that judgment.

Ladenburg Thalmann Alternative Strategies Fund (LTAFX) have been boldly renamed (wait for it) Alternative Strategies Fund.  It appears to be another in the expanding array of “interval” funds, whose shares are illiquid and partially redeemable just once a quarter. Its performance since October 2010 launch has been substantially better than its open-ended peers.

Effective October 7, 2013, the WisdomTree Global ex-US Growth Fund (DNL) became WisdomTree Global ex-US Dividend Growth Fund.

U.S. Global Investors MegaTrends Fund (MEGAX) will, on December 20, become Holmes Growth Fund

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

On-going thanks to The Shadow for help in tracking the consequences of “the perennial gale of creative destruction” blowing through the industry.  Shadow, a member of the Observer’s discussion community, has an uncanny talent for identifying and posting fund liquidations (and occasionally) launches to our discussion board about, oh, 30 seconds after the SEC first learns of the change.  Rather more than three dozen of the changes noted here and elsewhere in Briefly Noted were flagged by The Shadow.  While my daily reading of SEC 497 filings identified most of the them, his work really does contribute a lot. 

And so, thanks, big guy!

On October 16, 2013, the Board of Trustees of the Trust approved a Plan of Liquidation, which authorizes the termination, liquidation and dissolution of the 361 Absolute Alpha Fund. In order to effect such liquidation, the Fund is closed to all new investment. Shareholders may redeem their shares until the date of liquidation. The Fund will be liquidated on or about October 30, 2013.

City National Rochdale Diversified Equity Fund (the “Diversified Fund”) has merged into City National Rochdale U.S. Core Equity Fund while City National Rochdale Full Maturity Fixed Income Fund was absorbed by City National Rochdale Intermediate Fixed Income Fund

Great-West Ariel Small Cap Value Fund (MXSCX) will merge into Great-West Ariel Mid Cap Value Fund (MXMCX) around Christmas, 2013.  That’s probably a win for shareholders, since SCV has been mired in the muck while MCV has posted top 1% returns over the past five years.

As we suspected, Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation Fund (FECAX) is merging into Fidelity Europe Fund (FIEUX). FECAX was supposed to be the aggressive growth version of FIEUX but the funds have operated as virtually clones for the past five years.  And neither has particularly justified its existence: average risk, average return, high r-squared despite the advantages of low expenses and a large analyst pool.

The Board of the Hansberger funds seems concerned that you don’t quite understand the implications of having a fund liquidated.  And so, in the announcement of the October 18 liquidation of Hansberger International Fund they helpfully explain: “The Fund no longer exists, and as a result, shares of the Fund are no longer available for purchase.”

Highland Alpha Trend Strategies Fund (HATAX), formerly Pyxis Alpha Trend Strategies Fund, will close on November 20, 2013.  With assets not much greater than my retirement account (and performance vastly below it), I’m not sure that even the manager will notice the disappearance.

Huntington Income Equity (HUINX) will merge into Huntington Dividend Capture Fund (HDCAX) at the end of the first week of December.  It’s never a good sign when the winning fund – the more attractive of the two – trails 80% of its peers.

The JPMorgan Global Opportunities Fund was liquidated and dissolved on or about October 25, 2013. Given that they’re speaking in the past tense, don’t you think that they’d know whether it was “on” or “about”?

Update on the JPMorgan Value Opportunities Fund: an attempt to merge the fund out of existence in September failed because the Board couldn’t get enough shareholders to vote one way or the other.  On October 10, though, they reached a critical mass and folded the fund into JPMorgan Large Cap Value Fund (OLVAX) on October 18^th.

So long to LONGX! Longview Tactical Allocation Fund (LONGX) has closed and will liquidate on November 15, 2013.  700% turnover which might well have led to a joke about their ability to take the long view except for the fact that they’ve joined the zombie legion of walking dead funds.

In a determinedly “WTF?” move, the Mitchell Capital’s Board of Trustees has determined to liquidate the Mitchell Capital All-Cap Growth Fund (MCAEX) “due to the adviser’s business decision that it no longer is economically viable to continue managing the Fund because of the Fund’s small size, the increasing costs associated with managing the Fund, and the difficulty encountered in distributing the Fund’s shares.”  Huh?  “No longer economically viable”?  They only launched this sucker on March 1, 2013.  Seven months, guys?  You hung on seven months and that’s it?  What sort of analytic abilities are on display here, do you suppose?

On October 15, Nomura Partners Funds closed all of its remaining five mutual funds to purchases and exchanges.  They are The Japan Fund (NPJAX), Nomura Partners High Yield (NPHAX), Nomura Partners Asia Pacific Ex Japan (NPAAX), Nomura Partners Global Equity Income (NPWAX), and Nomura Partners Global Emerging Markets (NPEAX).  Here’s a sentence you should take seriously: “The Board will consider the best interests of the investors in each of the Funds and may decide to liquidate, merge, assign the advisory contract or to take another course of action for one or more of the Funds.”  The NPJAX board has acted boldly in the past.  In 2002, it fired the fund’s long-standing adviser, Scudder,Stevens, and turned the fund over to Fidelity to manage.  Then, in 2008, they moved it again from Fidelity to Nomura.  No telling what they might do next.

The firm also announced that it, like DundeeWealth, is planning to get out of the US retail fund business.

The liquidations of Nuveen Tradewinds Global Resources Fund and Nuveen Tradewinds Small-Cap Opportunities Fund are complete.  It’s an ill wind that blows …

Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP and Infrastructure Debt Fund went the way of the wild goose on October 4.

Transamerica is bumping off two sub-advised funds in mid-December: Transamerica International Bond (TABAX), subadvised by J.P. Morgan, and Transamerica International Value Opportunities Fund, subadvised by Thornburg but only available to other Transamerica fund managers.

UBS Global Frontier Fund became UBS Asset Growth Fund (BGFAX) on October 28.  Uhhh … doesn’t “Asset Growth” strike you as pretty much “Asset Gathering”?  Under the assumption that “incredibly complicated” is the magic strategy, the fund will adopt a managed volatility objective that tries to capture all of the upside of the MSCI World Free Index with a standard deviation of no more than 15.  On the portfolio’s horizon: indirect real estate securities, index funds, options and derivatives with leverage of up to 75%. They lose a couple managers and gain a couple in the process.

U.S. Global Investors Global Emerging Markets Fund closed on October 1 and liquidated on Halloween.  If you were an investor in the fund, I’m hopeful that you’d already noticed.  And considered Seafarer as an alternative.

Vanguard plans to merge two of its tax-managed funds into very similar index funds.  Vanguard Tax-Managed International (VTMNX) is merging into Vanguard Developed Markets Index (VDMIX) and Vanguard Tax-Managed Growth & Income (VTMIX) will merge into Vanguard 500 Index (VFINX). Since these were closet index funds to begin with – they have R-squared values of 98.5 and 100(!) – the merger mostly serves to raise the expenses borne by VTMNX investors from 10 basis points to 20 for the index fund.

Vanguard Growth Equity (VGEQX) is being absorbed by Vanguard US Growth (VWUSX). Baillie Gifford, managers of Growth Equity, will be added as another team for US Growth.

Vanguard Managed Payout Distribution Focus (VPDFX) and Vanguard Managed Payout Growth Focus (VPGFX) are slated to merge to create a new fund, Vanguard Managed Payout Fund. At that time, the payout in question will decrease to 4% from 5%.

WHV Emerging Markets Equity Fund (WHEAX) is suffering “final liquidation”  on or about December 20, 2013.  Okay returns, $5 million in assets.

In Closing . . .

As Chip reviewed how folks use our email notification (do they open it?  Do they click through to MFO?), she discovered 33 clicks from folks in Toyko (youkoso!), 21 in the U.K. (uhhh … pip pip?), 13 in the United Arab Emirates (keep cool, guys!) and 10 scattered about India (Namaste!).  Welcome to all.

Thanks to the kind folks who contributed to the Observer this month.  I never second guess folks’ decision to contribute, directly or through PayPal, but I am sometimes humbled by their generosity and years of support.  And so thanks, especially, to the Right Reverend Rick – a friend of many years – and to Andrew, Bradford, Matt, James (uhh… Jimmy?) and you all.  You make it all possible.

Thanks to all of the folks who bookmarked or clicked on our Amazon link.   Here’s the reminder of the easiest way to support the Observer: just use our Amazon link whenever you’d normally be doing your shopping, holiday or other, on Amazon anyway.  They contribute an amount equal to about 7% of the value of all stuff purchased through the link.  It costs you nothing (the cost is already built into their marketing budget) and is invisible.  If you’re interested in the details, feel free to look at the Amazon section under “Support.”  

Remember to join us, if you can, for our upcoming conversations with John, Greg and David.  Regardless, enjoy the quiet descent of fall and its seasonal reminder to slow down a bit and remember all the things you have to be grateful for rather than fretting about the ones you don’t have (and, really, likely don’t need and wouldn’t enjoy).

Cheers!

Dear friends,

My colleagues in the English department are forever yammering on about this Shakespeare guy.I’m skeptical. First, he didn’t even know how to spell his own name (“Wm Shakspē”? Really?). Second, he clearly didn’t understand seasonality of the markets. If you listen to Gloucester’s famous declamation in Richard III, you’ll see what I mean:

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.

It’s pretty danged clear that we haven’t had anything “made glorious summer by the sun of [New] York.” By Morningstar’s report, every single category of bond and hybrid fund has lost money over the course of the allegedly “glorious summer.” Seven of the nine domestic equity boxes have flopped around, neither noticeably rising nor falling.

And now, the glorious summer passed, we enter what historically are the two worst months for the stock market. To which I can only reply with three observations (The Pirates are on the verge of their first winning season since 1992! The Steelers have no serious injuries looming over them. And Will’s fall baseball practices are upon us.) and one question:

Is it time to loathe the emerging markets? Again?

Yuh, apparently. A quick search in Google News for “emerging markets panic” turns up 3300 stories during the month of August. They look pretty much like this:

With our preeminent journalists contributing:

Many investors have responded as they usually do, by applying a short-term perspective to a long-term decision. Which is to say, they’re fleeing. Emerging market bond funds saw a $2 billion outflow in the last week of August and $24 billion since late May (Emerging Markets Fund Flows Investors Are Dumping Emerging Markets at an Accelerating Pace, Business Insider, 8/30/13). The withdrawals were indiscriminate, affecting all regions and both local currency and hard currency securities. Equity funds saw $4 billion outflows for the week, with ETFs leading the way down (Emerging markets rout has investors saying one word: sell, Marketwatch, 8/30/13).

In a peculiar counterpoint, Jason Kepler of Investment News claims – using slightly older data – that Mom and pop can’t quit emerging-market stocks. And that’s good (8/27/13). He finds “uncharacteristic resiliency” in retail investors’ behavior. I’d like to believe him. (The News allows a limited number of free article views; if you’d exceeded your limit and hit a paywall, you might try Googling the article title. Or subscribing, I guess.)

We’d like to make three points.

• Emerging markets securities are deeply undervalued
• Those securities certainly could become much more deeply undervalued.
• It’s not the time to be running away.

Emerging markets securities are deeply undervalued

Wall Street Ranter, an anonymous blogger from the financial services industry and sometime contributor to the Observer’s discussion board, shared two really striking bits of valuation data from his blog.

The first, “Valuations of Emerging Markets vs US Stocks” (7/20/13) looks at a PIMCO presentation of the Shiller PE for the emerging markets and U.S., then at how such p/e ratios have correlated to future returns. Shiller adjusts the market’s price/earnings ratio to eliminate the effect of atypical profit margins, since those margins relentlessly regress to the mean over time. There’s a fair amount of research that suggests that the Shiller PE has fair predictive validity; that is, abnormally low Shiller PEs are followed by abnormally high market returns and vice versa.

Here, with Ranter’s kind permission, is one of the graphics from that piece:

At June 30, 2013 valuations, this suggests that US equities were priced for 4% nominal returns (2-3% real), on average, over the next five years while e.m. equities were priced to return 19% nominal (17% or so real) over the same period. GMO, at month’s end, reached about the same figure for high quality US equities (3.1% real) but a much lower estimate (6.8%) for emerging equities. By GMO’s calculation, emerging equities were priced to return more than twice as much as any other publicly traded asset class.

Based on recent conversations with the folks at GMO, Ranter concludes that GMO suspects that changes in the structure of the Chinese economy might be leading them to overstate likely emerging equity returns. Even accounting for those changes, they remain the world’s most attractive asset class:

While emerging markets are the highest on their 7 year forecast (approx. 7%/year) they are treating it more like 4%/year in their allocations . . . because they believe they need to account for a longer-term shift in the pace of China’s growth. They believe the last 10 years or so have skewed the mean too far upwards. While this reduces slightly their allocation, it still leaves Emerging Markets has one of their highest forecasts (but very close to International Value … which includes a lot of developed European companies).

Ranter offered a second, equally striking graphic in “Emerging Markets Price-to-Book Ratio and Forward Returns (8/9/13).”

At these levels, he reports, you’d typically expect returns over the following year of around 55%. That data is available in his original article. 

In a singularly unpopular observation, Andrew Foster, manager of Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX/SIGIX), one of the most successful and risk-alert e.m. managers (those two attributes are intimately connected), notes that the most-loathed emerging markets are also the most compelling values:

The BRICs have underperformed to such an extent that their aggregate valuation, when compared to the emerging markets as a whole, is as low as it has been in eight years. In other words, based on a variety of valuation metrics (price-to-book value, price-to-prospective-earnings, and dividend yield), the BRICs are as cheap relative to the rest of the emerging markets as they have been in a long time. I find this interesting. . . for the (rare?) subset of investors contemplating a long-term (10-year) allocation to EM, just as they were better off to avoid the BRICs over the past 5 years when they were “hot,” they are likely to be better off over the next 10 years emphasizing the BRICs now they are “not.”

Those securities certainly could become much more deeply undervalued.

The graphic above illustrates the ugly reality that sometimes (late ’98, all of ’08), but not always (’02, ’03, mid ’11), very cheap markets become sickeningly cheap markets before rebounding. Likewise, Shiller PE for the emerging markets occasionally slip from cheap (10-15PE) to “I don’t want to talk about it” (7 PE). GMO mildly notes, “economic reality and investor behavior cause securities and markets to overshoot their fair value.”

Andrew Foster gently dismisses his own predictive powers (“my record on predicting short-term outcomes is very poor”). At the same time, he finds additional cause for short-term concern:

[M]y thinking on the big picture has changed since [early July] because currencies have gotten into the act. I have been worried about this for two years now — and yet even with some sense it could get ugly, it has been hard to avoid mistakes. In my opinion, currency movements are impossible to predict over the short or long term. The only thing that is predictable is that when currency volatility picks up, is likely to overshoot (to the downside) in the short run.

It’s not the time to be running away.

There are two reasons driving that conclusion. First, you’ve already gotten the timing wrong and you’re apt to double your error. The broad emerging markets index has been bumping along without material gain for five years now. If you were actually good at actively allocating your portfolio, you’d have gotten out in the summer of 2007 instead of thinking that five consecutive years of 25%+ gains would go on forever. And you, like the guys at Cook and Bynum, would have foregone Christmas presents in 2008 in order to plow every penny you had into an irrationally, shockingly cheap market. If you didn’t pull it off then, you’re not going to pull it off this time, either.

Second, there are better options here than elsewhere. These remain, even after you adjust down their earnings and adjust them down again, about the best values you’ll find. Ranter grumbles about the thoughtless domestic dash:

Bottom line is I fail to see, on a relative basis, how the US is more tempting looking 5 years out. People can be scared all they want of catching a falling knife…but it’s a lot easier to catch something which is only 5 feet in the air than something that is 10 feet in the air.

If you’re thinking of your emerging markets stake as something that you’ll be holding or building over the next 10-15 years (as I do), it doesn’t matter whether you buy now or in three months, at this level or 7% up or down from here. It will matter if you panic, leave and then refuse to return until the emerging markets feel “safe” to you – typically around the top of the next market cycle.

It’s certainly possible that you’re systemically over-allocated to equities or emerging equities. The current turbulence might well provide an opportunity to revisit your long-term plan, and I’d salute you for it. My argument here is against actions driven by your gut.

Happily, there are a number of first rate options available for folks seeking risk-conscious exposure to the emerging markets. My own choice, discussed more fully below, is Seafarer. I’ve added to my (small investor-sized) account twice since the market began turning south in late spring. I have no idea of whether those dollars with be worth a dollar or eighty cents or a plugged nickel six months from now. My suspicion is that those dollars will be worth more a decade from now having been invested with a smart manager in the emerging markets than they would have been had I invested them in domestic equities (or hidden them away in a 0.01% bank account). But Seafarer isn’t the only “A” level choice. There are some managers sitting on large war chests (Amana Developing World AMDWX), others with the freedom to invest across asset classes (First Trust/Aberdeen Emerging Opportunities FEO) and even some with both (Lazard Emerging Markets Multi-Strategy EMMOX).

To which Morningstar says, “If you’ve got $50 million to spend, we’ve got a fund for you!”

On August 22^nd, Morningstar’s Fund Spy trumpeted “Medalist Emerging-Markets Funds Open for Business,” in which they reviewed their list of the crème de la crème emerging markets funds. It is, from the average investor’s perspective, a curious list studded with funds you couldn’t get into or wouldn’t want to pay for. Here’s the Big Picture:

Our take on those funds follows.

Our recommendations differ from theirs, given our preference for smaller funds that are actually available to the public. Our shortlist:

Amana Developing World (AMDWX): offers an exceedingly cautious take on an exceedingly risky slice of the world. Readers were openly derisive of Amana’s refusal to buy at any cost, which led the managers to sit on a 50% cash stake while the market’s roared ahead. As those markets began their swoon in 2011, Amana began moving in and disposing of more than half of its cash reserves. Still cash-rich, the fund’s relative performance is picking up and its risks remain very muted.

First Trust/Aberdeen Emerging Opportunity (FEO): one of the first emerging markets balanced funds, it’s performed very well over the long-term and is currently selling at a substantial discount to NAV: 12.6%, about 50% greater than its long-term average. That implies that investors might see something like a 5% arbitrage gain once the current panic abates, above and beyond whatever the market provides.

Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities (GPEOX): the Grandeur Peak team has been brilliantly successful both here and at Wasatch. Their intention is to create a single master fund (Global Reach) and six subsidiary funds whose portfolios represent slices of the master profile. Emerging Markets has already cleared the SEC registration procedures but hasn’t launched. The Grandeur Peak folks say two factors are driving the delay. First, the managers want to be able to invest directly in Indian equities which requires registration with that country’s equity regulators. They couldn’t begin the registration until the fund itself was registered in the US. So they’re working through the process. Second, they wanted to be comfortable with the launch of Global Reach before adding another set of tasks. Give or take the market’s current tantrum (one manager describes it as “a taper tantrum”), that’s going well. With luck, but without any guarantees, the fund might be live sometime in Q4.

Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX): hugely talented manager, global portfolio, risk conscious, shareholder-centered and successful.

Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries (WAFMX): one of the very few no-load, retail funds that targets the smaller, more dynamic markets rather than markets with billions of people (India and China) or plausible claim to be developed markets (e.g., Korea). The manager, Laura Geritz, has been exceedingly successful. Frontier markets effectively diversify emerging markets portfolios and the fund has drawn nearly $700 million. The key is that Wasatch is apt to close the fund sooner rather than later.

Snowball’s portfolio

Some number of folks have, reasonably enough, asked whether I invest in all of the funds I profile (uhhh … there have been over 150 of them, so no) or whether I have found The Secret Formula (presumably whatever Nicholas Cage has been looking for in all those movies). The answer is less interesting than the question.

I guess my portfolio construction is driven by three dictums:

1. Don’t pretend to be smarter than you are
2. Don’t pretend to be braver than you are
3. There’s a lot of virtue in doing nothing

Don’t pretend to be smarter than you are. If I knew which asset classes were going to soar and which were going to tank in the next six months or year or two, two things would happen. First, I’d invest in the winners. Second, I’d sell my services to ridiculously rich people and sock them with huge and abusive fees that they’d happily pay. But, I don’t.

As a result, I tend to invest in funds whose managers have a reasonable degree of autonomy about investing across asset classes, rather than ones pigeonholed into a small (style) box. That’s a problem: it makes benchmarking hard, it makes maintaining an asset allocation plan hard and it requires abnormally skilled managers. My focus has been on establishing a strategic objective (“increasing exposure to fast growing economies”) and then spending a lot of time trying to find managers whose strategies I trust, respect and understand.

Don’t pretend to be braver than you are. Stocks have a lot in common with chili peppers. In each case, you get a surprising amount of benefit from a relatively small amount of exposure. In each case, increasing exposure quickly shifts the pleasure/pain balance from pleasantly piquant to moronically painful. Some readers think of my non-retirement asset allocation is surprisingly timid: about 50% stocks, 30% bonds, 20% cash equivalents. They’re not much happier about my 70% equity stake in retirement funds. But, they’re wrong.

T. Rowe Price is one of my favorite fund companies, in part because they treat their investors with unusual respect. I found two Price studies, in 2004 and again in 2010, particularly provocative. Price constructed a series of portfolios representing different levels of stock exposure and looked at how the various portfolios would have played out over the past 50-60 years.

