Objective
The fund pursues the reassuring objective of long-term total returns and capital preservation. The plan is to shift allocation between equity and debt based on management’s judgment of the asset class which offers the best risk-return balance. Equity can range from 25 – 75% of the portfolio, likewise debt. Both equity and debt are largely unconstrained, that is, the managers can buy pretty much anything, anywhere. The two notable restrictions are minor: no more than 50% of the total portfolio can be invested outside the U.S. and no more than 15% may be invested in Master Limited Partnerships, which are generally energy and natural resources investments.
Adviser
Osterweis Capital Management. Osterweis Capital Management was founded in 1983 by John Osterweis to manage money for high net worth individuals, foundations and endowments. They’ve got $5.3 billion in assets under management (as of March 31 2012), and run both individually managed portfolios and three mutual funds.
Manager
John Osterweis, Matt Berler and Carl Kaufman lead a team that includes the folks (John Osterweis, Matthew Berler, Alexander (Sasha) Kovriga, Gregory Hermanski, and Zachary Perry) who manage Osterweis Fund (OSTFX) and those at the Osterweis Strategic Income Fund (Carl Kaufman and Simon Lee). The team members have all held senior positions with distinguished firms (Robertson Stephens, Franklin Templeton, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch). Osterweis Fund earned Morningstar’s highest commendation: it has been rated “Gold” in the mid-cap core category.
Management’s Stake in the Fund
Mr. Osterweis had over $1 million in the fund, three of the managers had between $500,000 and $1 million in the fund (as of the most recent SAI, March 30, 2011) while two others had between $100,000 and $500,000.
Opening date
August 31, 2010.
Minimum investment
$5000 for regular accounts, $1500 for IRAs
Expense ratio
1.50%, after waivers, on assets of $43 million (as of April 30 2012). There’s also a 2% redemption fee on shares held under one month.
UpdateOur original analysis, posted May, 2011, appears just below this update. Depending on your familiarity with the two flavors of hybrid funds (those with static or dynamic asset allocations) and the other Osterweis funds, you might choose to read or review that analysis first. |
June, 2012 |
| 2011 returns: 1.6%, top quarter of comparable funds2012 returns, through 5/30: 5.0%, top 10% of comparable funds | |
| Asset growth: about $11 million in 12 months, from $33 million | |
| Strategic Investment is a sort of “greatest hits” fund, combining securities from the other two Osterweis offerings and an asset allocation that changes with their top-down assessment of market conditions. Its year was better than it looks. Because the managers actively manage the fund’s asset allocation, it might be more-fairly compared to Morningstar’s “world allocation” group than to the more passive “moderate allocation” one. The MA funds tend to hold 40% in bonds and tend to have higher exposure to Treasuries and investment-grade corporate bonds than do the allocation funds. In 2011, with its frequent panics, Treasuries were the place to be. The Vanguard Long-Term Government Bond Index fund(VLGIX), for example, returned 29%, outperforming the total bond market (7.5%) or the total stock market (1%). The fundamentals supporting Treasuries (do you really want to lock your money up for 10 years with yields below the rate of inflation?) and longer-duration bonds, in general, are highly suspect, at best but as long as there are panics, Treasuries will benefit.Osterweis has a lot of exposure to shorter-term, lower-quality bonds (ten times the norm) on the income side and to smaller stocks (more than twice the norm) on the equities side. Neither choice paid off in 2011. Nevertheless, good security selection and timely allocation shifts helped OSTVX outperform the average moderate allocation fund by 1.75% and the average world allocation fund by 5.6% in 2011. Through the first five months of 2012, its absolute returns and returns relative to both peer groups has been top-notch.The managers “have an aversion to losing money” and believe that “caution [remains] the better part of valor.” They’re deeply skeptical the state of Europe, but do have fair exposure to several northern European markets (Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands). Their latest letter (April 20, 2012) projects slower economic growth and considerable interest-rate risk. As a result, they’re looking for “cash-generative” equities and shorter term, higher-yield bonds, with the possibility of increasing their stake in equity-linked convertibles.For folks who remain anxious about the prospects of a static allocation in a dynamic world, OSTVX remains a very credible choice along with stalwarts such as PIMCO All-Asset (PASDX) and FPA Crescent (FPACX). | |
Comments
There are, broadly speaking, two sorts of funds which mix both stocks and bonds in their portfolios. One sort, often simply called a “balanced” fund, sticks with a mix that changes very little over time: 60% stocks (give or take a little) plus 40% bonds (give or take a little), and we’re done. I’ve written elsewhere, for example in my profile of LKCM Balanced, of the virtue of such funds. They tend to be inexpensive, predictable and reassuringly dull. An excellent anchor for a portfolio.