The original study looked at portfolios with 20/40/60/80/100% stocks. The update dropped the 20% portfolio and looked at 0/40/60/80/100%. Below I’ve reproduced partial results for three portfolios. The original 2004 and 2010 studies are available at the T. Rowe Price website.

 Over a 10 year period – reasonable for a non-retirement account – a portfolio that’s 20% stocks would grow from $10,000 to $21,000. A 100% stock portfolio would grow to $28,000. Roughly speaking, the conservative portfolio ends up at 75% of the size of the aggressive one but a pure stock portfolio increases the probability of losing money by 400% (from a 6% chance to 23%), increases the size of your average loss by 2500% (from 0.5% to 12.5%) and triples your volatility. Somewhere in there, it will face the real prospect of a 51% loss, which is the average maximum drawdown for large core stock funds that have been around 20 years or more. Sadly, there’s no way of knowing whether the 51% loss will occur in Year One (where you might have some recovery time) or Year Ten (where you’d be toast).

At 50% equities, I might capture 80% of the market’s gain with 50% of its volatility. If domestic bonds weren’t in such dismal straits, a smaller stock exposure might be justifiable. But they suck so I’m stuck.

There’s a lot of virtue in doing nothing. Our action tends to be a lot more costly than our inaction, so I change my target allocation slowly and change my fund line-up slowly. I’ve held a few retirement plan funds (e.g., Fidelity Low Priced Stock FLPSX) for decades and a number of non-retirement funds since their inception. In general, I’ll only add a fund if it represents an entirely new opportunity set or if it’s replacing an existing fund. On average, I might change out one fund every year or two.

My retirement portfolio is dominated by the providers in Augustana’s 403(b) plan: Fidelity, T. Rowe Price and TIAA-CREF. The college contribution to retirement goes exclusively into TIAA-CREF. CREF Stock accounts for 68%, TIAA Real Estate holds 22% and the rest is in a target-date fund. The Fidelity and Price allocations mirror one another: 33% domestic stock (with a value bias), 33% international stock (with an emerging markets bias) and 33% income (of the eclectic Spectrum Income/Global High Income sort).

My non-retirement portfolio is nine funds and some cash waiting to be deployed.

Is anyone likely to make it into my portfolio in 2013-14? There are two candidates:

ASTON/River Road Long-Short (ARLSX). We’ve both profiled the fund and had a conference call with its manager, both of which are available on the Observer’s ARLSX page. I’m very impressed with the quality and clarity of their risk-management disciplines; they’ve left little to chance and have created a system that forces them to act when it’s time. They’ve performed well since inception and have the prospect of outperforming the stock market with a fraction of its risk. If this enters the portfolio, it would likely be as a substitute for Northern Global Tactical since the two serve the same risk-dampening function.

RiverPark Strategic Income (not yet launched). This fund will come to market in October and represents the next step out on the risk-return spectrum from the very successful RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX). I’ve been impressed with David Sherman’s intelligence and judgment and with RPHYX’s ability to deliver on its promises. We’ll be doing fairly serious inquiries in the next couple months, but the new fund might become a success to T. Rowe Price Spectrum Income.

Sterling Capital hits Ctrl+Alt+Delete

Sterling Capital Select Equity (BBTGX) has been a determinedly bad fund for years. It’s had three managers since 1993 and it has badly trailed its benchmark under each of them. The strategy is determinedly nondescript. They’ve managed to return 3.2% annually over the past 15 years. That’s better – by about 50 bps – than Vanguard’s money market fund, but not by much. Effective September 3, 2013, they’re hitting “reformat.”

The fund’s name changes, to Sterling Capital Large Cap Value Diversified Fund.

The strategy changes, to a “behavioral financed” based system targeting large cap value stocks.

The benchmark changes, to the Russell 1000 Value

And the management team changes, to Robert W. Bridges and Robert O. Weller. Bridges joined the firm in 2008 and runs the Sterling Behavioral Finance Small Cap Diversified Alpha. Mr. Weller joined in 2012 after 15 years at JPMorgan, much of it with their behavioral finance team.

None of which required shareholders’ agreement since, presumably, all aspects of the fund are “non-fundamental.” 

One change that they should pursue but haven’t: get the manager to put his own money at risk. The departing manager was responsible for five funds since 2009 and managed to find nary a penny to invest in any of them. As a group, Sterling’s bond and asset allocation team seems utterly uninterested in risking their own money in a lineup of mostly one- and two-star funds. Here’s the snapshot of those managers’ holdings in their own funds:

You’ll notice the word “none” appears 32 times. Let’s agree that it would be silly to expect a manager to own tax-free bonds anywhere but in his home jurisdiction. That leaves 26 decisions to avoid their own funds out of a total of 27 opportunities. Most of the equity managers, by contrast, have made substantial personal investments.

Warren Buffett thinks you’ve come to the right place

Fortune recently published a short article which highlighted a letter that Warren Buffett wrote to the publisher of the Washington Post in 1975. Buffett’s an investor in the Post and was concerned about the long-term consequences of the Post’s defined-benefit pension. The letter covers two topics: the economics of pension obligations in general and the challenge of finding competent investment management. There’s also a nice swipe at the financial services industry, which most folks should keep posted somewhere near their phone or monitor to review as you reflect on the inevitable marketing pitch for the next great financial product.

I particularly enjoy the “initially.” Large money managers, whose performance records were generally parlous, “felt obliged to seek improvement or at least the approach of improvement” by hiring groups “with impressive organizational charts, lots of young talent … and a record of recent performance (pg 8).” Unfortunately, he notes, they found it.

The pressure to look like you were earning your keep led to high portfolio turnover (Buffett warns against what would now be laughably low turnover: 25% per annum). By definition, most professionals cannot be above average but “a few will succeed – in a modest way – because of skill” (pg 10). If you’re going to find them, it won’t be by picking past winners though it might be by understanding what they’re doing and why:

The key: abandon all hope ye who invest in behemoths:

For those interested in Buffett’s entire reflection, Chip’s embedded the following:

Warren Buffett Katharine Graham Letter

And now for something completely different …

We can be certain of some things about Ed Studzinski. As an investor and co-manager of Oakmark Equity & Income (OAKBX), he was consistently successful in caring for other people’s money (as much as $17 billion of it), in part because he remained keenly aware that he was also caring for their futures. $10,000 entrusted to Ed and co-manager Clyde McGregor on the day Ed joined the fund (01 March 2000) would have grown to $27,750 on the day of his departure (31 December 2011). His average competitor (I’m purposefully avoiding “peer” as a misnomer) would have managed $13,900.

As a writer and thinker, he minced no words.

The Equity and Income Fund’s managers have both worked in the investment industry for many decades, so we both should be at the point in our careers where dubious financial-industry innovations no longer surprise us. Such an assumption, however, would be incorrect.

For the past few quarters we have repeatedly read that the daily outcomes in the securities markets are the result of the “Risk On/Risk Off” trade, wherein investors (sic?) react to the most recent news by buying equities/selling bonds (Risk On) or the reverse (Risk Off). As value investors we think this is pure nonsense. 

Over the past two years, Ed and I have engaged in monthly conversations that I’ve found consistently provocative and information-rich. It’s clear that he’s been paying active attention for many years to contortions of his industry which he views with equal measures of disdain and alarm. 

I’ve prevailed upon Ed to share a manager’s fuss and fulminations with us, as whim, wife and other obligations permit. His first installment, which might also be phrased as the question “Whose skin in the game?” follows.

“Skin in the Game, Part One”

One of the more favored sayings of fund managers is that they like to invest with managements with “skin in the game.” This is another instance where the early Buffett (as opposed to the later Buffett) had it right. Managements can and should own stock in their firms. But they should purchase it with their own money. That, like the prospect of hanging as Dr. Johnson said, would truly clarify the mind. In hind sight a major error in judgment was made by investment professionals who bought into the argument that awarding stock options would beneficially serve to align the interests of managements and shareholders. Never mind that the corporate officers should have already understood their fiduciary obligations. What resulted, not in all instances but often enough in the largest capitalization companies, was a class of condottieri such as one saw in Renaissance Italy, heading armies that spent their days marching around avoiding each other, all the while being lavishly paid for the risks they were NOT facing. This sub-set of managers became a new entitled class that achieved great personal wealth, often just by being present and fitting in to the culture. Rather than thinking about truly long-term strategic implications and questions raised in running a business, they acted with a short-duration focus, and an ever-present image of the current share price in the background. Creating sustainable long-term business value rarely entered into the equation, often because they had never seen it practiced.

I understood how much of a Frankenstein’s monster had been created when executive compensation proposals ended up often being the greater part of a proxy filing. A particularly bothersome practice was “reloading” options annually. Over time, with much dilution, these programs transferred significant share ownership to management. You knew you were on to something when these compensation proposals started attracting negative vote recommendations. The calls would initially start with the investor relations person inquiring about the proxy voting process. Once it was obvious that best practices governance indicated a “no” vote, the CFO would call and ask for reconsideration.

How do you determine whether a CEO or CFO actually walks the walk of good capital allocation, which is really what this is all about? One tip-off usually comes from discussions about business strategy and what the company will look like in five to ten years. You will have covered metrics and standards for acquisitions, dividends, debt, share repurchase, and other corporate action. Following that, if the CEO or CFO says, “Why do you think our share price is so low?” I would know I was in the wrong place. My usual response was, “Why do you care if you know what the business value of the company is per share? You wouldn’t sell the company for that price. You aren’t going to liquidate the business. If you did, you know it is worth substantially more than the current share price.” Another “tell” is when you see management taking actions that don’t make sense if building long-term value is the goal. Other hints also raise questions – a CFO leaves “because he wants to enjoy more time with his family.” Selling a position contemporaneously with the departure of a CFO that you respected would usually leave your investors better off than doing nothing. And if you see the CEO or CFO selling stock – “our investment bankers have suggested that I need to diversify my portfolio, since all my wealth is tied up in the company.” That usually should raise red flags that indicate something is going on not obvious to the non-insider.

Are things improving? Options have gone out of favor as a compensation vehicle for executives, increasingly replaced by the use of restricted stock. More investors are aware of the potential conflicts that options awards can create and have a greater appreciation of governance. That said, one simple law or regulation would eliminate many of the potential abuses caused by stock options. “All stock acquired by reason of stock option awards to senior corporate officers as part of their compensation MAY NOT BE SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF UNTIL AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE INDIVIDUAL’S LAST DATE OF SERVICE.” Then you might actually see the investors having a better chance of getting their own yachts.

Edward A. Studzinski

If you’d like to reach Ed, click here. An artist’s rendering of Messrs. Boccadoro and Studzinski appears below.

Introducing Charles’ Balcony

Since his debut in February 2012, my colleague Charles Boccadoro has produced some exceedingly solid, data-rich analyses for us, including this month’s review of the risk/return profiles of the FundX family of funds. One of his signature contributions was “Timing Method Performance Over Ten Decades,” which was widely reproduced and debated around the web.

We’re pleased to announce that we’ve collected his essays in a single, easy-to-access location. We’ve dubbed it “Charles’ Balcony” and we even stumbled upon this striking likeness of Charles and the shadowy Ed Studzinski in situ. I’m deeply hopeful that from their airy (aerie or eery) perch, they’ll share their sharp-eyed insights with us for years to come.

Observer fund profiles

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds. Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds. “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve. 

Advisory Research Strategic Income (ADVNX): you’ve got to love a 10 month old fund with a 10 year track record and a portfolio that Morningstar can only describe as 60% “other.” AR converted a successful limited partnership into the only no-load mutual fund offering investors substantial access to preferred securities.

Beck, Mack and Oliver Partners (BMPEX): we think of it as “Dodge and Cox without the $50 billion in baggage.” This is an admirably disciplined, focused equity fund with a remarkable array of safeguards against self-inflicted injuries.

FPA Paramount (FPRAX): some see Paramount as a 60-year-old fund that seeks out only the highest-quality mid-cap growth stocks. With a just-announced change of management and philosophy, it might be moving to become a first-rate global value fund (with enough assets under management to start life as one of the group’s most affordable entries).

FundX Upgrader (FUNDX): all investors struggle with the need to refine their portfolios, dumping losers and adding winners. In a follow-up to his data-rich analysis on the possibility of using a simple moving average as a portfolio signal, associate editor Charles Boccadoro investigated the flagship fund of the Upgrader fleet.

Tributary Balanced (FOBAX): it’s remarkable that a fund this consistently good – in the top tier of all balanced funds over the past five-, ten-, and fifteen-year periods and a Great Owl by my colleague Charles’ risk/return calculations – hasn’t drawn more attention. It will be more remarkable if that neglect continues despite the recent return of the long-time manager who beat pretty much everyone in sight.

Elevator Talk #8: Steven Vannelli of GaveKal Knowledge Leaders (GAVAX)

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you. That’s about the number of words a slightly-manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half. In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site. Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share. These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more.

Steven Vannelli, Manager

GaveKal Knowledge Leaders (GAVAX) believes in investing only in firms that are committed to being smart, so where did the dumb name come from? GaveKal is a portmanteau formed from the names of the firm’s founders: Charles Gave, Anatole Kaletsky and Louis-Vincent Gave. Happily it changed the fund’s original name from GaveKal Platform Company Fund (named after its European counterpart) to Knowledge Leaders. 

GaveKal, headquartered in Hong Kong, started in 2001 as a global economics and asset allocation research firm. Their other investment products (the Asian Balanced Fund – a cool idea which was rechristened Asian Absolute Return – and Greater China Fund) are available to non-U.S. investors as, originally, was Knowledge Leaders. They opened a U.S. office in 2006. In 2010 they deepened their Asia expertise by acquiring Dragonomics, a China-focused research and advisory firm.

Knowledge Leaders has generated a remarkable record in its two-plus years of U.S. operation. They look to invest in “the best among global companies that are tapping a deep reservoir of intangible capital to generate earnings growth,” where “R&D, design, brand and channel” are markers of robust intangible capital. From launch through the end of June, 2013, the fund modestly outperformed the MSCI World Index and did so with two-thirds less volatility. Currently, approximately 30% of the portfolio is in cash, down from 40% earlier in summer.

Manager Steven Vannelli researches intangible capital and corporate performance and leads the fund’s investment team. Before joining GaveKal, he spent a decade at Alexander Capital, a Denver-based investment advisor. Here’s Mr. Vannelli’s 200 words making his case:

We invest in the world’s most innovative companies. Decades of academic research show that companies that invest heavily in innovation are structurally undervalued due to lack of information on innovative activities. Our strategy capitalizes on this market inefficiency.

To find investment opportunities, we identify Knowledge Leaders, or companies with large stores of intangible assets. These companies often operate globally across an array of industries from health care to technology, from consumer to capital goods. We have developed a proprietary method to capitalize a company’s intangible investments, revealing an important, invisible layer of value inherent to intangible-rich companies. 

The Knowledge Leaders Strategy employs an active strategy that offers equity-like returns with bond-like risk. Superior risk-adjusted returns with low correlation to market indices make the GaveKal Knowledge Leaders Strategy a good vehicle for investors who seek to maximize their risk and return objectives.

The genesis of the strategy has its origin in the 2005 book, Our Brave New World, by GaveKal Research, which highlights knowledge as a scare asset.

As a validation of our intellectual foundation, in July, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis began to capitalize R&D to measure the contribution of innovation spending on growth of the US economy.

The minimum initial investment on the fund’s retail shares is $2,500. There are also institutional shares (GAVIX) with a $100,000 minimum (though they do let financial advisors aggregate accounts in order to reach that threshold). The fund’s website is clean and easily navigated. It would make a fair amount of sense for you to visit to “Fund Documents” page, which hosts the fund’s factsheet and a thoughtful presentation on intangible capital. 

Our earlier Elevator Talks were:

1. February 2013: Tom Kerr, Rocky Peak Small Cap Value (RPCSX), whose manager has a 14 year track record in small cap investing and a passion for discovering “value” in the intersection of many measures: discounted cash flows, LBO models, M&A valuations and traditional relative valuation metrics.
2. March 2013: Dale Harvey, Poplar Forest Partners (PFPFX and IPFPX), a concentrated, contrarian value stock fund that offers “a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest with a successful American Funds manager who went out on his own.”
3. April 2013: Bayard Closser, Vertical Capital Income Fund (VCAPX), “a closed-end interval fund, VCAPX invests in whole mortgage loans and first deeds of trust. We purchase the loans from lenders at a deep discount and service them ourselves.”
4. May 2013: Jim Hillary, LS Opportunity Fund (LSOFX), a co-founder of Marsico Capital Management whose worry that “the quality of research on Wall Street continues to decline and investors are becoming increasingly concerned about short-term performance” led to his faith in “in-depth research and long-term orientation in our high conviction ideas.”
5. July 2013: Casey Frazier, Versus Capital Multi-Manager Real Estate Income Fund (VCMRX), a second closed-end interval fund whose portfolio “includes real estate private equity and debt, public equity and debt, and broad exposure across asset types and geographies. We target a mix of 70% private real estate with 30% public real estate to enhance liquidity, and our objective is to produce total returns in the 7 – 9% range net of fees.”
6. August 2013: Brian Frank, Frank Value Fund (FRNKX), a truly all-cap value fund with a simple, successful discipline: if one part of the market is overpriced, shop elsewhere.
7. August 2013: Ian Mortimer and Matthew Page of Guinness Atkinson Inflation Managed Dividend (GAINX), a global equity fund that pursues firms with “sustainable and potentially rising dividends,” which also translates to firms with robust business models and consistently high return on capital.

Upcoming conference call: A discussion of the reopening of RiverNorth Strategy Income (RNDLX)

The folks at RiverNorth will host a conference call between the fund’s two lead managers, Patrick Galley of RiverNorth and Jeffrey Gundlach of DoubleLine, to discuss their decision to reopen the fund to new investors at the end of August and what they see going forward (the phrase “fear and loathing” keeps coming up). 

The call will be: Wednesday, September 18, 3:15pm – 4:15pm CDT

To register, go to www.rivernorthfunds.com/events/

The webcast will feature a Q&A with Messrs. Galley and Gundlach.

RNDLX (RNSIX for the institutional class), which the Observer profiled shortly after launch, has been a very solid fund with a distinctive strategy. Mr. Gundlach manages part of his sleeve of the portfolio in a manner akin to DoubleLine Core Fixed Income (DLFNX) and part with a more opportunistic income strategy. Mr. Galley pursues a tactical fixed-income allocation and an utterly unique closed-end fund arbitrage strategy in his slice. The lack of attractive opportunities in the CEF universe prompted the fund’s initial closure. Emily Deter of RiverNorth reports that the opening “is primarily driven by the current market opportunity in the closed-end fund space. Fixed-income closed-end funds are trading at attractive discounts to their NAVs, which is an opportunity we have not seen in years.” Investment News reported that fixed-income CEFs moved quickly from selling at a 2% premium to selling at a 7% discount. 

That’s led Mr. Galley’s move from CEFs from occupying 17% of the portfolio a year ago to 30% today and, it seems, he believes he could pursue more opportunities if he had more cash on hand.

Given RiverNorth’s ongoing success and clear commitment to closing funds well before they become unmanageable, it’s apt to be a good use of your time.

The Observer’s own series of conference calls with managers who’ve proven to be interesting, sharp, occasionally wry and successful, will resume in October. We’ll share details in our October issue.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details.

Every day David Welsch, an exceedingly diligent research assistant at the Observer, scours new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves. David tracked down nearly 100 new funds and ETFs. Many of the proposed funds offer nothing new, distinctive or interesting. Some were downright mystifying. (Puerto Rico Shares? Colombia Capped ETF? The Target Duration 2-month ETF?) There were 26 no-load funds or actively-managed ETFs in registration with the SEC this month. 

Funds in registration this month won’t be available for sale until, typically, the end of October or early November 2013.

There are probably more interesting products in registration this month than at any time in the seven years we’ve been tracking them. Among the standouts:

Brown Advisory Strategic European Equity Fund which will be managed by Dirk Enderlein of Wellington Management. Wellington is indisputably an “A-team” shop (they’ve got about three-quarters of a trillion in assets under management). Mr. Enderlein joined them in 2010 after serving as a manager for RCM – Allianz Global Investors in Frankfurt, Germany (1999-2009). Media reports described him as “one of Europe’s most highly regarded European growth managers.”

DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced CAPE will attempt to beat an index, Shiller Barclays CAPE® US Sector TR USD Index, which was designed based on decades of research by the renowned Robert Shiller. The fund will be managed by Jeffrey Gundlach and Jeffrey Sherman.

Driehaus Micro Cap Growth Fund, a converted 15 year old hedge fund

Harbor Emerging Markets Equity Fund, which will be sub-advised by the emerging markets team at Oaktree Capital Management. Oaktree’s a first-tier institutional manager with a very limited number of advisory relationships (primarily with Vanguard and RiverNorth) in the mutual fund world. 

Meridian Small Cap Growth, which will be the star vehicle for Chad Meade and Brian Schaub, who Meridian’s new owner hired away from Janus. Morningstar’s Greg Carlson described them as “superb managers” who were “consistently successful during their nearly seven years at the helm” of Janus Triton.

Plus some innovative offerings from Northern, PIMCO and T. Rowe Price. Details and the list of all of the funds in registration are available at the Observer’s Funds in Registration page or by clicking “Funds” on the menu atop each page.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down a record 85 fund manager changes. Investors should take particular note of Eric Ende and Stephen Geist’s exit from FPA Paramount after a 13 year run. The change is big enough that we’ve got a profile of Paramount as one of the month’s Most Intriguing New Funds.

Updates

Bretton Fund (BRTNX) is now available through Vanguard. Manager Stephen Dodson writes that after our conference call, several listeners asked about the fund’s availability and Stephen encouraged them to speak directly with Vanguard. Mirabile dictu, the Big V was receptive to the idea.

Stephen recently posted his most recent letter to his shareholders. He does a nice job of walking folks through the core of his investing discipline with some current illustrations. The short version is that he’s looking for firms with durable competitive advantages in healthy industries whose stocks are selling at a substantial discount. He writes:

There are a number of relevant and defensible companies out there that are easily identifiable; the hard part is finding the rare ones that are undervalued. The sweet spot for us continues to be relevant, defensible businesses at low prices (“cheap compounders”). I continue to spend my waking hours looking for them.

Q2 2013 presented slim pickin’s for absolute value investors (Bretton “neither initiated nor eliminated any investments during the quarter”). For all of the market’s disconcerting gyrations this summer, Morningstar calculates that valuations for its Wide Moat and Low Business Uncertainty groups (surrogates for “high quality stocks”) remains just about where they were in June: undervalued by about 4% while junkier stocks remain modestly overvalued.

Patience is hard.

Briefly Noted . . .

Calamos loses another president

James Boyne is resigning as president and chief operating officer of Calamos Investments effective Sept. 30, just eight months after being promoted to president. The firm has decided that they need neither a president nor a chief operating officer. Those responsibilities will be assumed “by other senior leaders” at the firm (see: Black, Gary, below). The preceding president, Nick P. Calamos, decided to “step back” from his responsibilities in August 2012 when, by coincidence, Calamos hired former Janus CEO Gary Black. To describe Black as controversial is a bit like described Rush Limbaugh as opinionated.

They’re not dead yet!

Back in July, the Board of Caritas All-Cap Growth (CTSAX): “our fund is tiny, expensive, bad, and pursues a flawed investment strategy (long stocks, short ETFs).” Thereupon they reached a sensible conclusion: euthanasia. Shortly after the fund had liquidated all of its securities, “the Board was presented with and reviewed possible alternatives to the liquidation of the Fund that had arisen since the meeting on July 25, 2013.”

The alternative? Hire Brenda A. Smith, founder of CV Investment Advisors, LLC, to manage the fund. A quick scan of SEC ADV filings shows that Ms. Smith is the principal in a two person firm with 10 or fewer clients and $5,000 in regulated AUM. 

(I don’t know more about the firm because they have a one page website.)

At almost the same moment, the same Board gave Ms. Smith charge of the failing Presidio Multi-Strategy Fund (PMSFX), an overpriced long/short fund that executes its strategy through ETFs. 

I wish Ms. Smith and her new investors all the luck in the world, but it’s hard to see how a Board of Trustees could, with a straight face, decide to hand over one fund and resuscitate another with huge structural impediments on the promise of handing it off to a rookie manager and declare that both moves are in the best interests of long-suffering shareholders.

Diamond Hill goes overseas, a bit

Effective September 1, 2013, Diamond Hill Research Opportunities Fund (DHROX) gains the flexibility to invest internationally (the new prospectus allows that it “may also invest in non-U.S. equity securities, including equity securities in emerging market countries”) and the SEC filing avers that they “will commence investing in foreign securities.” The fund has 15 managers; I’m guessing they got bored. As a hedge fund (2009-2011), it had a reasonably mediocre record which might have spurred the conversion to a ’40 fund. Which has also had a reasonably mediocre lesson, so points to the management for consistency!

Janus gets more bad news

Janus investors pulled $2.2 billion from the firm’s funds in July, the worst outflows in more than three years. A single investor accounted for $1.3 billion of the leakage. The star managers of Triton and Venture left in May. And now this: they’re losing business to Legg Mason.

The Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust has approved a change of subadviser for the Janus Forty Portfolio from Janus Capital Management to ClearBridge Investments to be effective November 1, 2013 . . . Effective November 1, 2013, the name of the Portfolio will change to ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio II.

Matthews chucks Taiwan

Matthews Asia China (MCHFX), China Dividend (MCDFX) and Matthews and China Small Companies (MCSMX) have changed their Principal Investment Strategy to delete Taiwan. The text for China Dividend shows the template:

Under normal market conditions, the Matthews China Dividend Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its net assets, which include borrowings for investment purposes, in dividend-paying equity securities of companies located in China and Taiwan.

To:

Under normal market conditions, the Matthews China Dividend Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its nets assets, which include borrowings for investment purposes, in dividend-paying equity securities of companies located in China.

A reader in the financial services industry, Anonymous Dude, checked with Matthews about the decision. AD reports

T. Rowe tweaks

Long ago, as a college administrator, I was worried about whether the text in a proposed policy statement might one day get us in trouble. I still remember college counsel shaking his head confidently, smiling and saying “Not to worry. We’re going to fuzz it up real good.” One wonders if he works for T. Rowe Price now? Up until now, many of Price’s funds have had relatively detailed and descriptive investment objectives. No more! At least five of Price’s funds propose new language that reduces the statement of investment objectives to an indistinct mumble. T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund (PRGFX) goes from

The fund seeks to provide long-term capital growth and, secondarily, increasing dividend income through investments in the common stocks of well-established growth companies.

To

The fund seeks long-term capital growth through investments in stocks.

Similar blandifications are proposed for Dividend Growth, Equity Income, Growth & Income and International Growth & Income.

Wasatch redefines “small cap”

A series of Wasatch funds, Small Growth, Small Value and Emerging Markets Small Cap are upping the size of stocks in their universe from $2.5 billion or less to $3.0 billion or less. The change is effective in November.

Can you say whoa!? Or WOA?

The Board of Trustees of an admittedly obscure little institutional fund, WOA All Asset (WOAIX), has decided that the best way to solve what ails the yearling fund is to get it more aggressive.

The Board approved certain changes to the Fund’s principal investment strategies. The changes will be effective on or about September 3, 2013. . . the changes in the Fund’s strategy will alter the Fund’s risk level from balanced strategy with a moderate risk level to an aggressive risk level.

Here’s the chart of the fund’s performance since inception against conservative and moderate benchmarks. While that might show that the managers just need to fire up the risk machine, I’d also imagine that addressing the ridiculously high expenses (1.75% for an institutional balanced fund) and consistent ability to lag in both up and down months (11 of 16 and counting) might actually be a better move. 

WOA’s Trustees, by the way, are charged with overseeing 24 funds. No Trustee has a dollar invested in any of those funds.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

The Board of Trustees of the Direxion Funds and Rafferty Asset Management have decided to make it cheaper for you to own a bunch of funds that you really shouldn’t own. They’re removed the 25 bps Shareholder Servicing Fee from

• Direxion Monthly S&P 500® Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly S&P 500® Bear 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly NASDAQ-100® Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly Small Cap Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly Small Cap Bear 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly Emerging Markets Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly Latin America Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly China Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly Commodity Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly 7-10 Year Treasury Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly 7-10 Year Treasury Bear 2X Fund
• Dynamic HY Bond Fund and
• U.S. Government Money Market Fund.

Because Eaton Vance loves you, they’ve decided to create the opportunity for investors to buy high expense “C” class shares of Eaton Vance Bond (EVBCX). The new shares will add a 1.00% back load for sales held less than a year and a 1.70% expense ratio (compared to 0.7 and 0.95 for Institutional and A, respectively). 

The Fairholme Fund (FAIRX) reopened to new investors on August 19, 2013. The other Fairholme family funds, not so much.

The Advisor Class shares of Forward Select Income Fund (FSIMX) reopened to new investors at the end of August.

The Board of Directors of the Leuthold Global Industries Fund (LGINX) has agreed to reduce the Fund’s expense cap from 1.85% to 1.60%.

JacksonPark Capital reduced the minimum initial investment on Oakseed Opportunity Institutional shares (SEDEX) from $1 million to $10,000. Given the 18% lower fees on the institutional class (capped at 1.15% versus 1.40% for retail shares), reasonably affluent retail investors ought to seriously consider pursuing the institutional share class. That said, Oakseed’s minimum investment for the retail shares, as low as $100 for accounts set up with an AIP, are awfully reasonable.

RiverNorth DoubleLine Strategic Income (RNDLX/RNSIX) reopened to new investors at the end of August. Check the “upcoming conference calls” feature, above, for more details.

Westcore Blue Chip Dividend Fund (WTMVX ) lowered the expense ratio on its no-load retail shares from 1.15% to 0.99%, effective September 1. They also changed from paying distributions annually to paying them quarterly. It’s a perfectly agreeable, mild-mannered little fund: stable management, global diversified, reasonable expenses and very consistently muted volatility. You do give up a fair amount of upside for the opportunity to sleep a bit more quietly at night.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

American Beacon Stephens Small Cap Growth Fund (STSGX) will close to new investors, effective as of September 16, 2013. The no-class share class has returned 11.8% while its peers made 9.3% and it did so with lower volatility. The fund is closing at a still small $500 million.

Neither high fees nor mediocre performance can dim the appeal of AQR Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund (ASANX/ASAIX). The fund has drawn $1.5 billion and has advertised the opportunity for rich investors (the minimum runs between $1 million and $5 million) to rush in before the doors swing shut at the end of September. It’s almost always a bad sign that a fund feels the need to close and the need to put up a flashing neon sign six weeks ahead.

Morgan Stanley Institutional Global Franchise (MSFAX) will close to new investors on Nov. 29, 2013. The current management team came on board four years ago (June 2009) and have posted very good risk-adjusted returns since then. Investors might wonder why a large cap global fund with a small asset base needs to close. The answer is that the mutual fund represents just the tip of the iceberg; this team actually manages almost $17 billion in this strategy, so the size of the separate accounts is what’s driving the decision.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

At the end of September Ariel International Equity Fund (AINTX) becomes Ariel International Fund and will no longer be required to invest at least 80% of its assets in equities. At the same time, Ariel Global Equity Fund (AGLOX) becomes Ariel Global Fund. The advisor avers that it’s not planning on changing the funds’ investment strategies, just that it would be nice to have the option to move into other asset classes if conditions dictate.

Effective October 30, Guggenheim U.S. Long Short Momentum Fund (RYAMX) will become plain ol’ Guggenheim Long-Short Fund. In one of those “why bother” changes, the prospectus adds a new first sentence to the Strategy section (“invest, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its assets in long and short equity or equity-like securities”) but maintains the old “momentum” language in the second and third sentences. They’ll still “respond to the dynamically changing economy by moving its investments among different industries and styles” and “allocates investments to industries and styles according to several measures of momentum. “ Over the past five years, the fund has been modestly more volatile and less profitable than its peers. As a result, they’ve attracted few assets and might have decided, as a marketing matter, that highlighting a momentum approach isn’t winning them friends.

As of October 28, the SCA Absolute Return Fund (SCARX) will become the Granite Harbor Alternative Fund and it will no longer aim to provide “positive absolute returns with less volatility than traditional equity markets.” Instead, it’s going for the wimpier “long-term capital appreciation and income with low correlation” to the markets. SCA Directional Fund (SCADX) will become Granite Harbor Tactical Fund but will no longer seek “returns similar to equities with less volatility.” Instead, it will aspire to “long term capital appreciation with moderate correlation to traditional equity markets.” 

Have you ever heard someone say, “You know, what I’m really looking for is a change for a moderate correlation to the equity markets”? No, me neither.

Thomas Rowe Price, Jr. (the man, 1898-1983) has been called “the father of growth investing.” It’s perhaps then fitting that T. Rowe Price (the company) has decided to graft the word “Growth” into the names of many of its funds effective November 1.

T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Equity Fund becomes T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Focused Growth Equity Fund. Institutional Global Large-Cap Equity Fund will change its name to the T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Growth Equity Fund. T. Rowe Price Global Large-Cap Stock Fund will change its name to the T. Rowe Price Global Growth Stock Fund.

Effective October 28, 2013, USB International Equity Fund (BNIEX) gets a new name (UBS Global Sustainable Equity Fund), new mandate (invest globally in firms that pass a series of ESG screens) and new managers (Bruno Bertocci and Shari Gilfillan). The fund’s been a bit better under the five years of Nick Irish’s leadership than its two-star rating suggests, but not by a lot.

Off to the dustbin of history

There were an exceptionally large number of funds giving up the ghost this month. We’ve tracked 26, the same as the number of new no-load funds in registration and well below the hundred or so new portfolios of all sorts being launched. I’m deeply grateful to The Shadow, one of the longest-tenured members of our discussion board, for helping me to keep ahead of the flood.

American Independence Dynamic Conservative Plus Fund (TBBIX, AABBX) will liquidate on or about September 27, 2012.

Dynamic Canadian Equity Income Fund (DWGIX) and Dynamic Gold & Precious Metals Fund (DWGOX), both series of the DundeeWealth Funds, are slated for liquidation on September 23, 2013. Dundee bumped off Dynamic Contrarian Advantage Fund (DWGVX) and announced that it was divesting itself of three other funds (JOHCM Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund JOEIX, JOHCM International Select Fund JOHIX and JOHCM Global Equity Fund JOGEX), which are being transferred to new owners.

Equinox Commodity Strategy Fund (EQCAX) closed to new investors in mid-August and will liquidate on September 27^th.

The Evolution Funds face extinction! Oh, the cruel irony of it.

Evolution Managed Bond (PEMVX) Evolution All-Cap Equity (PEVEX), Evolution Market Leaders (PEVSX) and Evolution Alternative Investment (PETRX) have closed to all new investment and were scheduled to liquidate by the end of September. Given their disappearance from Morningstar, one suspects the end came more quickly than we knew.

Frontegra HEXAM Emerging Markets Fund (FHEMX) liquidates at the end of September.

The Northern Lights Board of Trustees has concluded that “based on, among other factors, the current and projected level of assets in the Fund and the belief that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders to discontinue the Hundredfold Select Global Fund (SFGPX).”

Perhaps the “other factors” would be the fact that Hundredfold trailed 100% of its peers over the past three- and five-year periods? The manager was unpaid and quite possibly the fund’s largest shareholder ($50-100k in a $2M fund). His Hundredfold Select Equity (SFEOX) is almost as woeful as the decedent, but Hundredfold Select Alternative (SFHYX) is in the top 1% of its peer group for the same period that the others are bottom 1%. That raises the spectre that luck, rather than skill, might be involved.

JPMorgan is cleaning house: JPMorgan Credit Opportunities Fund (JOCAX), JPMorgan Global Opportunities Fund (JGFAX) and JPMorgan Russia Fund (JRUAX) are all gone as of October 4.

John Hancock intends to merge John Hancock High Income (JHAQX) into John Hancock High Yield (JHHBX). I’m guessing at the fund tickers because the names in the SEC filing don’t quite line up with the Morningstar ones.

Legg Mason Esemplia Emerging Markets Long-Short Fund (SMKAX) will be terminated on October 1, 2013. Let’s see: hard-to-manage strategy, high risk, high expenses, high front load, no assets . . . sounds like Legg.

Leuthold Asset Allocation Fund (LAALX) is merging into Leuthold Core Investment Fund (LCORX). The Board of Directors approved a proposal for the Leuthold Asset Allocation to be acquired by the Leuthold Core, sometime in October 2013. Curious. LAALX, with a quarter billion in assets, modestly lags LCORX which has about $600 million. Both lag more mild-mannered funds such as Northern Global Tactical Asset Allocation (BBALX) and Vanguard STAR (VGSTX) over the course of LAALX’s lifetime. This might be less a story about LAALX than about the once-legendary Leuthold Core. Leuthold’s funds are all quant-driven, based on an unparalleled dataset. For years Core seemed unstoppable: between 2003 and 2008, it finished in the top 5% of its peer group four times. But for 2009 to now, it has trailed its peers every year and has bled $1 billion in assets. In merging the two, LAALX investors get a modestly less expensive fund with modestly better performance. Leuthold gets a simpler administrative structure. 

I halfway admire the willingness of Leuthold to close products that can’t distinguish themselves in the market. Clean Tech, Hedged Equity, Undervalued & Unloved, Select Equities and now Asset Allocation have been liquidated.

MassMutual Premier Capital Appreciation Fund (MCALX) will be liquidated, but not until January 24, 2014. Why? 

New Frontiers KC India Fund (NFIFX) has closed and began the process of liquidating their portfolio on August 26^th. They point to “difficult market conditions in India.” The fund’s returns were comparable to its India-focused peers, which is to say it lost about 30% in 18 months.

Nomura Partners India Fund (NPIAX), Greater China Fund (NPCAX) and International Equity Fund (NPQAX) will all be liquidated by month’s end.

Nuveen Quantitative Enhanced Core Equity (FQCAX) is slated, pending inevitable shareholder approval, to disappear into Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity Fund (NOPAX, formerly Nuveen Symphony Optimized Alpha Fund)

Oracle Mutual Fund (ORGAX) has “due to the relatively small size of the fund” underwent the process of “orderly dissolution.” Due to the relatively small size? How about, “due to losing 49.5% of our investors’ money over the past 30 months, despite an ongoing bull market in our investment universe”? To his credit, the advisor’s president and portfolio manager went down with the ship: he had something between $500,000 – $1,000,000 left in the fund as of the last SAI.

Quantitative Managed Futures Strategy Fund (QMFAX) will “in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders” redeem all outstanding shares on September 15^th.

The directors of the United Association S&P 500 Index Fund (UASPX/UAIIX) have determined that it’s in their shareholders’ best interest to liquidate. Uhhh … I don’t know why. $140 million in assets, low expenses, four-star rating …

Okay, so the Oracle Fund didn’t seem particularly oracular but what about the Steadfast Fund? Let’s see: “steadfast: firmly loyal or constant, unswerving, not subject to change.” VFM Steadfast Fund (VFMSX) launched less than one year ago and gone before its first birthday.

In Closing . . .

Interesting stuff’s afoot. We’ve spoken with the folks behind the surprising Oberweis International Opportunities Fund (OBIOX), which was much different and much more interesting that we’d anticipated. Thanks to “Investor” for poking us about a profile. In October we’ll have one. RiverPark Strategic Income is set to launch at the end of the month, which is exciting both because of the success of the other fund (the now-closed RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund RPHYX) managed by David Sherman and Cohanzick Asset Management and because Sherman comes across as such a consistently sharp and engaging guy. With luck, I’ll lure him into an extended interview with me and a co-conspirator (the gruff but lovable Ed Studzinski, cast in the role of a gruff but lovable curmudgeon who formerly managed a really first-rate mutual fund, which he did).

MFO returns to Morningstar! Morningstar is hosting their annual ETF Invest Conference in Chicago, from October 2 – 4. While, on whole, we’d rather drop by their November conference in Milan, Italy it was a bit pricey and I couldn’t get a dinner reservation at D’O before early February 2014 so we decided to pass it up. While the ETF industry seems to be home to more loony ideas and regrettable business practices than most, it’s clear that the industry’s maturing and a number of ETF products offer low cost access to sensible strategies, some in areas where there are no tested active managers. The slow emergence of active ETFs blurs the distinction with funds and Morningstar does seem do have arranged both interesting panels (skeptical though I am, I’ll go listen to some gold-talk on your behalf) and flashy speakers (Austan Goolsbee among them). With luck, I’ll be able to arrange a couple of face-to-face meetings with Chicago-based fund management teams while I’m in town. If you’re going to be at the conference, feel free to wave. If you’d like to chat, let me know.

If you shop Amazon, please do remember to click on the Observer’s link and use it. If you click on it right now, you can bookmark it or set it as a homepage and then you won’t forget. The partnership with Amazon generates about $20/day which, while modest, allows us to reliably cover all of our “hard” expenses and underwrites the occasional conference coverage. If you’d prefer to consider other support options, that’s great. Just click on “support us” on the top menu bar. But the Amazon thing is utterly painless for you.

The Sufi poet Attar records the fable of a powerful king who asks assembled wise men to create a ring that will make him happy when he is sad, and vice versa. After deliberation the sages hand him a simple ring with the words “This too will pass.” That’s also true of whatever happens to the market and your portfolio in September and October.

Be brave and we’ll be with you in a month!

Dear friends,

Welcome to the Vacation 2013 issue of the Observer. I’ve spent the past two weeks of July and the first days of August enjoying myself in Door County, the Cape Cod-like peninsula above Green Bay. I’ve done substantial damage to two Four Berry pies from Bea’s Ho-made Pies (jokes about the makers of the pie have been deleted), enjoyed rather more Leinies than usual, sailed on a tall ship, ziplined (ending in a singularly undignified position), putt-putted, worked with my son on his pitching, hiked miles and learned rather more than I cared to about alewives, gobies and lake levels.

I did not think (much) about mutual funds, Mr. Market, my portfolio, or the Dow’s closing level.  Indeed, I have no idea of what the market’s been doing.

Life is good.