The second sort, sometimes called an “allocation” fund, allows its manager to shift assets between categories, often dramatically. These funds are designed to allow the management team to back away from a badly overvalued asset class and redeploy into an undervalued one. Such funds tend to be far more troubled than simple balanced funds for two reasons. First, the manager has to be right twice rather than once. A balanced manager has to be right in his or her security selection. An allocation manager has to be right both on the weighting to give an asset class (and when to give it) and on the selection of stocks or bonds within that portion of the portfolio. Second, these funds can carry large visible and invisible expenses. The visible expenses are reflected in the sector’s high expense ratios, generally 1.5 – 2%. The funds’ trading, within and between sectors, invisibly adds another couple percent in drag though trading expenses are not included in the expense ratio and are frequently not disclosed.
Why consider these funds at all?
If you believe that the market, like the global climate, seems to be increasingly unstable and inhospitable, it might make sense to pay for an insurance policy against an implosion in one asset class or one sector. PIMCO, for example, has launched of series of unconstrained, all-asset, all-authority funds designed to dodge and weave through the hard times. Another option would be to use the services of a good fee-only financial planner who specializes in asset allocation. In either case, you’re going to pay for access to the additional “dynamic allocation” expertise. If the manager is good (see, for example, Leuthold Core LCORX and FPA Crescent FPACX), you’ll receive your money’s worth and more.
Why consider Osterweis Strategic Investment?
There are two reasons. First, Osterweis has already demonstrated sustained competence in both parts of the equation (asset allocation and security selection). Osterweis Strategic Investment is essentially a version of the flagship Osterweis Fund (OSTFX). OSTFX is primarily a stock fund, but the managers have the freedom to move decisively into bonds and cash if need be. In the last eight years, the fund’s lowest stock allocation was 60% and highest was 93%, but it tends to have a neutral position in the mid-80s. Management has used that flexibility to deliver solid long-term returns (nearly 12% over the past 15 years) with far less volatility than the stock market’s. The second Osterweis Fund, Osterweis Strategic Income (OSTIX) plays the same game within the bond universe, moving between bonds, convertibles and loans, investment grade and junk, domestic and foreign. Since inception in 2002, OSTIX has trounced the broad bond indexes (8.5% annually for nine years versus 5% for their benchmark) with less risk. The team that manages those funds is large, talented, stable . . . and managing the new fund as well.
Second, Osterweis’s expenses, direct and indirect, are more reasonable than most. The current 1.5% ratio is at the lower end for an active allocation fund, strikingly so for a tiny one. And the other two Osterweis funds each started around 1.5% and then steadily lowered their expense ratios, year after year, as assets grew. In addition, both funds tend to have lower-than-normal portfolio turnover, which decreases the drag created by trading costs.
Bottom Line
Many investors would benefit from using a balanced or allocation fund as a significant part of their portfolio. Well done, such funds decrease a portfolio’s volatility, instill discipline in the allocation of assets between classes, and reduce the chance of self-destructive bipolar investing on our parts. Given reasonable expenses, outstanding management and a long, solid track record, Osterweis Strategic Investment warrants a place on any investor’s due-diligence short list.
Fund website
Osterweis Strategic Investment
© Mutual Fund Observer, 2012. All rights reserved. The information here reflects publicly available information current at the time of publication. For reprint/e-rights contact us.