Risk spectrum for Observer funds

We have published some dozens of profiles of new, distinguished and distinctive funds in the past couple years (click on the Funds tab if you’re curious).  Charles Boccadoro, our Associate Editor, has been working on ways to make those profiles more organized and accessible.  Here’s his take on one way of thinking about the collection.

Dashboard of MFO Profiled Funds

Each month, David provides in-depth analysis of two to four funds, continuing a FundAlarm tradition. Today, more than 75 profiles are available on MFO Funds index page. Most are quite current, but a few date back, under “Archives of FundAlarm,” so reference appropriately.

This month we roll out a new summary or “dashboard” of the many profiled funds. It’s intended to help identify funds of interest, so that readers can better scroll the index to retrieve in-depth profiles.

The dashboard presents funds by broad investment type, consistent with MFO Rating System. The three types are: fixed income, asset allocation, and equity. (See also Definitions page.)

Here is dashboard of profiled fixed income and asset allocation funds:

For each fund, the dashboard identifies current investment style or category as defined by Morningstar, date (month/year) of latest profile published, fund inception date (from first whole month), and latest 12-month yield percentage, as applicable.

Risk group is also identified, consistent with latest MFO rating. In the dashboard, funds with lowest risk will generally be at top of list, while those with highest risk will be at bottom, agnostic of M* category. Probably good to insert a gentle reminder here that risk ratings can get elevated, temporarily at least, when funds hit a rough patch, like recently with some bond and all-asset funds.

The dashboard also depicts fund absolute return relative to cash (90-day T-Bill), bonds (US Aggregate TR), and stocks (S&P 500 TR), again agnostic of M* category. If a fund’s return from inception through the latest quarter exceeds any of these indices, “Return Beats…” column will be shaded appropriately.

The Enhanced Strategy column alerts readers of a fund’s use of leverage or hedge via short positions, or if a fund holds any derivatives, like swaps or futures. If so, regardless of how small, the column will show “Yes.” It’s what David calls a kind of complexity flag. This assessment is strictly numerical using latest portfolio allocations from Morningstar’s database in Steele Mutual Fund Expert.

Finally, the column entitled “David’s Take” is a one-word summary of how each fund was characterized in its profile. Since David tends to only profile funds that have promising or at least intriguing strategies, most of these are positive. But every now and then, the review is skeptical (negative) or neutral (mixed).

We will update the dashboard monthly and, as always, improve and tailor based on your feedback. Normally the dashboard will be published atop the Funds index page, but for completeness this month, here’s dashboard of remaining equity funds profiled by MFO:

Charles/28Jul13

Would you ever need more than one long-short fund?

By bits, investors have come to understand that long-short (and possible other alternative) funds may have a place in their portfolios.  That’s a justifiable conclusion.  The question is, would you ever want need more than one long-short fund?

The lead story in our July issue made the argument, based on interviews with executives and managers are a half dozen firms, that there are at least three very distinct types of long-short funds (pure long/short on individual stocks, long on individual stocks/short on sectors or markets, long on individual stocks plus covered called exposure) .  They have different strategies and different risk-return profiles.  They are not interchangeable in a portfolio.

The folks at Long-Short Advisors gave permission to share some fascinating data with you.  They calculated the correlation matrix for their fund, the stock market and ten of their largest competitors, not all of which are pure long/short funds.  By way of context, the three-year correlation between the movement of Vanguard’s Small Cap Index Fund (NAESX) and their S&P 500 Index Fund (VFINX) is .93; that is, when you buy a small cap index as a way to diversify your large cap-heavy portfolio, you’re settling for an investment with a 93% correlation to your original portfolio.

Here are the correlations between various long/short funds:

This does not automatically justify inclusion of a second or third long-short fund in your portfolio, but it does demonstrate two things.  First, that long-short funds really are vastly different from one another, which is why their correlations are so low.  Second, a single long-short fund offers considerable diversification in a long-only portfolio and a carefully selected second fund might add a further layer of independence.

Royce Value Trust plans on exporting its investors

Royce Value Trust (RVT) is a very fine closed-end fund managed by a team led by Chuck Royce.  Morningstar rates it as a “Gold” CEF despite the fact that it has modestly trailed its peers for more than a decade.  The fund has attracted rather more than a billion in assets.

Apparently the managers aren’t happy with that development and so have propsoed exporting some of their investors’ money to a new fund.  Here’s the SEC filing:

I invite you to a special stockholder meeting of Royce Value Trust Inc. to be held on September 5, 2013. At the meeting, stockholders will be asked to approve a proposal to contribute a portion of Value Trust’s assets to a newly-organized, closed-end management investment company, Royce Global Value Trust, Inc. and to distribute to common stockholders of Value Trust shares of common stock of Global Trust.

And why would they “contribute” a portion of your RVT portfolio to their global fund?

Although Value Trust and Global Trust have the exact same investment objective of long-term growth of capital, Value Trust invests primarily in U.S. domiciled small-cap companies while Global Trust will invest primarily in companies located outside the U.S. and may invest up to 35% of its assets in the securities of companies headquartered in “developing countries.” For some time, we have been attracted to the opportunities for long-term capital growth presented in the international markets, particularly in small-cap stocks. To enable Value Trust’s stockholders to participate more directly in these opportunities, we are proposing to contribute approximately $100 million of Value Trust’s assets to Global Trust.

I see.  RVT shareholders, by decree, need more international and emerging markets exposure.  Rather than risking the prospect that they might do something foolish (for example, refuse to buy an untested new fund on their own), Royce proposes simply diversifying your portfolio into their favorite new area.  By the same logic, they might conclude that you could also use some emerging markets bonds.  Were you silly enough to think that you needed domestic small cap exposure and, hence, bought a domestic small cap fund?  “No problem!  We’ll launch and move you into …”

And why $100 million exactly?  “The $100 million target size (approximately 8% of Value Trust’s current net assets) was established to satisfy New York Stock Exchange listing standards and to seek to ensure that Global Trust has sufficient assets to conduct its investment program while maintaining an expense ratio that is competitive with those of other global small-cap value funds.”  So, as a portfolio move, RVT shareholders gain perhaps 4% exposure to small caps in developed foreign markets and 2% in emerging markets.

In one of Morningstar’s odder tables, they classified RVT as having the worst performance ever, anywhere, by anything:

You might notice the frequency with which RVT trails 100% of its peers.  Odd in a “Gold” fund?  Not so much as you might think.  When I asked Morningstar’s peerless Alexa Auerbach to check, she reported that RVT’s category contains only two funds.  The other, slightly better one is also from Royce and so the 100^th percentile ranking translates to “finished second in a two-person race.”

Experienced managers launching their own firms: Barron’s gets it (mostly) right

Barron’s featured a nice story on the challenge of launching a new fund firm and highlighted four star managers who choose to strike out on their own (“Introducing the New Guard,” July 8, p.p. L17-19). (We can’t link directly to this article, but if you Google the title you should be able to gain complimentary access to it.) They focus on four firms about which, you might have noticed, I have considerable enthusiasm:

Vulcan Value Partners, whose Vulcan Value Small Cap Fund we profiled.

Highlights: C.T. Fitzpatrick – one of the few managers whose funds I’ve profiled but with whom I’ve never spoken – distinguishes Vulcan’s approach from the Longleaf (his former employer) approach because “we place as much emphasis on business quality as we do on the discount.” He also thinks that his location in Birmingham is a plus since it’s easier to stand back from the Wall Street consensus if you’re 960 (point eight!) miles away from it. He also thinks that it makes recruiting staff easier since, delightful as New York City is, a livable, affordable smaller city with good schools is a remarkable draw.

Seafarer Capital Partners, whose Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income is in my own portfolio and to which I recently added shares.

Highlight: Andrew Foster spends about a third of this time running the business. Rather than a distraction, he thinks it’s making him a better investor by giving him a perspective he never before had. He frets about investors headlong rush into the more volatile pieces of an intrinsically volatile sector. He argues in this piece for slow-and-steady growers and notes that “People often forget that when you invest in emerging markets, you’re investing in something that is flawed but that you believe can eventually improve.”

Grandeur Peak Global Advisors, whose Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities was profiled in February 2012 and about whom we offer a short feature article and two fund profiles, all below.

Highlight: Lead manager Robert Gardiner and president Eric Huefner both began working for Wasatch as teenagers? (Nuts. I worked at a public library for $1.60/hour and was doing landscaping for less.) They reject the domestic/international split when it comes to doing security analysis and allow Mr. Gardiner to focus entirely on investing while Mr. Huefner obsesses about running a great firm. 

Okay, Barrons’ got it mostly right. They got the newest name of the fund wrong (it’s Reach, not Research), the photo caption wrong and a provocative quote wrong. Barron’s claimed that Gardiner is “intent on keeping Grandeur Peak, which is now on the small side, just shy of $1 billion under management.” Apparently Mr. Huefner said Grandeur Peak currently had a bit under a billion, that their strategies’ collective capacity was $3 billion but they’re apt to close once they hit $2 billion to give them room for growth.

RiverPark Advisors, five of whose funds we’ve profiled, two more of which we’ve pointed to and one of which is in my personal portfolio (and Chip’s). 

Highlight: Mitch Rubin’s reflection on the failure of their first venture, a hedge fund “Our mistake, we realized, was trying to create strategies we thought investors wanted to buy rather than structuring the portfolios around how we wanted to invest” and Mitch Rubin’s vitally important note, “Managers often think of themselves as the talent. But the ability to run these businesses well takes real talent.” Ding, ding, ding, ding! Exactly. There are only a handful of firms, including Artisan, RiverPark and Seafarer, where I think the quality of the business operation is consistently outstanding. (It’s a topic we return, briefly, to below in the discussion of “Two questions for potential fund entrepreneurs.”)  Lots of small firms handicap themselves by making the operations part of the business an afterthought. Half of the failure of Marx’s thought was his inability to grasp the vital and difficult role of organizing and managing your resources.

Will casting off at Anderson’s Pier in Ephraim, WI.

Two questions for potential fund entrepreneurs

Where will you find your first $100 million?  And who’s got the 263 hours to spend on the paperwork?

I’d expressed some skepticism about the claim in Barron’s (see above) that mutual funds need between $100 – 200 million in AUM in order to be self-sustaining.  That is, to cover both their external expenses such as legal fees, to pay for staff beyond a single manager and to – here’s a wild thought – pay the manager a salary. 

In conversations over the past month with Andrew Foster at Seafarer and Greg Parcella at Long/Short Advisors, it became clear that the figure quoted in Barron’s was pretty reasonable.  Mr. Foster points out that the break-even is lower for a second or third fund, since a viable first fund might cover most of the firm’s overhead expenses, but for a firm with a single product (and most especially an international or global one), $100 million is a pretty reasonable target. 

Sadly, many of the managers I’ve spoken with – even guys with enormous investment management skill – have a pretty limited plan for getting there beyond the “build a better mousetrap” fiction.  In truth, lots of “better mousetraps” languish.  There are 2400 funds with fewer than $100 million in the portfolio, 10% of which are current four- or five-star funds, according to Morningstar.  (Many of the rest are too new to have a Morningstar rating.)

What I didn’t realize was how long the danged paperwork for a fund takes.  One recent prospectus on file with the SEC contained the following disclosure that’s required under a federal paperwork reduction act:

Which is to say, writing a prospectus is estimated to take six weeks.  I’m gobsmacked.

The big picture at Grandeur Peak

In the course of launching their new Global Reach fund, profiled below, Grandeur Peak decided to share a bit of their firm’s long-term planning with the public. Grandeur Peak’s investment focus is small- to micro-cap stocks.  The firm estimates that they will be able to manage about $3 billion in assets before their size becomes an impediment to their performance.  From that estimate, they backed out the point at which they might need to soft close their products in order to allow room for capital growth (about $2 billion) and then allocated resource levels for each of their seven envisioned strategies.

Those strategies are:

• Global Reach, their 300-500 stock flagship fund
• Global Opportunities, a more concentrated version of Global Reach
• International Opportunities, the non-U.S. sub-set of Global Reach
• Emerging Markets Opportunities, the emerging and frontier markets subset of International Opportunities
• US Opportunities, the U.S.-only subset of Global Opportunities
• Global Value, the “Fallen Angels” sub-set of Global Reach
• Global Microcap, the micro-cap subset of Global Reach

President Eric Huefner remarks that “Remaining nimble is critical for a small/micro cap manager to be world-class,” hence “we are terribly passionate about asset capping across the firm.”  With two strategies already closed and another gaining traction, it might be prudent to look into the opportunity.

Observer fund profiles

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds.  “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve. 

Grandeur Peak Global Opportunity (GPGOX): this now-closed star goes where few others dare, into the realm of global and emerging markets small to micro-caps.  With the launch of its sibling, Global Reach, its portfolio is about to tighten and focus.

Grandeur Peak Global Reach (GPGRX): this is the fund that Grandeur Peak wanted to offer you two years ago.  It will be their most broadly-diversified, lowest-cost portfolio and will serve as the flagship for the Grandeur Peak fleet. 

LS Opportunity (LSOFX): Jim Hillary left Marsico in 2004 with a lot of money and the burning question, “what’s the best way to sustainably grow my wealth?”  His answer was a pure long/short portfolio that’s served him, his hedge fund investors, his European investors, and his high net worth investors really well.  LSOFX gives retail investors a chance to join the party.

Sextant Global High Income (SGHIX): what do income-oriented investors do when The Old Reliables fail?  Saturna Capital, which has a long and distinguished record of bond-free income investing at Amana Income (AMANX), offers this highly adaptable, benchmark-free fund as one intriguing option.

Elevator Talk #6: Brian Frank of Frank Value Fund (FRNKX)

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you. That’s about the number of words a slightly-manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half. In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site. Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share. These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more.

Frank Value Fund (FRNKX) is not “that other Frank Fund” (John Buckingham’s Al Frank fund VALUX). It’s a concentrated, all-cap value fund that’s approaching its 10^th anniversary. It’s entirely plausible that it will celebrate its 10^th anniversary with returns in the top 10% of its peer group.

Most funds that claim to be “all cap” are sorting of spoofing you; most mean “all lot of easily-researched large companies with the occasional SMID-cap tossed in.”  To get an idea of how seriously Brian Frank means “go anywhere” when he says “go anywhere,” here’s his Morningstar portfolio map in comparison to that of the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX):

Vanguard Total Stock Market	Frank Value

Brian Frank is Frank Capital Partners’ co-founder, president and chief investment officer.  He’s been interested in stock investing since he was a teenager and, like many entrepreneurial managers, was a voracious reader.  At 19, his grandfather gave him $100,000 with the injunction, “buy me the best stocks.”  In pursuit of that goal, he founded a family office in 2002, an investment adviser in 2003 and a mutual fund in 2004. He earned degrees in accounting and finance from NYU.  Here’s Mr. Frank’s 200 words making his case:

What does the large-cap growth or small-cap value manager do when there are no good opportunities in their style box? They hold cash, which lowers your exposure to the equity markets and acts as a lead-weight in bull markets, or they invest in companies that do not fit their criteria and end up taking excess risk in bear markets. Neither one of these options made any sense when I was managing family-only money, and neither one made sense as we opened the strategy to the public through The Frank Value Fund. Our strategy is quantitative, meaning we go where we can numerically prove to ourselves there is opportunity. If there is no opportunity, we leave the space. It sounds simple, and it’s probably what you would do with your own money if you were an investment professional, but it is not how the fund industry is structured. If you believe in buying low-valuation, high-quality companies, and you allow your principles, not the Morningstar style-box to be your guide, I believe our fund has the structure and discipline to maintain this strategy, and I also believe because of this, we will continue to generate significant outperformance over the long-term.

The fund’s minimum initial investment is $1,500.  The fund’s website is clean and well-organized.  Brian’s most-recent discussion of the fund appears in his Second Quarter 2013 shareholder letter, though you might also enjoy his rant about the perils of passive investing.

Elevator Talk #7: Ian Mortimer and Matthew Page of Guinness Atkinson Inflation Managed Dividend (GAINX)

Guinness Atkinson Inflation-Managed Dividend (GAINX) is about the most “normal” fund in GA’s Asia/energy/innovation-dominated line-up.  Its global equity portfolio targets “moderate current income and consistent dividend growth that outpace inflation.”  The centerpiece of their portfolio construction is what they call the “10 over 10” methodology: in order to qualify for consideration, a corporation must have demonstrated at least 10% cash flow return on investment for 10 years.  By their estimation, only 3% of corporations clear this first hurdle.

They then work their way down from a 400 stock universe to a roughly equally-weighted portfolio of 35 names, representing firms with the potential for sustained dividend growth rather than just high current yields.  Morningstar reports that their trailing twelve-month yield is 3.02% while the 10-year U.S. Treasury sits at 2.55% (both as of July 17, 2013).

Managers Ian Mortimer and Matthew Page have a curious distinction: they are British, London-based managers of a largely-U.S. equity portfolio.  While that shouldn’t be remarkable, virtually every other domestic or global fund manager of a U.S. retail fund is American and domiciled here.  Dr. Mortimer earned a Master’s degree from University College London (2003) and a doctorate from Christ College, Oxford, both in physics.  He joined GA in 2006.  Mr. Page earned a Master’s degree in physics from New College, Oxford, worked at Goldman Sachs for a year and joined GA in 2005.  The duo co-manages GA Global Innovators (IWIRX) together.  Each also co-manages an energy fund.  Here are Ian and Matt, sharing 211 words on their strategy:

In the environment of historically low bond yields, investors looking for income are concerned with the possibility of rising inflation and rising yields. We believe a rising dividend strategy that seeks either a rising dividend stream over time or the accumulation of shares through dividend reinvestment offers a systematic method of investing, where dividends provide a consistent, growing income stream through market fluctuations.

Our investment process screens for sustainable dividend paying companies.  For a company to pay a sustainable and potentially rising dividend in the future, it needs to generate consistently high return on capital, creating value each year, and distribute it in the form of a dividend.  We therefore do not seek to maximize the yield of our portfolio by screening for high yield companies, but rather focus on companies that have robust business models and settle for a moderate yield.

Companies generating consistent high return on capital exist all around the world, with 50% based in US. We also find a growing number of them in emerging markets.  They also exist across industries and market capitalisations. Given their high returns on capital 90% of these companies pay dividends.

Further, employing a bottom up value driven approach, we seek to buy these good companies when they are out of favour.

The fund’s minimum initial investment is $10,000, reduced to $5,000 for tax-advantaged accounts.  It’s available for $2500 at Fidelity and Schwab. GA is providing GAINX at 0.68%, which represents a massive subsidy for a $2 million fund.  The fund fact sheet and its homepage include some helpful and concise information about fund strategy, holdings, and performance, as well as biographies of the managers.  Given the importance of the “10 over 10” strategy to the fund’s operation, potential investors really should review their “10 over 10 Dividend Investment Strategy” white paper piece.

Our earlier Elevator Talks were:

1. February 2013: Tom Kerr, Rocky Peak Small Cap Value (RPCSX), whose manager has a 14 year track record in small cap investing and a passion for discovering “value” in the intersection of many measures: discounted cash flows, LBO models, M&A valuations and traditional relative valuation metrics.
2. March 2013: Dale Harvey, Poplar Forest Partners (PFPFX and IPFPX), a concentrated, contrarian value stock fund that offers “a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest with a successful American Funds manager who went out on his own.”
3. April 2013: Bayard Closser, Vertical Capital Income Fund (VCAPX), “a closed-end interval fund, VCAPX invests in whole mortgage loans and first deeds of trust. We purchase the loans from lenders at a deep discount and service them ourselves.”
4. May 2013: Jim Hillary, LS Opportunity Fund (LSOFX), a co-founder of Marsico Capital Management whose worry that “the quality of research on Wall Street continues to decline and investors are becoming increasingly concerned about short-term performance” led to his faith in “in-depth research and long-term orientation in our high conviction ideas.”
5. July 2013: Casey Frazier, Versus Capital Multi-Manager Real Estate Income Fund, a second closed-end interval fund whose portfolio “includes real estate private equity and debt, public equity and debt, and broad exposure across asset types and geographies.  We target a mix of 70% private real estate with 30% public real estate to enhance liquidity, and our objective is to produce total returns in the 7 – 9% range net of fees.”

Pre-Launch Alert: Sarofim and Robeco

This is normally the space where we flag really interested funds which had become available to the public within the past 30 days.   Oddly, two intriguing funds became legal in July but have not yet launched.  This means that the fund companies might open the fund any day now, but might also mean that they’ll sit on the option for months or years.  I’ve been trying, with limited success to uncover the back story.

Robeco Boston Partners Global Long/Short Fund could have launched July 12.  It will be a global version of their Long/Short Research Fund (BPRRX).  When queries, a representative of the fund simply reported “they have yet [to] decide when they will actually launch the fund.” About the worst you can say about Long/Short Research is that it’s not as great as their flagship Robeco Boston Partners L/S Equity Fund (BPLEX).  Since launch, BPRRX has modestly trailed BPLEX but has clubbed most of its competitors.  With $1.5 billion already in the portfolio, it’s likely to close by year’s end.  The global version will be managed by Jay Feeney, Chief Investment Officer-Equities and co-manager of Long/Short Research, and Christopher K. Hart.  $2500 minimum investment.3.77%, the only redeeming feature of which is that institutional investors are getting charged almost as much (3.52%). The recent (July 1) acquisition of 90.1% of Robeco by ORIX might be contributing to the delay since ORIX has their own strategic priorities for Robeco – mostly expanding in Asia and the Middle East – but that’s not been confirmed.

Sarofim Equity (SRFMX) didn’t launch on July 1, though it might have. Sarofim sub-advises the huge Dreyfus Appreciation Fund (DGAGX) whose “principal investment strategies” bear to striking resemblance to this fund’s. (In truth, there appears to be a two word difference between the two.) DGAGX is distinguished by its negligible turnover (typically under 1%), consistently low risk and mega-cap portfolio (the average market cap is north of $100 billion). It typically captures about 80% of the market’s movements, both up and down. Over periods of three years and longer, that translates to trailing the average large cap fund by less than a percent a year while courting a bit under 90% of the short-term volatility. So why launch a direct competitor to DGAGX, especially one that’s priced below what Dreyfus investors are charged for their shares of a $6 billion fund? Good question! Dan Crumrine, Sarofim’s CFO, explained that Sarofim would like to migrate lots of their smaller separately managed accounts (say, those with just a few hundred thousand) into the mutual fund. That would save money for both Sarofim and their clients, since the separate accounts offer a level of portfolio tuning that many of these folks don’t want and that costs money to provide. Dan expects a launch sometime this fall. The fund will have a $2500 minimum and 0.71% expense ratio after waivers (and only 0.87% – still below DGAGX – before waivers).

Sarofim will not market the fund nor will they place it on the major platforms since they aren’t seeking to compete with Dreyfus; they mostly need a “friends and family” fund to help out some of their clients. This has, with other firms, been a recipe for success since the funds don’t need to charge exorbitant amounts, are grounded in a well-tested discipline, and the managers are under no pressure to grow assets.

I’ll keep you posted.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details. Every day we scour new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves. Many of the proposed funds offer nothing new, distinctive or interesting.

Funds in registration this month won’t be available for sale until, typically, the end of September 2013. There were 12 funds in registration with the SEC this month, through July 15th.  We’ll catch up on the last two weeks of July and all of August in our September issue; we had an early cut-off date this month to accommodate my vacation.

This month’s registrations reveal two particularly interesting developments:

The re-emergence of Stein Roe.  Stein, Roe&Farnham, founded in 1932, had a very well-respected family of no-load funds, most notably Stein Roe Young Investor. There was much drama surrounding the firm. Terrible performance in 1999 led to management shake-ups and botched mergers. Columbia (formerly FleetBoston Financial, then an arm of the Bank of America, later bought by Ameriprise which itself used to be American Express Financial Advisers – jeez, are you keeping a scorecard?) bought the Stein Roe funds in 2001, first renaming them and then merging them out of existence (2007).Somewhere in there, Columbia execs took the funds hip deep in a timing scandal. In 2004, Stein Roe Investment Council – which had been doing separate accounts after the departure of its mutual funds – was purchased by Invesco and became part of their Atlantic Trust private investment group.  In the last two months, Stein Roe has begun creeping back into the retail, no-load fund world as adviser to the new family of AT funds.  Last month it announced the rebranding of Invesco Disciplined Equity (AWIEX) as AT Disciplined Equity.  This month it’s added two entirely new funds to the line-up: AT Mid Cap Equity Fundand AT Income Opportunities Fund.  The former invests in mid-cap stocks while the latter pursues income and growth through a mix of common and preferred stocks and bonds.  The minimum initial investment is $3000 for either and the expense ratios are 1.39% and 1.25%, respectively. 

The first fund to advertise training wheels. Baron is launching Baron Discovery Fund, whose market cap target is low enough to qualify it as a micro-cap fund.  It will be co-managed by two guys who have been working as Baron analysts for more than a decade.  Apparently someone at Baron was a bit ambivalent about the promotion and so they’ve created an entirely new position at the fund: “Portfolio Manager Adviser.”   They’ve appointed the manager of Baron Small Cap, Cliff Greenberg, to make sure that the kids don’t get in over their heads.  His responsibility is to “advise the co-managers of the Fund on stock selection and buy and sell decisions” and, more critically, he’s responsible “for ensuring the execution of the Fund’s investment strategy.”  Uhh … what does it tell you when the nominal managers of the fund aren’t trusted to execute the fund’s investment strategy? Perhaps that they shouldn’t be the managers of the fund?  Make no mistake: many funds have “lead” managers and “co-managers,” who presumably enact the same sort of mentorship role and oversight that Baron is building here. The difference is that, in all of the other cases that come to mind, the guy in charge is the manager.  The minimum initial investment is $2000, reduced to $500 for accounts set up with an AIP. Expenses not yet announced.

Details and the list of all of the funds in registration are available at the Observer’s Funds in Registration page or by clicking “Funds” on the menu atop each page.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down a near-record 64 fund manager changes.  Freakishly, that’s the exact number of changes we identified last month.  Investors should take particular note of Bill Frels’ year-end departure from Mairs and Power and Jesper Madsen’s impended exit from Matthews and from the finance industry.  Both firms have handled past transitions very smoothly, but these are both lead managers with outstanding records.

Update #1: Celebrating three years for the ASTON/River Road Long-Short strategy

ASTON/River Road Long/Short Fund (ARLSX) launched on May 4, 2011.  It will have to wait until May 2014 to celebrate its third anniversary and June 2014 to receive its first Morningstar rating.  The strategy behind the fund, though, began operating in a series of separate accounts in June 2010.  As a result, the strategy just completed its third year and we asked manager Matt Moran about the highlights of his first three years.  He points to two in particular:

We are thrilled to have just completed our third year for the composite.  The mutual fund track record is now just a bit over two years.

[Co-manager] Daniel [Johnson] and I think there are two important points about our strategy now that we’ve hit three years:

1. Based on the Sharpe ratio, our composite ranks as the #1 strategy (attached with disclosures) of all 129 funds in the Morningstar Long-Short category over the past three years.

   We like what legendary investor Howard Marks wrote about the Sharpe ratio on page 39-40 of his 2011 masterpiece The Most Important Thing, “…investors who want some objective measure of risk-adjusted return…can only look to the so-called Sharpe ratio…this calculation seems serviceable for public market securities that trade and price often…and it truly is the best we have (my emphasis)”.

2. We’ve grown our AUM from $8 MM at the beginning of 2013 to $81.7 MM as of [mid-July, 2013].

   We are very pleased to have returned +14.1% annualized (gross) versus the Russell 3000 at +18.6% over the past three years with just [about] 45% of the volatility, a beta of 0.36, and a maximum drawdown of [about] 7.65% (vs. 20.4% for the Russell 3000).

Their long/short strategy has a nicely asymmetrical profile: it has captured 59% of the market’s upside but only 33% of the downside since inception.  ARLSX, the mutual fund which is one embodiment of the strategy, strikes us as one of three really promising “pure” long/short funds.  Folks anxious about abnormal market highs and considerable sensitivity to risk might want to poke around ARLSX’s homepage. There’s a separate and modestly more-detailed discussion on the River Road Asset Management Long-Short Equity Strategy homepage, including a nicely-done factsheet.

Update #2: Celebrating the new website for Oakseed Opportunity Fund

Okay, I suppose it’s possible that, at the end of our profile of Oakseed Opportunity Fund (SEEDX), I might have harshed on the guys just a little bit about the quality of their website:

Mr. Park mentioned that neither of them much liked marketing.  Uhhh … it shows.  I know the guys are just starting out and pinching pennies, but really these folks need to talk with Anya and Nina about a site that supports their operations and informs their (prospective) investors.  

One of the great things about the managers of small funds is that they’re still open to listening and reacting to what they’ve heard.  And so with some great delight (and a promise to edit the snarky comment at the end of their profile), we note the appearance of an attractive and far more useful Oakseed website: 

Welcome, indeed.  Nicely done, guys!

Briefly Noted . . .

DWS Enhanced Emerging Markets Fixed Income Fund (SZEAX), an emerging markets junk bond fund (and don’t you really need more exposure to the riskiest of e.m. bonds?) changed its principal investment strategy from investing in emerging markets junk to strike the proviso “the fund invests at least 50% of its total assets in sovereign debt securities issued or guaranteed by governments, government-related entities, supranational organizations and central banks based in emerging markets.”

ING International Growth Fundbecame ING Multi-Manager International Equity Fund (IIGIX) on July 1, 2013. More Marsico fallout: the nice folks from Marsico Capital Management were shown the door by Harbor International Growth (HIIGX) in May.  Baillie Gifford pulled two managers from the ING fund to help manage the Harbor one.  ING then decided to add Lazard and J.P. Morgan as sub-advisers to the fund, in addition to Baillie Gifford and T. Rowe Price.

As of August 1, TIAA-CREF LIFECYCLE FUNDS added TIAA-CREF International Opportunities Fund to their investable universe and increased their exposure to international stocks.

As set forth more fully below, effective as of August 1, 2013, Teachers Advisors, Inc. has increased the maximum exposure of the Funds to the international sector. In addition, the Advisor has begun investing in the and, effective August 1, 2013, the international component of each Fund’s composite benchmark has been changed from the MSCI EAFE® + EM Index to the MSCI ACWI ex-USA® Index.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Hmmm … a bit thin this month.

The folks at Fleishman/Hillard report that Cognios Market Neutral Large Cap (COGMX) has been added to the Charles Schwab, Fidelity and Pershing platforms. It’s a new no-load that’s had a bit of a shaky start.

Melissa Mitchell of CWR & Partners reports some success on the part of the Praxis funds (socially responsible, faith-based, front loaded and institutional classes) in getting Hershey’s to commit to eliminating the use of child slaves in the cocoa plantations that serve it:

The chocolate industry’s history is riddled with problems related to child slavery on African cocoa bean farms. Everence, through its Praxis Mutual Funds, is actively working with chocolate companies to address the conditions that lead to forced child labor. For the last three years, Praxis has co-led shareholders in working with Hershey – one of the world’s largest chocolatiers – to shape new solutions to this long-standing problem.

Their Intermediate Income Fund (MIIAX) has purchased $2 million in International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) bonds, funding a program which will help save millions of children from preventable diseases. Okay, those aren’t wins for investors per se but they’re danged admirable pursuits regardless and deserve some recognition.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Fidelity will close Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond (FUSFX) to most investors on Aug. 2, 2013. It’s one of the ultra-short funds that went off a cliff in last 2007 and never quite regained its stride. Given that the fund’s assets are far below their peak, the closure might be a sign of some larger change on the way.

Artisan is closing Artisan Small Cap (ARTSX), the flagship fund, on August 2nd. This is the second closure in the fund’s history. In October 2009, Artisan rotated a new management team in: Andrew Stephens and the folks responsible for Artisan Midcap.  Since that time, the fund’s performance has improved dramatically and assets have steadily accumulated to $1.2 billion now.  Artisan has a long tradition of closing their funds in order to keep them manageable, so the move is entirely laudable.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Marsico has gotten the boot so often that they’re thinking of opening a shoe store. The latest round includes their dismissal from the AST Marsico Capital Growth Portfolio, which became the AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio on July 15, 2013.  This is the second portfolio that AST pulled from Marsico in recent weeks.  The firm’s assets are now down by $90 billion from their peak.  At the same time, The New York Times celebrated Marsico Global (MGLBX) as one of three “Mutual Funds that Made Sense of a Confusing Market” (July 6, 2013).

Invesco Global Quantitative Core (GTNDX) changed its name to Invesco Global Low Volatility Equity Yield on July 31, 2013.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Compak Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund (CMPKX) will be liquidated on or about September 13, 2013.  It closed to all new investment on July 31, 2013.  It’s a little fund-of-funds run by Moe and Faroz Ansari, both of whom appear to be interesting and distinguished guys.  High expenses, front load, undistinguished – but not bad – performance.

Invesco Dynamics (IDYAX) merged into Invesco Mid Cap Growth (VGRAX) and Invesco Municipal Bond (AMBDX) merged into Invesco Municipal Income (VKMMX).

John Hancock Funds liquidated two tiny funds on July 30: the $1.9 million JHancock Leveraged Companies (JVCAX) and the $3.5 million JHancock Small Cap Opportunities (JCPAX).  Do you suppose it’s a coincidence that JHancock Leveraged Companies was launched at the very peak of Fidelity Leverage Company’s performance?  From inception to April 28, 2008, FLVCX turned $10,000 into $41,000 while its midcap peers reached only $16,000. Sadly, and typically, Fidelity trailed its peers and benchmark noticeably from that day to this. JHancock did better but with its hopes of riding Fidelity’s coattails smashed …

Lord Abbett Small Cap Blend Fund melted into the Lord Abbett Value Opportunities Fund (LVOAX) on July 19, 2013. The fact that Value Opps doesn’t particularly invest in small cap stocks and has struggled to transcend “mediocre” in the last several years makes this a less-than-ideal merger.

My favorite liquidation notice, quoted in its entirety: “On July 31,2013, the ASG Growth Markets Fund (AGMAX) was liquidated. The Fund no longer exists, and as a result, shares of the Fund are no longer available for purchase or exchange.” It appears mostly to have bet on emerging markets currencies. Over its short life, it managed to transform $10,000 into $9,400.

COUNTRY Bond Fund (CTLAX) and COUNTRY Growth Fund (CGRAX) will be liquidated “on or before October 31, 2013, and in any event no later than December 31, 2013.” I have no idea (1) why the word “Country” is supposed to appear in all caps (same with ASTON) or (2) why you’d liquidate a reasonably solid fund with over $300 million in assets or a mediocre one with $250 million. No word of explanation in the filing.

The King is Dead: Fountainhead Special Value Fund (KINGX) has closed to new investors in anticipation of an October liquidation. Twas a $7 million midcap growth fund that had a promising start, cratered in the 2007-09 crisis and never recovered.

In Closing . . .

That’s about it from Door County.  I’ll soon be back at my desk as we pull together the September issue.  We’ll have a look inside your target-date funds and will share four more fund profiles (including one that we’ve dubbed “Dodge and Cox without all the excess baggage”).  It’s work, but joyful.

It wouldn’t be worthwhile without your readership and your thoughtful feedback.  And it wouldn’t be possible without your support, either directly or by using our Amazon link.   Our readership, curiously enough, has spiked to 15,014 “unique visitors” this month, though our revenue through Amazon is flat.  So, we thought we’d mention the system for the benefit of the new folks.  The Amazon system is amazingly simple and painless.  If you set our link as your default bookmark for Amazon (or, as I do, use Amazon as your homepage), the Observer receives a rebate from Amazon equivalent to 6% or more of the amount of your purchase.  It doesn’t change your cost by a penny since the money comes from Amazon’s marketing budget.  While 6% of the $11 you’ll pay for Bill Bernstein’s The Investor’s Manifesto (or 6% of a pound of coffee beans, back-to-school loot or an Easton S1 composite big barrel bat) seems trivial, it adds up to about 75% of our income.  Thanks for both!

We’ll look for you.

Dear friends,

Welcome to summer, a time of year when heat records are rather more common than market records.  

What’s in your long/short fund?

Everybody’s talking about long/short funds.  Google chronicles 273,000 pages that use the phrase.  Bloomberg promises “a comprehensive list of long/short funds worldwide.”  Morningstar, Lipper and U.S. News plunk nearly a hundred funds into a box with that label.  (Not the same hundred funds, by the way.  Not nearly.)  Seeking Alpha offers up the “best and less long/short funds 2013.”

Here’s the Observer’s position: Talking about “long/short funds” is dangerous and delusional because it leads you to believe that there are such things.  Using the phrase validates the existence of a category, that is, a group of things where we perceive shared characteristics.  As soon as we announce a category, we start judging things in the category based on how well they conform to our expectations of the category.  If we assign a piece of fruit (or a hard-boiled egg) to the category “upscale dessert,” we start judging it based on how upscale-dessert-y it seems.  The fact that the assignment is random, silly and unfair doesn’t stop us from making judgments anyway.  The renowned linguist George Lakoff writes, “there is nothing more basic than categorization to our thought, perception, action and speech.”

Do categories automatically make sense?  Try this one out: Dyirbal, an Australian aboriginal language, has a category balan which contains women, fire, dangerous things, non-threatening birds and platypuses.

When Morningstar groups 83 funds together in the category “long/short equity,” they’re telling us “hey, all of these things have essential similarities.  Feel free to judge them against each other.”  We sympathize with the analysts’ need to organize funds.  Nonetheless, this particular category is seriously misleading.   It contains funds that have only superficial – not essential – similarities with each other.  In extended conversations with managers and executives representing a half dozen long/short funds, it’s become clear that investors need to give up entirely on this simple category if they want to make meaningful comparisons and choices.

Each of the folks we spoke to have their own preferred way of organizing these sorts of “alternative investment” funds.   After two weeks of conversation, though, useful commonalities began to emerge.  Here’s a manager-inspired schema:

1. Start with the role of the short portfolio.  What are the managers attempting to do with their short book and how are they doing it? The RiverNorth folks, and most of the others, agree that this should be “the first and perhaps most important” criterion. Alan Salzbank of the Gargoyle Group warns that “the character of the short positions varies from fund to fund, and is not necessarily designed to hedge market exposure as the category title would suggest.”  Based on our discussions, we think there are three distinct roles that short books play and three ways those strategies get reflected in the fund.
   

   Role	Portfolio tool	Translation
   Add alpha	Individual stock shorts	These funds want to increase returns by identifying the market’s least attractive stocks and betting against them
   Reduce beta	Shorting indexes or sectors, generally by using ETFs	These funds want to tamp market volatility by placing larger or smaller bets against the entire market, or large subsets of it, with no concern for the value of individual issues
   Structural	Various option strategies such as selling calls	These funds believe they can generate considerable income – as much as 1.5-2% per month – by selling options.  Those options become more valuable as the market becomes more volatile, so they serve as a cushion for the portfolio; they are “by their very nature negatively correlated to the market” (AS).

2. Determine the degree of market exposure.   Net exposure (% long minus % short) varies dramatically, from 100% (from what ARLSX manager Matt Moran laments as “the faddish 130/30 funds from a few years ago”) to under 25%.  An analysis by the Gargoyle Group showed three-year betas for funds in Morningstar’s long/short category ranging from 1.40 to (-0.43), which gives you an idea of how dramatically market exposure varies.  For some funds the net market exposure is held in a tight band (40-60% with a target of 50% is pretty common).   Some of the more aggressive funds will shift exposure dramatically, based on their market experience and projections.  It doesn’t make sense to compare a fund that’s consistently 60% exposure to the market with one that swings from 25% – 100%.

   Ideally, that information should be prominently displayed on a fund’s fact sheet, especially if the manager has the freedom to move by more than a few percent.  A nice example comes from Aberdeen Equity Long/Short Fund’s (GLSRX) factsheet:

   

   Greg Parcella of Long/Short Advisors  maintains an internal database of all of long/short funds and expressed some considerable frustration in discovering that many don’t make that information available or require investors to do their own portfolio analyses to discover it.  Even with the help of Morningstar, such self-generated calculations can be a bit daunting.  Here, for example, is how Morningstar reports the portfolio of Robeco Boston Partners Long/Short Equity BPLEX in comparison to its (entirely-irrelevant) long-short benchmark and (wildly incomparable) long/short equity peers:

   

   So, look for managers who offer this information in a clear way and who keep it current. Morty Schaja, president of RiverPark Advisors which offers two very distinctive long/short funds (RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity RLSFX and RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value RGHVX) suggest that such a lack of transparency would immediately raise concerns for him as an investor; he did not offer a flat “avoid them” but was surely leaning in that direction.

3. Look at the risk/return metrics for the fund over time.  Once you’ve completed the first two steps, you’ve stopped comparing apples to rutabagas and mopeds (step one) or even cooking apples to snacking apples (step two).  Now that you’ve got a stack of closely comparable funds, many of the managers call for you to look at specific risk measures.  Matt Moran suggests that “the best measure to employ are … the Sharpe, the Sortino and the Ulcer Index [which help you determine] how much return an investor is getting for the risk that they are taking.”

As part of the Observer’s new risk profiles of 7600 funds, we’ve pulled all of the funds that Morningstar categorizes as “long/short equity” into a single table for you.  It will measure both returns and seven different flavors of risk.  If you’re unfamiliar with the varied risk metrics, check our definitions page.  Remember that each bit of data must be read carefully since the fund’s longevity can dramatically affect their profile.  Funds that were around in the 2008 will have much greater maximum drawdowns than funds launched since then.  Those numbers do not immediately make a fund “bad,” it means that something happened that you want to understand before trusting these folks with your money.

As a preview, we’d like to share the profiles for five of the six funds whose advisors have been helping us understand these issues.  The sixth, RiverNorth Dynamic Buy-Write (RNBWX), is too new to appear.  These are all funds that we’ve profiled as among their categories’ best and that we’ll be profiling in August.

Long/short managers aren’t the only folks concerned with managing risk.  For the sake of perspective, we calculated the returns on a bunch of the risk-conscious funds that we’ve profiled.  We looked, in particular, at the recent turmoil since it affected both global and domestic, equity and bond markets.

Downside protection in one ugly stretch, 05/28/2013 – 06/24/2013

Charles, widely-read and occasionally whimsical, thought it useful to share two stories and a bit of data that lead him to suspect that successful long/short investments are, like Babe Ruth’s “called home run,” more legend than history.

Notes from the Morningstar Conference

If you ever wonder what we do with contributions to the Observer or with income from our Amazon partnership, the short answer is, we try to get better.  Three ongoing projects reflect those efforts.  One is our ongoing visual upgrade, the results of which will be evident online during July.  More than window-dressing, we think of a more graphically sophisticated image as a tool for getting more folks to notice and benefit from our content.  A second our own risk profiles for more than 7500 funds.  We’ll discuss those more below.  The third was our recent presence at the Morningstar Investment Conference.  None of them would be possible without your support, and so thanks!

I spent about 48 hours at Morningstar and was listening to folks for about 30 hours.  I posted my impressions to our discussion board and several stirred vigorous discussions.  For your benefit, here’s a sort of Top Ten list of things I learned at Morningstar and links to the ensuing debates on our discussion board.

Day One: Northern Trust on emerging and frontier investing

Attended a small lunch with Northern managers.  Northern primarily caters to the rich but has retail share class funds, FlexShare ETFs and multi-manager funds for the rest of us. They are the world’s 5th largest investor in frontier markets. Frontier markets are currently 1% of global market cap, emerging markets are 12% and both have GDP growth 350% greater than the developed world’s. EM/F stocks sell at a 20% discount to developed stocks. Northern’s research shows that the same factors that increase equity returns in the developed world (small, value, wide moat, dividend paying) also predict excess returns in emerging and frontier markets. In September 2012 they launched the FlexShares Emerging Markets Factor Tilt Index Fund (TLTE) that tilts toward Fama-French factors, which is to say it holds more small and more value than a standard e.m. index.

Day One: Smead Value (SMVLX)

Interviewed Bill Smead, an interesting guy, who positions himself against the “brilliant pessimists” like Grantham and Hussman.  Smead argues their clients have now missed four years of phenomenal gains. Their thesis is correct (as were most of the tech investor theses in 1999) but optimism has been in such short supply that it became valuable.  He launched Smead Value in 2007 with a simple strategy: buy and hold (for 10 to, say, 100 years) excellent companies.  Pretty radical, eh?  He argues that the fund universe is 35% passive, 5% active and 60% overly active. Turns out that he’s managed it to top 1-2% returns over most trailing periods.  Much the top performing LCB fund around.  There’s a complete profile of the fund below.

Day One: Morningstar’s expert recommendations on emerging managers

Consuelo Mack ran a panel discussion with Russ Kinnel, Laura Lallos, Scott Burns and John Rekenthaler. One question: “What are your recommendations for boutique firms that investors should know about, but don’t? Who are the smaller, emerging managers who are really standing out?”

Dead silence. Glances back and forth. After a long silence: FPA, Primecap and TFS.

There are two possible explanations: (1) Morningstar really has lost touch with anyone other than the top 20 (or 40 or whatever) fund complexes or (2) Morningstar charged dozens of smaller fund companies to be exhibitors at their conference and was afraid to offend any of them by naming someone else.

Since we notice small funds and fund boutiques, we’d like to offer the following answers that folks could have given:

Well, Consuelo, a number of advisors are searching for management teams that have outstanding records with private accounts and/or hedge funds, and are making those teams and their strategies available to the retail fund world. First rate examples include ASTON, RiverNorth and RiverPark.

Or

That’s a great question, Consuelo.  Individual investors aren’t the only folks tired of dealing with oversized, underperforming funds.  A number of first-tier investors have walked away from large fund complexes to launch their own boutiques and to pursue a focused investing vision. Some great places to start would be with the funds from Grandeur Peak, Oakseed, and Seafarer.

Mr. Mansueto did mention, in his opening remarks, an upcoming Morningstar initiative to identify and track “emerging managers.”  If so, that’s a really good sign for all involved.

Day One: Michael Mauboussin on luck and skill in investing

Mauboussin works for Credit Suisse, Legg Mason before that and has written The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck in Business, Sports, and Investing (2012). Here’s his Paradox of Skill: as the aggregate level of skill rises, luck becomes a more important factor in separating average from way above average. Since you can’t count on luck, it becomes harder for anyone to remain way above average. Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941. No one has been over .400 since. Why? Because everyone has gotten better: pitchers, fielders and hitters. In 1941, Williams’ average was four standard deviations above the norm. In 2012, a hitter up by four s.d. would be hitting “just” .380. The same thing in investing: the dispersion of returns (the gap between 50th percentile funds and 90th percentile funds) has been falling for 50 years. Any outsized performance is now likely luck and unlikely to persist.

This spurred a particularly rich discussion on the board.

Day Two: Matt Eagan on where to run now

Day Two started with a 7:00 a.m. breakfast sponsored by Litman Gregory. (I’ll spare you the culinary commentary.) Litman runs the Masters series funds and bills itself as “a manager of managers.” The presenters were two of the guys who subadvise for them, Matt Eagan of Loomis Sayles and David Herro of Oakmark. Eagan helps manage the strategic income, strategic alpha, multi-sector bond, corporate bond and high-yield funds for LS. He’s part of a team named as Morningstar’s Fixed-Income Managers of the Year in 2009.

Eagan argues that fixed income is influenced by multiple cyclical risks, including market, interest rate and reinvestment risk. He’s concerned with a rising need to protect principal, which leads him to a neutral duration, selective shorting and some currency hedges (about 8% of his portfolios).

He’s concerned that the Fed has underwritten a hot-money move into the emerging markets. The fundamentals there “are very, very good and we see their currencies strengthening” but he’s made a tactical withdrawal because of some technical reasons (I have “because of a fund-out window” but have no idea of what that means) which might foretell a drop “which might be violent; when those come, you’ve just got to get out of the way.”

He finds Mexico to be “compelling long-term story.” It’s near the US, it’s capturing market share from China because of the “inshoring” phenomenon and, if they manage to break up Pemex, “you’re going to see a lot of growth there.”

Europe, contrarily, “is moribund at best. Our big hope is that it’s less bad than most people expect.” He suspects that the Europeans have more reason to stay together than to disappear, so they likely will, and an investor’s challenge is “to find good corporations in bad Zip codes.”

In the end:

• avoid indexing – almost all of the fixed income indexes are configured to produce “negative real yields for the foreseeable future” and most passive products are useful mostly as “just liquidity vehicles.”
• you can make money in the face of rising rates, something like a 3-4% yield with no correlation to the markets.
• avoid Treasuries and agencies
• build a yield advantage by broadening your opportunity set
• look at convertible securities and be willing to move within a firm’s capital structure
• invest overseas, in particular try to get away from the three reserve currencies.

Eagan manages a sleeve of Litman Gregory Masters Alternative Strategies (MASNX), which we’ve profiled and which has had pretty solid performance.

Day Two: David Herro on emerging markets and systemic risk

The other breakfast speaker was David Herro of Oakmark International.  He was celebrated in our May 2013 essay, “Of Oaks and Acorns,” that looked at the success of Oakmark international analysts as fund managers.

Herro was asked about frothy markets and high valuations. He argues that “the #1 risk to protect against is the inability of companies to generate profits – macro-level events impact price but rarely impact long-term value. These macro-disturbances allow long-term investors to take advantage of the market’s short-termism.” The ’08-early ’09 events were “dismal but temporary.”

Herro notes that he had 20% of his flagship in the emerging markets in the late 90s, then backed down to zero as those markets were hit by “a wave of indiscriminate inflows.” He agrees that emerging markets will “be the propellant of global economic growth for the next 20 years” but, being a bright guy, warns that you still need to find “good businesses at good prices.” He hasn’t seen any in several years but, at this rate, “maybe in a year we’ll be back in.”

His current stance is that a stock needs to have 40-50% upside to get into his portfolio today and “some of the better quality e.m. firms are within 10-15% of getting in.”  (Since then the e.m. indexes briefly dropped 7% but had regained most of that decline by June 30.) He seemed impressed, in particular, with the quality of management teams in Latin America (“those guys are really experienced with handling adversity”) but skeptical of the Chinese newbies (“they’re still a little dodgy”).

He also announced a bias “against reserve currencies.” That is, he thinks you’re better off buying earnings which are not denominated in dollars, Euros or … perhaps, yen. His co-presenter, Matt Eagan of Loomis Sayles, has the same bias. He’s been short the yen but long the Nikkei.

In terms of asset allocation, he thinks that global stocks, especially blue chips “are pretty attractively priced” since values have been rising faster than prices have. Global equities, he says, “haven’t come out of their funk.” There’s not much of a valuation difference between the US and the rest of the developed world (the US “is a little richer” but might deserve it), so he doesn’t see overweighting one over the other.

Day Two: Jack Bogle ‘s inconvenient truths

Don Phillips had a conversation with Bogle in a huge auditorium that, frankly, should dang well have had more people in it.  I think the general excuse is, “we know what Bogle’s going to say, so why listen?”  Uhhh … because Bogle’s still thinking clearly, which distinguishes him from a fair number of his industry brethren?  He weighed in on why money market funds cost more than indexed stock funds (the cost of check cashing) and argued that our retirement system is facing three train wrecks: (1) underfunding of the Social Security system – which is manageable if politicians chose to manage it, (2) “grotesquely underfunded” defined benefit plans (a/k/a pension plans) whose managers still plan to earn 8% with a balanced portfolio – Bogle thinks they’ll be lucky to get 5% before expenses – and who are planning “to bring in some hedge fund guys” to magically solve their problem, and (3) defined contribution plans (401k’s and such) which allow folks to wreck their long-term prospects by cashing out for very little cause.

Bogle thinks that most target-date funds are ill-designed because they ignore Social Security, described by Bogle as “the best fixed-income position you’ll ever have.”  The average lifetime SS benefit is something like $300,000.  If your 401(k) contains $300,000 in stocks, you’ll have a 50/50 hybrid at retirement.  If your 401(k) target-date fund is 40% in bonds, you’ll retire with a portfolio that’s 70% bonds (SS + target date fund) and 30% stocks.  He’s skeptical of the bond market to begin with (he recommends that you look for a serious part of your income stream from dividend growth) and more skeptical of a product that buries you in bonds.

Finally, he has a strained relationship with his successors at Vanguard.  On the one hand he exults that Vanguard’s structural advantage on expenses is so great “that nobody can match us – too bad for them, good for us.”  And the other, he disagrees with most industry executives, including Vanguard’s, on regulations of the money market industry and the fund industry’s unwillingness – as owners of 35% of all stock – to stand up to cultures in which corporations have become “the private fiefdom of their chief executives.”  (An issue addressed by The New York Times on June 29, “The Unstoppable Climb in CEO Pay.”)  At base, “I don’t disagree with Vanguard.  They disagree with me.”

Day Three: Sextant Global High Income

This is an interesting one and we’ll have a full profile of the fund in August. The managers target a portfolio yield of 8% (currently they manage 6.5% – the lower reported trailing 12 month yield reflects the fact that the fund launched 12 months ago and took six months to become fully invested). There are six other “global high income” funds – Aberdeen, DWS, Fidelity, JohnHancock, Mainstay, Western Asset. Here’s the key distinction: Sextant pursues high income through a combination of high dividend stocks (European utilities among them), preferred shares and high yield bonds. Right now about 50% of the portfolio is in stocks, 30% bonds, 10% preferreds and 10% cash. No other “high income” fund seems to hold more than 3% equities. That gives them both the potential for capital appreciation and interest rate insulation. They could imagine 8% from income and 2% from cap app. They made about 9.5% over the trailing twelve months through 5/31. 

Day Three: Off-the-record worries

I’ve had the pleasure of speaking with some managers frequently over months or years, and occasionally we have conversations where I’m unsure that statements were made for attribution.  Here are four sets of comments attributable to “managers” who I think are bright enough to be worth listening to.

More than one manager is worried about “a credit event” in China this year. That is, the central government might precipitate a crisis in the financial system (a bond default or a bank run) in order to begin cleansing a nearly insolvent banking system. (Umm … I think we’ve been having it and I’m not sure whether to be impressed or spooked that folks know this stuff.) The central government is concerned about disarray in the provinces and a propensity for banks and industries to accept unsecured IOUs. They are acting to pursue gradual institutional reforms (e.g., stricter capital requirements) but might conclude that a sharp correction now would be useful. One manager thought such an event might be 30% likely. Another was closer to “near inevitable.”

More than one manager suspects that there might be a commodity price implosion, gold included. A 200 year chart of commodity prices shows four spikes – each followed by a retracement of more than 100% – and a fifth spike that we’ve been in recently.

More than one manager offered some version of the following statement: “there’s hardly a bond out there worth buying. They’re essentially all priced for a negative real return.”

More than one manager suggested that the term “emerging markets” was essentially a linguistic fiction. About 25% of the emerging markets index (Korea and Taiwan) could be declared “developed markets” (though, on June 11, they were not) while Saudi Arabia could become an emerging market by virtue of a decision to make shares available to non-Middle Eastern investors. “It’s not meaningful except to the marketers,” quoth one.

Day Three: Reflecting on tchotchkes

Dozens of fund companies paid for exhibits at Morningstar – little booths inside the McCormick Convention Center where fund reps could chat with passing advisors (and the occasional Observer guy).  One time honored conversation starter is the tchotchke: the neat little giveaway with your name on it.  Firms embraced a stunning array of stuff: barbeque sauce (Scout Funds, from Kansas City), church-cooked peanuts (Queens Road), golf tees, hand sanitizers (inexplicably popular), InvestMints (Wasatch), micro-fiber cloths (Payden), flashlights, pens, multi-color pens, pens with styluses, pens that signal Bernanke to resume tossing money from a circling helicopter . . .

Ideally, you still need to think of any giveaway as an expression of your corporate identity.  You want the properties of the object to reflect your sense of self and to remind folks of you.  From that standard, the best tchotchke by a mile were Vanguard’s totebags.  You wish you had one.  Made of soft, heavy-weight canvas with a bottom that could be flattened for maximum capacity, they were unadorned except for the word “Vanguard.”  No gimmicks, no flash, utter functionality in a product that your grandkids will fondly remember you carrying for years.  That really says Vanguard.  Good job, guys!

The second-best tchotchke (an exceedingly comfortable navy baseball cap with a sailboat logo) and single best location (directly across from the open bar and beside Vanguard) was Seafarer’s.  

It’s Charles in Charge! 

My colleague Charles Boccadoro has spearheaded one of our recent initiatives: extended risk profiles of over 7500 funds.  Some of his work is reflected in the tables in our long/short fund story.  Last month we promised to roll out his data in a searchable form for this month.  As it turns out, the programmer we’re working with is still a few days away from a “search by ticker” engine.  Once that’s been tested, chip will be able to quickly add other search fields. 

As an interim move, we’re making all of Charles’ risk analyses available to you as a .pdf.  (It might be paranoia, but I’m a bit concerned about the prospect of misappropriation of the file if we post it as a spreadsheet.)  It runs well over 100 pages, so I’d be a bit cautious about hitting the “print” button. 

Charles’ contributions have been so thoughtful and extensive that, in August, we’ll set aside a portion of the Observer that will hold an archive of all of his data-driven pieces.  Our current plan is to introduce each of the longer pieces in this cover essay then take readers to Charles’ Balcony where complete story and all of his essays dwell.  We’re following that model in …

Timing method performance over ten decades

The Healthy Debate. In Professor David Aronson’s 2006 book, entitled “Evidence-Based Technical Analysis,” he argues that subjective technical analysis, which is any analysis that cannot be reduced to a computer algorithm and back tested, is “not a legitimate body of knowledge but a collection of folklore resting on a flimsy foundation of anecdote and intuition.”

He further warns that falsehoods accumulate even with objective analysis and rules developed after-the-fact can lead to overblown extrapolations – fool’s gold biased by data-mining, more luck than legitimate prediction, in same category as “literate monkeys, Bible Codes, and lottery players.”

Read the full story here.

Announcing Mutual Fund Contacts, our new sister-site

I mentioned some months ago a plan to launch an affiliate site, Mutual Fund Contacts.  June 28 marked the “soft launch” of MFC.  MFC’s mission is to serve as a guide and resource for folks who are new at all this and feeling a bit unsteady about how to proceed.  We imagine a young couple in their late 20s planning an eventual home purchase, a single mom in her 30s who’s trying to organize stuff that she’s not had to pay attention to, or a young college graduate trying to lay a good foundation.

Most sites dedicated to small investors are raucous places with poor focus, too many features and a desperate need to grab attention.  Feh.  MFC will try to provide content and resources that don’t quite fit here but that we think are still valuable.  Each month we’ll provide a 1000-word story on the theme “the one-fund portfolio.”  If you were looking for one fund that might yield a bit more than a savings account without a lot of downside, what should you consider?  Each “one fund” article will recommend three options: two low-minimum mutual funds and one commission-free ETF.  We’ll also have a monthly recommendation on three resources you should be familiar with (this month, the three books that any financially savvy person needs to start with) and ongoing resources (this month: the updated “List of Funds for Small Investors” that highlights all of the no-load funds available for $100 or less – plus a couple that are close enough to consider).

The nature of a soft launch is that we’re still working on the site’s visuals and some functionality.  That said, it does offer a series of resources that, oh, say, your kids really should be looking at.  Feel free to drop by Mutual Fund Contacts and then let us know how we can make it better.

Everyone loves a crisis

Larry Swedroe wrote a widely quoted, widely redistributed essay for CBS MoneyWatch warning that bond funds were covertly transforming themselves into stock funds in pursuit of additional yield.  His essay opens with:

It may surprise you that, as of its last reporting date, there were 352 mutual funds that are classified by Morningstar as bond funds that actually held stocks in their portfolio. (I know I was surprised, and given my 40 years of experience in the investment banking and financial advisory business, it takes quite a bit to surprise me.) At the end of 2012, it was 312, up from 283 nine months earlier.

The chase for higher yields has led many actively managed bond funds to load up on riskier investments, such as preferred stocks. (Emphasis added)

Many actively managed bond funds have loaded up?

Let’s look at the data.  There are 1177 bond funds, excluding munis.  Only 104 hold more than 1% in stocks, and most of those hold barely more than a percent.  The most striking aspect of those funds is that they don’t call themselves “bond” funds.  Precisely 11 funds with the word “Bond” in their name have stocks in excess of 1%.  The others advertise themselves as “income” funds and, quite often, “strategic income,” “high income” or “income opportunities” funds.  Such funds have, traditionally, used other income sources to supplement their bond-heavy core portfolios.

How about Larry’s claim that they’ve been “bulking up”?  I looked at the 25 stockiest funds to see whether their equity stake should be news to their investors.  I did that by comparing their current exposure to the bond market with the range of exposures they’ve experienced over the past five years.  Here’s the picture, ranked based on US stock exposure, starting with the stockiest fund:

*WISEX invests within the constraints of Islamic principles.  As a result, most traditional interest-paying, fixed-income vehicles are forbidden to it.

From this most stock-heavy group, 10 funds now hold fewer bonds than at any other point in the past five years.  In many cases (see T Rowe Price Spectrum Income), their bond exposure varies by only a few percentage points from year to year so being light on bonds is, for them, not much different than being heavy on bonds.

The SEC’s naming rule says that if you have an investment class in your name (e.g. “Bond”) then at least 80% of your portfolio must reside in that class. Ave Maria Bond runs right up to the line: 19.88% US stocks, but warns you of that: “The Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in equity securities, which include preferred stocks, common stocks paying dividends and securities convertible into common stock.”  Eaton Vance Bond is 12% and makes the same declaration: “The Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in common stocks and other equity securities, including real estate investment trusts.”

Bottom line: the “loading up” has been pretty durn minimal.  The funds which have a substantial equity stake now have had a substantial equity stake for years, they market that fact and they name themselves to permit it.

Fidelity cries out: Run away!

Several sites have noted the fact that Fidelity Europe Cap App Fund (FECAX) has closed to new investors.  Most skip the fact that it looks like the $400 million FECAX is about to get eaten, presumably by Fidelity Europe (FIEUX): “The Board has approved closing Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation Fund effective after the close of business on July 19, 2013, as the Board and FMR are considering merging the fund.” (emphasis added)

Fascinating.  Fidelity’s signaling the fact that they can no longer afford two Euro-centered funds.  Why would that be the case? 

I can only imagine three possibilities:

1. Fidelity no longer finds with a mere $400 million in AUM viable, so the Cap App fund has to go.
2. Fidelity doesn’t think there’s room for (or need for) more than one European stock strategy.  There are 83 distinct U.S.-focused strategies in the Fidelity family, but who’d need more than one for Europe?
3. Fidelity can no longer find managers capable of performing well enough to be worth the effort.
   

   	Expenses	Returns TTM	Returns 5 yr	Compared to peers – 5 yr
   Fidelity European funds for British investors
   Fidelity European Fund A-Accumulation	1.72% on $4.1B	22%	1.86	3.31
   Fidelity Europe Long-Term Growth Fund	1.73 on $732M	29	n/a	n/a
   Fidelity European Opportunities	1.73 on $723M	21	1.48	3.31
   Fidelity European funds for American investors
   Fidelity European Capital Appreciation	0.92% on $331M	24	(1.57)	(.81)
   Fidelity Europe	0.80 on $724M	23	(1.21)	(0.40)
   Fidelity Nordic	1.04% on $340M	32	(0.40)	The Morningstar peer group is “miscellaneous regions” – ignore it

   Converted at ₤1 = $1.54, 25 June 2013.

In April of 2007, Fidelity tried to merge Nordic into Europe, but its shareholders refused to allow it.  At the time Nordic was one of Fidelity’s best-performing international funds and had $600 million in assets.  The announced rationale:  “The Nordic region is more volatile than developed Europe as a whole, and Fidelity believes the region’s characteristics have changed sufficiently to no longer warrant a separate fund focused on the region.”  The nature of those “changes” was not clear and shareholders were unimpressed.

It is clear that Fidelity has a personnel problem.  When, for example, they wanted to bolster their asset allocation funds-of-funds, they added two new Fidelity Series funds for them to choose from.  One is run by Will Danoff, whose Contrafund already has $95 billion in assets, and the other by Joel Tillinghast, whose Low-Priced Stock Fund lugs $40 billion.  Presumably they would have turned to a young star with less on their plate … if they had a young star with less on their plate.  Likewise, Fidelity Strategic Adviser Multi-Manager funds advertise themselves as being run by the best of the best; these funds have the option of using Fidelity talent or going outside when the options elsewhere are better.  What conclusions might we draw from the fact that Strategic Advisers Core Multi-Manager (FLAUX) draws one of its 11 managers from Fido or that Strategic Advisers International Multi-Manager (FMJDX) has one Fido manager in 17?  Both of the managers for Strategic Advisers Core Income Multi-Manager (FWHBX) are Fidelity employees, so it’s not simply that the SAMM funds are designed to showcase non-Fido talent.

I’ve had trouble finding attractive new funds from Fidelity for years now.  It might well be that the contemplated retrenchment in their Europe line-up reflects the fact that Fido’s been having the same trouble.

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds.  “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve. 

Forward Income Builder (IAIAX): “income,” not “bonds.”  This is another instance of a fund that has been reshaped in recent years into an interesting offering.  Perception just hasn’t yet caught up with the reality.

Smead Value (SMVLX): call it “Triumph of the Optimists.”  Mr. Smead dismisses most of what his peers are doing as poorly conceived or disastrously poorly-conceived.  He thinks that pessimism is overbought, optimism in short supply and a portfolio of top-tier U.S. stocks held forever as your best friend.

Elevator Talk #5: Casey Frazier of Versus Capital Multi-Manager Real Estate Income Fund

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you. That’s about the number of words a slightly-manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half. In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site. Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share. These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more.

Versus Capital Multi-Manager Real Estate Income Fund is a closed-end interval fund.  That means that you can buy Versus shares any day that the market is open, but you only have the opportunity to sell those shares once each quarter.  The advisor has the option of meeting some, all or none of a particular quarter’s redemption requests, based on cash available and the start of the market. 

The argument for such a restrictive structure is that it allows managers to invest in illiquid asset classes; that is, to buy and profit from things that cannot be reasonably bought or sold on a moment’s notice.  Those sorts of investments have been traditionally available only to exceedingly high net-worth investors either through limited partnerships or direct ownership (e.g., buying a forest).  Several mutual funds have lately begun creating into this space, mostly structured as interval funds.  Vertical Capital Income Fund (VCAPX), the subject of our April Elevator Talk, was one such.  KKR Alternative Corporate Opportunities Fund, from private equity specialist Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, is another.

Casey Frazieris Chief Investment Officer for Versus, a position he’s held since 2011.  From 2005-2010, he was the Chief Investment Officer for Welton Street Investments, LLC and Welton Street Advisors LLC.  Here’s Mr. Frazier’s 200 (and 16!) words making the Versus case:

We think the best way to maximize the investment attributes of real estate – income, diversification, and inflation hedge – is through a blended portfolio of private and public real estate investments.  Private real estate investments, and in particular the “core” and “core plus” segments of private real estate, have historically offered steady income, low volatility, low correlation, good diversification, and a hedge against inflation.  Unfortunately institutional private real estate has been out of reach of many investors due to the large size of the real estate assets themselves and the high minimums on the private funds institutional investors use to gain exposure to these areas.  With the help of institutional consultant Callan Associates, we’ve built a multi-manager portfolio in a 40 Act interval structure we feel covers the spectrum of a core real estate allocation.  The allocation includes real estate private equity and debt, public equity and debt, and broad exposure across asset types and geographies.  We target a mix of 70% private real estate with 30% public real estate to enhance liquidity, and our objective is to produce total returns in the 7% – 9% range net of fees with 5% – 6% of that coming from income.  Operationally, the fund has daily pricing, quarterly liquidity at NAV, quarterly income, 1099 reporting and no subscription paperwork.

Versus offers a lot of information about private real estate investing on their website.  Check the “fund documents” page. The fund’s retail, F-class shares carry an annual expense of 3.30% and a 2.00% redemption fee on shares held less than one year.  The minimum initial investment is $10,000.  

Conference Call Upcoming: RiverNorth/Oaktree High Income, July 11, 3:15 CT

While the Observer’s conference call series is on hiatus for the summer (the challenge of coordinating schedules went from “hard” to “ridiculous”), we’re pleased to highlight similar opportunities offered by folks we’ve interviewed and whose work we respect.

In that vein, we’d like to invite you to join in on a conference call hosted by RiverNorth to highlight the early experience of RiverNorth/Oaktree High Income Fund.  The fund is looking for high total return, rather than income per se.  As of May 31, 25% of the portfolio was allocated to RiverNorth’s tactical closed-end fund strategy and 75% to Oaktree.  Oaktree has two strategies (high yield bond and senior loan) and it allocates more or less to each depending on the available opportunity set.

Why might you want to listen in?  At base, both RiverNorth and Oaktree are exceedingly successful at what they do.  Oaktree’s services are generally not available to retail investors.  RiverNorth’s other strategic alliances have ranged from solid (with Manning & Napier) to splendid (with DoubleLine).  On the surface the Oaktree alliance is producing solid results, relative to their Morningstar peer group, but the fund’s strategies are so distinctive that I’m dubious of the peer comparison.

If you’re interested, the RiverNorth call will be Thursday, July 11, from 3:15 – 4:15 Central.  The call is web-based, so you’ll be able to read supporting visuals while the guys talk.  Callers will have the opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Marks and Mr. Galley.  Because RiverNorth anticipates a large crowd, you’ll submit your questions by typing them rather than speaking directly to the managers. 

How can you join in?  Just click

You can also get there by visiting RiverNorthFunds.com and clicking on the Events tab.

Launch Alert

Artisan Global Small Cap (ARTWX) launched on June 25, after several delays.  It’s managed by Mark Yockey and his new co-managers/former analysts, Charles-Henri Hamker and Dave Geisler.  They’ll apply the same investment discipline used in Artisan Global Equity (ARTHX) with a few additional constraints.  Global Small will only invest in firms with a market cap of under $4 billion at the time of purchase and might invest up to 50% of the portfolio in emerging markets.  Global Equity has only 7% of its money in small caps and can invest no more than 30% in emerging markets (right now it’s about 14%). Just to be clear: this team runs one five-star fund (Global), two four-star ones (International ARTIX and International Small Cap ARTJX), Mr. Yockey was Morningstar’s International Fund Manager of the Year in 1998 and he and his team were finalists again in 2012.  It really doesn’t get much more promising than that. The expenses are capped at 1.50%.  The minimum initial investment is $1000.

RiverPark Structural Alpha (RSAFX and RSAIX) launched on Friday, June 28.  The fund will employ a variety of options investment strategies, including short-selling index options that the managers believe are overpriced.  A half dozen managers and two fund presidents have tried to explain options-based strategies to me.  I mostly glaze over and nod knowingly.  I have become convinced that these represent fairly low-volatility tools for capturing most of the stock market’s upside. The fund will be comanaged by Justin Frankel and Jeremy Berman. This portfolio was run as a private partnership for five years (September 2008 – June 2013) by the same managers, with the same strategy.  Over that time they managed to return 10.7% per year while the S&P 500 made 6.2%.  The fund launched at the end of September, 2008, and gained 3.55% through year’s end.  The S&P500 dropped 17.7% in that same quarter.  While the huge victory over those three months explains some of the fund’s long-term outperformance, its absolute returns from 2009 – 2012 are still over 10% a year.  You might choose to sneeze at a low-volatility, uncorrelated strategy that makes 10% annually.  I wouldn’t.  The fund’s expenses are hefty (retail shares retain the 2% part of the “2 and 20” world while institutional shares come in at 1.75%).  The minimum initial investment will be $1000.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details. Every day we scour new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves. Many of the proposed funds offer nothing new, distinctive or interesting.

Funds in registration this month won’t be available for sale until, typically, the end of August 2013. There were 13 funds in registration with the SEC this month, through June 25^th.  The most interesting, by far, is:

RiverPark Strategic Income Fund.  David Sherman of Cohanzick Management, who also manages the splendid but closed RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund (RPHYX, see below) will be the manager.  This represents one step out on the risk/return spectrum for Mr. Sherman and his investors.  He’s giving himself the freedom to invest across the income-producing universe (foreign and domestic, short- to long-term, investment and non-investment grade debt, preferred stock, convertible bonds, bank loans, high yield bonds and up to 35% income producing equities) while maintaining a very conservative discipline.  In repeated conversations, it’s been very clear that Mr. Sherman has an intense dislike of losing his investors’ money.  His plan is to pursue an intentionally conservative strategy by investing only in those bonds that he deems “Money Good” and stocks whose dividends are secure.  He also can hedge the portfolio and, as with RPHYX, he intends to hold securities until maturity which will make much of the fund’s volatility more apparent than real.   The expense ratio is 1.25% for retail shares, 1.00% for institutional. The minimum initial investments will be $1000 for retail and $1M for institutional.

Details and the list of all of the funds in registration are available at the Observer’s Funds in Registration page or by clicking “Funds” on the menu atop each page.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down a near-record 64 fund manager changes. 

Briefly Noted . . .

If you own a Russell equity fund, there’s a good chance that your management team just changed.  Phillip Hoffman took over the lead for a couple funds but also began swapping out managers on some of their multi-manager funds.  Matthew Beardsley was been removed from management of the funds and relocated into client service. 

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Seventeen BMO Funds dropped their 2.00% redemption fees this month.

BRC Large Cap Focus Equity Fund (BRCIX)has dropped its management fee from 0.75% to 0.47% and capped its total expenses at 0.55%.  It’s an institutional fund that launched at the end of 2012 and has been doing okay.

LK Balanced Fund (LKBLX) reduced its minimum initial investment for its Institutional Class Shares from $50,000 to $5,000 for IRA accounts.  Tiny fund, very fine long-term record but a new management team as of June 2012.

Schwab Fundamental International Small Company Index Fund (SFILX) and Schwab Fundamental Emerging Markets Large Company Index Fund (SFENX) have capped their expenses at 0.49%.  That’s a drop of 6 and 11 basis points, respectively.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Good news for RPHYX investors, bad news for the rest of you.  RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX) has closed to new investors.  The manager has been clear that this really distinctive cash-management fund had a limited capacity, somewhere between $600 million and $1 billion.  I’ve mentioned several times that the closure was nigh.  Below is the chart of RPHYX (blue) against Vanguard’s short-term bond index (orange) and prime money market (green).

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

For all of the excitement over China as an investment opportunity, China-centered funds have returned a whoppin’ 1.40% over the past five years.  BlackRock seems to have noticed and they’ve hit the Reset button on BlackRock China Fund (BACHX).  As of August 16, it will become BlackRock Emerging Markets Dividend Fund.  One wonders if the term “chasing last year’s hot idea” is new to them?

On or about August 5, 2013, Columbia Energy and Natural Resources Fund (EENAX, with other tickers for its seven other share classes) will be renamed Columbia Global Energy and Natural Resources Fund.  There’s no change to the strategy and the fund is already 35% non-U.S., so it’s just marketing fluff.

“Beginning on or about July 1, 2013, all references to ING International Growth Fund (IIGIX) are hereby deleted and replaced with ING Multi-Manager International Equity Fund.”  Note to ING: the multi-manager mish-mash doesn’t appear to be a winning strategy.

Effective May 22, ING International Small Cap Fund (NTKLX) may invest up to 25% of its portfolio in REITs.

Effective June 28, PNC Mid Cap Value Fund became PNC Mid Cap Fund (PMCAX).

Effective June 1, Payden Value Leaders Fund became Payden Equity Income Fund (PYVLX).  With only two good years in the past 11, you’d imagine that more than the name ought to be rethought.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Geez, the dustbin is filling quickly.

The Alternative Strategies Mutual Fund (AASFX) closed to new investors in June and will liquidate by July 26, 2013.  It’s a microscopic fund-of-funds that, in its best year, trailed 75% of its peers.  A 2.5% expense ratio didn’t help.

Hansberger International Value Fund (HINTX) will be liquidated on or about July 19, 2013.   It’s moved to cash pending dissolution.

ING International Value Fund (IIVWX) is merging into ING International Value Equity (IGVWX ), formerly ING Global Value Choice.   This would be a really opportune moment for ING investors to consider their options.   ING is merging the larger fund into the smaller, a sign that the marketers are anxious to bury the worst of the ineptitude.  Both funds have been run by the same team since December 2012.  This is the sixth management team to run the fund in 10 years and the new team’s record is no better than mediocre.    

In case you hadn’t noticed, Litman Gregory Masters Value Fund (MSVFX) was absorbed by Litman Gregory Masters Equity Fund (MSENX) in late June, 2013.  Litman Gregory’s struggles should give us all pause.  You have a firm whose only business is picking winning fund managers and assembling them into a coherent portfolio.  Nonetheless, Value managed consistently disappointing returns and high volatility.  How disappointing?  Uhh … they thought it was better to keep a two-star fund that’s consistently had higher volatility and lower returns than its peers for the past decade.  We’re going to look at the question, “what’s the chance that professionals can assemble a team of consistently winning mutual fund managers?” when we examine the record (generally parlous) of multi-manager funds in an upcoming issue.

Driehaus Large Cap Growth Fund (DRLGX) was closed on June 11 and, as of July 19, the Fund will begin the process of liquidating its portfolio securities. 

The Board of Fairfax Gold and Precious Metals Fund (GOLMX and GOLLX) “has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations,” which they did on June 29, 2013

Forward Global Credit Long/Short Fund (FGCRX) will be liquidated on or around July 26, 2013.  I’m sure this fund seemed like a good idea at the time.  Forward’s domestic version of the fund (Forward Credit Analysis Long/Short, FLSRX) has drawn $800 million into a high risk/high expense/high return portfolio.  The global fund, open less than two years, managed the “high expense” part (2.39%) but pretty much flubbed on the “attract investors and reward them” piece.   The light green line is the original and dark blue is Global, since launch.

Henderson World Select Fund (HFPAX) will be liquidated on or about August 30, 2013.

The $13 million ING DFA Global Allocation Portfolio (IDFAX) is slated for liquidation, pending shareholder approval, likely in September.

ING has such a way with words.  They announced that ING Pioneer Mid Cap Value Portfolio (IPMVX, a/k/a “Disappearing Portfolio”) will be reorganized “with and into the following ‘Surviving Portfolio’ (the ‘Reorganization’):

So, in the best case, a shareholder is The Survivor?  What sort of goal is that?  “Hi, gramma!  I just invested in a mutual fund that I hope will survive?” Suddenly the Bee Gees erupt in the background with “stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive, ah, ah, ah … “  Guys, guys, guys.  The disappearance is scheduled to occur just after Labor Day.

Stephen Leeb wrote The Coming Economic Collapse (2008).  The economy didn’t, his fund did.  Leeb Focus Fund (LCMFX) closed at the end of June, having parlayed Mr. Leeb’s insights into returns that trailed 98% of its peers since launch. 

On June 20, 2013, the board of directors of the Frontegra Funds approved the liquidation of the Lockwell Small Cap Value Fund (LOCSX).  Lockwell had a talented manager who was a sort of refugee from a series of fund mergers, acquisitions and liquidations in the industry.  We profiled LOCSX and were reasonably positive about its prospects.  The fund performed well but never managed to attract assets, partly because small cap investing has been out of favor and partly because of an advertised $100,000 minimum.  In addition to liquidating the fund, the advisor is closing his firm. 

Tributary Core Equity Fund (FOEQX) will liquidate around July 26, 2013.  Tributary Balanced (FOBAX), which we’ve profiled, remains small, open and quite attractive. 

I’ve mentioned before that I believe Morningstar misleads investors with their descriptions of a fund’s fee level (“high,” “above average” and so on) because they often use a comparison group that investors would never imagine.  Both Tributary Balanced and Oakmark Equity & Income (OAKBX) have $1000 minimum investments.  In each case, Morningstar insists on comparing them to their Moderate Allocation Institutional group.  Why?

In Closing . . .

We have a lot going on in the month ahead: Charles is working to create a master listing of all the funds we’ve profiled, organized by strategy and risk.  Andrew and Chip are working to bring our risk data to you in an easily searchable form.  Anya and Barb continue playing with graphics.  I’ve got four profiles underway, based on conversations I had at Morningstar.

And … I get to have a vacation!  When you next hear from me, I’ll be lounging on the patio of LeRoy’s Water Street Coffee Shop in lovely Ephraim, Wisconsin, on the Door County peninsula.  I’ll send pictures, but I promise I won’t be gloating when I’m doing it.

Dear friends,

I had imagined this as the “post-storm, pre-cliff” edition of the Observer but it appears that “post-storm” would be a very premature characterization.  For four million of our friends who are still without power, especially those along the coast or in outlying areas, the simple pleasures of electric lighting and running water remain a distant hope.  And anything that looks like “normal” might be months in their future.  Our thoughts, prayers, good wishes and spare utility crews go out to them.

I thought, instead, I’d say something about the U.S. presidential election.  This is going to sting, but here it is:

It’s going to be okay.

Hard to believe, isn’t it?  We’re acculturated into viewing the election if as it were some apocalyptic video game whose tagline reads: “America can’t survive .”  The reality is, we can and we will.  The reality is that both Obama and Romney are good guys: smart, patriotic, obsessively hard-working, politically moderate, fact-driven, given to compromise and occasionally funny.  The reality is that they’re both trapped by the demands of electoral politics and polarized bases.

But, frankly, freed of the constraints of those bases, these guys would agree on rather more than they disagree on.  In a less-polarized world, they could run together as a ticket (Obomney 2020!) and do so with a great deal of camaraderie and mutual respect. (Biden-Ryan, on the other hand, would be more than a little bit scary.)  Neither strikes me as a great politician or polished communicator; that’s going to end up constraining – and perhaps crippling – whoever wins.

Why are we so negative?  Because negative (“fear and loathing on the campaign trail”) raises money (likely $6 billion by the time it’s all done) and draws viewers.  While it’s easy to blame PACs, super PACs and other dark forces for that state, the truth is that the news media – mainstream and otherwise – paint good men as evil.  A startling analysis conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 72% of all character references to Messrs. Obama and Romney are negative, one of the most negative set of press portrayals on record.

I live in Iowa, labeled a “battleground state,” and I receive four to six (largely poisonous) robo-calls a day.  And so here’s the final reality: Iowa is not a battleground and we’d all be better off if folks stopped using the term.  It’s a place where a bunch of folks are worried, a bunch of folks (often the same ones) are hopeful and we’re trying to pick as best we can.

The Last Ten: T. Rowe Price in the Past Decade

In October we launched “The Last Ten,” a monthly series, running between now and February, looking at the strategies and funds launched by the Big Five fund companies (Fido, Vanguard, T Rowe, American and PIMCO) in the last decade.  We started with Fidelity, once fabled for the predictable success of its new fund launches.  Sadly, the pattern of the last decade is clear and clearly worse: despite 154 fund launches since 2002, Fidelity has created no compelling new investment option and only one retail fund that has earned Morningstar’s five-star designation, Fidelity International Growth (FIGFX).  We suggested three causes: the need to grow assets, a cautious culture and a firm that’s too big to risk innovative funds.

T. Rowe Price is a far smaller firm.  Where Fidelity has $1.4 trillion in assets under management, Price is under $600 billion.  Fidelity manages 340 funds.  Price has 110.  Fidelity launched 154 funds in a decade, Price launched 22.

What are the patterns?

1. Most Price funds reflect the firm’s strength in asset allocation and emerging asset classes. Price does really first-rate work in thinking about which assets classes make sense and in what configuration. They’ve done a good job of communicating that research to their investors, making things clear without making them childish.
2. Most Price funds succeed. Of the funds launched, only Strategic Income (PRSNX) has been a consistent laggard; it has trailed its peer group in four consecutive years but trailed disastrously only once (2009).
3. Most Price funds remain reasonably nimble. While Fido funds quickly swell into the multi-billion range, a lot of the Price funds have remaining under $200 million which gives them both room to grow and to maneuver. The really large funds are the retirement-date series, which are actually funds of other funds.
4. Price continues to buck prevailing wisdom. There’s no sign of blossoming index fund business or the launch of a series of superfluous ETFs. There’s a lot to be said for knowing your strengths and continuing to develop them.

Finally, Price continues to deliver on its promises. Investing with Price is the equivalent of putting a strong singles-hitter on a baseball team; it’s a bet that you’ll win with consistency and effort, rather than the occasional spectacular play. The success of that strategy is evident in Price’s domination of . . .

The Observer’s Honor Roll, Unlike Any Other

Last month, in the spirit of FundAlarm’s “three-alarm” fund list, we presented the Observer’s second Roll Call of the Wretched.  Those were funds that managed to trail their peers for the past one-, three-, five- and ten-year periods, with special commendation for the funds that added high expenses and high volatility to the mix.

This month, I’d like to share the Observer’s Honor Roll of Consistently Bearable Funds.  Most such lists start with a faulty assumption: that high returns are intrinsically good.

Wrong!

While high returns can be a good thing, the practical question is how those returns are obtained.  If they’re the product of alternately sizzling and stone cold performances, the high returns are worse than meaningless: they’re a deadly lure to hapless investors and advisors.  Investors hate losing money much more than they love making it.

In light of that, the Observer asked a simple question: which mutual funds are never terrible?  In constructing the Honor Roll, we did not look at whether a fund ever made a lot of money.  We looked only at whether a fund could consistently avoid being rotten.  Our logic is this: investors are willing to forgive the occasional sub-par year, but they’ll flee in terror in the face of a horrible one.  That “sell low” – occasionally “sell low and stuff the proceeds in a zero-return money fund for five years” – is our most disastrous response.

We looked for no-load, retail funds which, over the past ten years, have never finished in the bottom third of their peer groups.   And while we weren’t screening for strong returns, we ended up with a list of funds that consistently provided them anyway.

U.S. stock funds

International stock funds

Blended asset funds

Specialty funds

Reflections on the Honor Roll

These funds earn serious money.  Twenty-nine of the 33 funds earn four or five stars from Morningstar.  Four earn three stars, and none earn less.  By screening for good risk management, you end up with strong returns.

This is consistent with the recent glut of research on low-volatility investing.  Here’s the basic story: a portfolio of low-volatility stocks returns one to two percent more than the stock market while taking on 25% less risk.

That’s suspiciously close to the free lunch we’re not supposed to get.

There’s a very fine, short article on low-volatility investing in the New York Times: “In Search of Funds that Don’t Rock the Boat” (October 6, 2012).  PIMCO published some of the global data, showing (at slightly numbing length) that the same pattern holds in both developed and developing markets: “Stock Volatility: Not What You Might Think” (January 2012). There are a slug of ETFs that target low-volatility stocks but I’d be hesitant to commit to one until we’d looked at other risk factors such as turnover, market cap and sector concentration.

The roster is pretty stable.  Only four funds that qualified under these screens at the end of 2011 dropped out in 2012.  They are:

FPA Crescent (FPACX) – a 33% cash stake isn’t (yet) helping.  That said, this has been such a continually excellent fund that I worry more about the state of the market than about the state of Crescent.

New Century Capital (NCCPX) – a small, reasonably expensive fund-of funds that’s trailing 77% of its peers this year.  It’s been hurt, mostly, by being overweight in energy and underweight in resurgent financials.

New Century International (NCFPX) – another fund-of-funds that’s trailing about 80% of its peers, hurt by a huge overweight in emerging markets (primarily Latin), energy, and Canada (which is sort of an energy play).

Permanent Portfolio (PRPFX) – it hasn’t been a good year to hold a lot of Treasuries, and PRPFX by mandate does.

The list shows less than half of the turnover you’d expect if funds were there by chance.

One fund deserves honorable mention.  T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (PRCWX) has only had one relatively weak year in this century; in 2007, it finished in the 69^th percentile which made it (barely) miss inclusion.

What you’ve heard about T. Rowe Price is true.  You know all that boring “discipline, consistency, risk-awareness” stuff.  Apparently so.  There are 10 Price funds on the list, nearly one-third of the total.  Second place: Fidelity and Vanguard, far larger firms, with six funds.

Sure bets?  Nope.  Must have?  Dear God, no.  A potentially useful insight into picking winners by dodging a penchant for the occasional disaster?  We think so.

In dullness there is strength.

“TrimTabs ETF Outperforms Hedge Funds”

And underperforms pretty much everybody else.  The nice folks at FINAlternatives (“Hedge Fund and Private Equity News”) seem to have reproduced (or condensed) a press release celebrating the first-year performance of TrimTabs Float Shrink ETF (TTFS).

(Sorry – you can get to the original by Googling the title but a direct-link always takes you to a log-in screen.)

Why is this journalism?  They don’t offer the slightest hint about what the fund does.  And, not to rain on anybody’s ETF, but their trailing 12-month return (21.46% at NAV, as of 10/18) places them 2050th in Morningstar’s database.  That list includes a lot of funds which have been consistently excellent (Akre Focus, BBH Core Select (closing soon – see below), ING Corporate Leaders, Mairs & Power Growth and Sequoia) for decades, so it’s not immediately clear what warrants mention.

Seafarer Rolls On

Andrew Foster’s Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income Fund (SFGIX) continues its steady gains.

The fund is outperforming every reasonable benchmark: $10,000 invested at the fund’s inception has grown to $10,865 (as of 10/26/12).  The same amount invested in the S&P’s diversified emerging markets, emerging Asia and emerging Latin America ETFs would have declined by 5-10%.

Assets are steadily rolling in: the fund is now at $17 million after six months of operation and has been gaining nearly two million a month since summer.

Opinion-makers are noticing: Andrew and David Nadel of Royce Global Value (and five other funds ‘cause that’s what Royce managers do) were the guests on October 26th edition of Wealth Track with Consuelo Mack.  It was good to hear ostensible “growth” and “value” investors agree on so much about what to look for in emerging market stocks and which countries they were assiduously avoiding.  The complete interview on video is available here.  (Thanks to our endlessly vigilant Ted for both the heads-up and the video link.)

Legg Mason Rolls Over

Legg Mason seems to be struggling.  On the one hand we have the high visibility struggles of its former star manager, Bill Miller, who’s now in the position of losing more money for more people than almost any manager.  Their most recent financial statement, released July 27, shows that assets, operating revenue, operating income, and earnings are all down from the year before.   Beside that, there’s a more fundamental struggle to figure out what Legg Mason is and who wants to bear the name.

On October 5 2009 Legg announced a new naming strategy for its funds:

Most funds that were formerly named Legg Mason or Legg Mason Partners will now include the Legg Mason name, the name of the investment affiliate and the Fund’s strategy (such as the Legg Mason ClearBridge Appreciation Fund or the Legg Mason Western Asset Managed Municipals Fund).

The announced rationale was to “leverage the Legg Mason brand awareness.”

Welcome to the age of deleveraging:  This year those same funds are moving to hide the Legg Mason taint.  Western Asset dropped the Legg Mason number this summer.  Clearbridge is now following suit, so that the Legg Mason ClearBridge Appreciation Fund is about to become just Clearbridge Appreciation.

Royce, another Legg Mason affiliate, has never advertised that association.  Royce has always had a great small-value discipline. Since being acquired by Legg Mason in 2001, the firm acquired two other, troubling distinctions.

1. Managers who are covering too many funds.  By way of a quick snapshot, here are the funds managed by 72-year-old Chuck Royce (and this is after he dropped several):
   

   Since …	He’s managed …
   12/2010	Royce Global Dividend Value
   08/2010	Royce Micro-Cap Discovery
   04/2009	Royce Partners
   06/2008	Royce International Smaller-Companies
   09/2007	Royce Enterprise Select
   12/2006	Royce European Smaller Companies
   06/2005	Royce Select II
   05/2004	Royce Dividend Value
   12/2003	Royce Financial Services
   06/2003	Royce 100
   11/1998	Royce Select I
   12/1995	Royce Heritage
   12/1993	Royce Total Return
   12/1991	Royce Premier
   11/1972	Royce Pennsylvania Mutual

    

   Their other senior manager, Whitney George, manages 11 funds.  David Nadel works on nine, Lauren Romeo helps manage eight.

2. A wild expansion out of their traditional domestic small-value strength.  Between 1962 and 2001, Royce launched nine funds – all domestic small caps.  Between 2001 and the present, they launched 21 mutual funds and three closed-end funds in a striking array of flavors (Global Select Long/Short, International Micro-Cap, European Smaller Companies).  While many of those later launches have performed well, many have found no traction in the market.  Fifteen of their post-2001 launches have under $100 million in assets, 10 have under $10 million.  That translates into higher expenses in some already-expensive niches and a higher hurdle for the managers to overcome.Legg reports progressively weaker performance among the Royce funds in recent years:
   

   Three out of 30 funds managed by Royce outperformed their benchmarks for the 1-year period; 4 out of 24 for the 3-year period; 12 out of 19 for the 5-year period; and all 11 outperformed for the 10-year period.

That might be a sign of a fundamentally unhealthy market or the accumulated toll of expenses and expansion.  Shostakovich, one of our discussion board’s most experienced correspondents, pretty much cut to the chase on the day Royce reopened its $1.1 billion micro-cap fund to additional investors: “Chuck sold his soul. He kept his cashmere sweaters and his bow ties, but he sold his soul. And the devil’s name is Legg Mason.”  Interesting speculation.

Observer Fund Profiles

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds.  “Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve.  This month’s lineup features

Scout Unconstrained Bond (SUBFX): If these guys have a better track record than the one held by any bond mutual fund (and they do), why haven’t you heard of it?  Worse yet, why hadn’t I?

Stewart Capital Mid-Cap (SCMFX):  If this is one of the top two or three or ten mid-cap funds in operation (and it is), why haven’t you heard of it?  Worse yet, why hadn’t I?

Launch Alert: RiverNorth Dynamic Buy-Write Fund (RNBWX)

On  October 12, 2012, RiverNorth launched their fourth fund, RiverNorth Dynamic Buy-Write Fund.  “Buy-write” describes a sort of “covered call” strategy in which an investor might own a security and then sell to another investor the option to buy the security at a preset price in a preset time frame.  It is, in general, a defensive strategy which generates a bit of income and some downside protection for the investor who owns the security and writes the option.

As with any defensive strategy, you end up surrendering some upside in order to avoid some of the downside.  RiverNorth’s launch announcement contained a depiction of the risk-return profiles for a common buy-write index (the BXM) and three classes of stock:

A quick read is that the BXM offered 90% of the upside of the stock market with only 70% of the downside, which seems the very definition of a good tradeoff.

RiverNorth believes they can do better through active management of the portfolio.  The fund will be managed by Eric Metz, who joined RiverNorth in 2012 and serves as their Derivatives Strategist.  He’s been a partner at Bengal Capital, a senior trader at Ronin Capital and worked at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE).   The investment minimum is $5000.  Expenses are capped at 1.80%.

Because the strategy is complex, the good folks at RiverNorth have agreed to an extended interview at their offices in Chicago on November 8^th.  With luck and diligence, we’ll provide a full profile of the fund in our December issue.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public.  The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details.  Every day we scour new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves.  Many of the proposed funds offer nothing new, distinctive or interesting.  Some are downright horrors of Dilbertesque babble.

Twenty-nine new no-load funds were placed in registration this month.  Those include three load-bearing funds becoming no-loads, two hedge funds merging to become one mutual fund, one institutional fund becoming retail and two dozen new offerings.  An unusually large number of the new funds feature very experienced managers.  Four, in particular, caught our attention:

BBH Global Core Select is opening just as the five-star BBH Core Select closes.  Core Select invests about 15% of its money outside the U.S., while the global version will place at least 40% there.  One of Core Select’s managers will co-manage the new fund with a BBH analyst.

First Trust Global Tactical Asset Allocation and Income Fund will be an actively-managed ETF that “seek[s] total return and provide income [and] a relatively stable risk profile.”  The managers, John Gambla and Rob A. Guttschow, had been managing five closed-end funds for Nuveen.

Huber Capital Diversified Large Cap Value Fund, which will invest in 40-80 large caps that trade “at a significant discount to the present value of future cash flows,” will be run by Joseph Huber, who also manages the five-star Huber Small Cap Value (HUSIX) and Huber Equity Income (HULIX) funds.

Oakseed Opportunity Fund is a new global fund, managed by Greg L. Jackson and John H. Park. These guys managed or co-managed some “A” tier funds (Oakmark Global, Acorn, Acorn Select and Yacktman) before moving to Blum Capital, a private equity firm, from about 2004-2012.

Details on these funds and the list of all of the funds in registration are available at the Observer’s Funds in Registration page or by clicking “Funds” on the menu atop each page.

On a related note, we also tracked down about 50 fund manager changes, including the blockbuster announcement of Karen Gaffney’s departure from Loomis Sayles.

RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity conference call

Based on the success of our September conference call with David Sherman of Cohanzick Asset Management and RiverPark’s president, Morty Schaja, we have decided to try to provide our readers with one new opportunity each month to speak with an “A” tier fund manager.

The folks at RiverPark generously agreed to participate in a second conference call with Observer readers. It will feature Mitch Rubin, lead manager of RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity (RLSFX), a fund that we profiled in August as distinctive and distinctly promising.  This former hedge fund crushed its peers.

I’ll moderate the call.  Mitch will open by talking a bit about the fund’s strategy and then will field questions (yours and mine) on the fund’s strategies and prospects. The call is November 29 at 7:00 p.m., Eastern. Participants can register for the conference by navigating to  http://services.choruscall.com/diamondpass/registration?confirmationNumber=10020992

We’ll have the winter schedule in our December issue.  For now, I’ll note that managers of several really good funds have indicated a willingness to spend serious time with you.

Small Funds Communicating Smartly

The Mutual Fund Education Alliance announced their 2012 STAR Awards, which recognize fund companies that do a particularly good job of communicating with their investors.  As is common with such awards, there’s an impulse to make sure lots of folks get to celebrate so there are 17 sub-categories in each of three channels (retail, advisor, plan participant) plus eleven overall winners, for 62 awards in total.

US Global Investors was recognized as the best small firm overall, for “consistency of messaging and excellent use of the various distribution outlets.”  Matthews Asia was celebrated as the outstanding mid-sized fund firm.  Judges recognized them for “modern, effective design [and] unbelievable branding consistency.”

Ironically, MFEA’s own awards page is danged annoying with an automatic slide presentation that makes it hard to read about any of the individual winners.

Congratulations to both firms.  We’d also like to point you to our own Best of the Web winners for most effective site design: Seafarer Funds and Cook & Bynum Fund, with honorable mentions to Wintergreen, Auxier Focus and the Tilson Funds.

Briefly Noted . . .

Artio meltdown continues.  The Wall Street Journal reports that Richard Pell, Artio’s CEO, has stepped down.  Artio is bleeding assets, having lost nearly 50% of their assets under management in the past 12 months.  Their stock price is down 90% since its IPO and we’d already reported the closure of their domestic-equity funds.  This amounts to a management reshuffle, with Artio’s president becoming CEO and Pell remaining at CIO.  He’ll also continue to co-manage the once-great (top 5% over 15 years, bottom 5% over the past five years) Artio International Equity Fund (BJBIX) with Rudolph-Riad Younes.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Dreyfus/The Boston Company Small Cap Growth Fund (SSETX) reopened to new investors on November 1, 2012. It’s a decent little fund with below average expenses.  Both risk and return tend to be below average as well, with risk further below average than returns.

Fidelity announced the launch of a dozen new target-date funds in its Strategic Advisers Multi-Manager Series, 2020 through 2055 and Retirement Income.  The Multi-Manager series allows Fidelity to sell the skills of non-Fidelity managers (and their funds) to selected retirement plans.  Christopher Sharpe and Andrew Dierdorf co-manage all of the funds.

CLOSINGS

The board of BBH Core Select (BBTEX) has announced its imminent closure.  The five-star large cap fund has $3.2 billion in assets and will close at $3.5 billion.  Given its stellar performance and compact 30-stock portfolio, that’s certainly in its shareholders’ best interests.  At the same time, BBH has filed to launched a Global Core fund by year’s end.  It will be managed by one of BBTEX’s co-managers.  For details, see our Funds in Registration feature.

Invesco Balanced-Risk Commodity Strategy (BRCAX) will close to new investors effective November 15, 2012.

Investment News reports that 86 ETFs ceased operations in the first 10 months of 2012.  Wisdom Tree announced three more in late October (LargeCap Growth ROI,  South African Rand SZR and Japanese Yen JYF). Up until 2012, the greatest number of closures in a single calendar year was 58 during the 2008 meltdown.  400 more (Indonesian Small Caps, anyone?) reside on the ETF Deathwatch for October 2012; ETFs with tiny investor bases and little trading activity.  The hidden dimension of the challenge provided by small ETFs is the ability of their boards to dramatically change their investment mandates in search of new assets.  Investors in Global X S&P/TSX Venture 30 Canada ETF (think “Canadian NASDAQ”) suddenly found themselves instead in Global X Junior Miners ETF (oooo … exposure to global, small-cap nickel mining!).

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Under the assumption that indecipherable is good, Allianz announced three name changes: Allianz AGIC Structured Alpha Fund is becoming AllianzGI Structured Alpha Fund. Allianz AGIC U.S. Equity Hedged Fund becomes AllianzGI U.S. Equity Hedged Fund and Allianz NFJ Emerging Markets Value Fund becomes AllianzGI NFJ Emerging Markets Value Fund.

BBH Broad Market (BBBIX) has changed its name to BBH Limited Duration Fund.

Effective December 3, 2012, the expensive, small and underperforming Forward Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (ACAIX) will be changed to the Forward Multi-Strategy Fund. Along with the new name, this fund of funds gets to add “long/short, tactical and other alternative investment strategies” to its armamentarium.  Presumably that’s driven by the fact that the fund does quite poorly in falling markets: it has trailed its benchmark in nine of the past nine declining quarters.  Sadly, adding hedge-like funds to the portfolio will only drive up expenses and serve as another drag on performance.

Schwab Premier Income (SWIIX) will soon become Schwab Intermediate-Term Bond, with lower expenses but a much more restrictive mandate.  At the moment the fund can go anywhere (domestic, international and emerging market debt, income- and non-income-producing equities, floating rate securities, REITs, ETFs) but didn’t, while the new fund will invest only in domestic intermediate term bonds.

Moving in the opposite direction, Alger Large Cap Growth Institutional (ALGRX) becomes Alger Capital Appreciation Focus at the end of the year. The fund will adopt an all-cap mandate, but will shrink the target portfolio size from around 100 stocks to 50.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

The Board of Directors of Bhirud Funds Inc. has approved the liquidation of Apex Mid Cap Growth Fund (BMCGX) effective on or about November 14, 2012. In announcing Apex’s place on our 2012 “Roll Call of the Wretched,” we noted:

The good news: not many people trust Suresh Bhirud with their money.  His Apex Mid Cap Growth (BMCGX) had, at last record, $192,546 – $100,000 below last year’s level.  Two-thirds of that amount is Mr. Bhirud’s personal investment.  Mr. Bhirud has managed the fund since its inception in 1992 and, with annualized losses of 9.2% over the past 15 years, has mostly impoverished himself.

We’re hopeful he puts his remaining assets in a nice, low-risk index fund.

The Board of Trustees of Dreyfus Investment Funds approved the liquidation of Dreyfus/The Boston Company Small Cap Tax-Sensitive Equity Fund (SDCEX) on January 8, 2013.  Ironically, this fund has outperformed the larger, newly-reopened SSETX.  And, while they were at it, the Board also approved the liquidation of Dreyfus Small Cap Fund (the “Fund”), effective on January 16, 2013

ING will liquidate ING Alternative Beta (IABAX) on December 7, 2012.  In addition to an obscure mandate (what is alternative beta?), the fund has managed to lose money over the past three years while drawing only $18 million in assets.

Munder International Equity Fund (MUIAX) is slated to be merged in Munder International Fund — Core Equity (MAICX), on December 7, 2012.

Uhhh . . .

Don’t get me wrong.  MUIAX is a bad fund (down 18% in five years) and deserves to go.  But MAICX is a worse fund by far (it’s down 29% in the same period).  And much smaller.  And newer.

This probably explains why I could never serve on a fund’s board of directors.  Their logic is simply too subtle for me.

Royce Mid-Cap (RMIDX) is set to be liquidated on November 19, 2012. It’s less than three years old, has performed poorly and managed to draw just a few million in assets.  The management team is being dispersed among Royce’s other funds.

It was named Third Millennium Russia Fund (TMRFX) and its charge was to invest “in securities of companies located in Russia.”  This is a fund that managed to gain or lose more than 70% in three of the past 10 years.  Investors have largely fled and so, effective October 10, 2012, the board of trustees tweaked things.  It’s now called Toreador International Fund and its mandate is to invest “outside of the United States.”  As of this writing, Morningstar had not yet noticed.

In Closing . . .

We’ve added an unusual bit of commercial presence, over to your right.  Amazon created a mini-site dedicated to the interests of investors.  In addition to the inevitable links to popular investing books, it features a weekly blog post, a little blog aggregator at the bottom (a lot of content from Bloomberg, some from Abnormal Returns and Seeking Alpha), and some sort of dead, dead, dead discussion group.  We thought you might find some of it useful or at least browseable, so we decided to include it for you.

And yes, it does carry MFO’s embedded link.  Thanks for asking!

Thanks, too, to all the folks (Gary, Martha, Dean, Richard, two Jacks, and one Turtle) who contributed to the Observer in October.

We’ll look for you in December.