Ratings System Definitions

Revision: January 7, 2016 to reflect switch to Lipper database and subsequent updates.

Originally published in July 1, 2013 Commentary

The following is a summary of definitions of the various terms tabulated in the MFO rating system. A recap of the system’s methodology can be found in David’s June 2013 commentary under Introducing MFO Fund Ratings. For those interested in the mathematical formulas used in the system, they can be found on the MFO Discussion board under A Look at Risk Adjusted Returns.

The following definitions are for metrics found in the output pages of our Risk Profile and Miraculous MultiSearch tools (examples depicted below):

definitions_headers

definitions_headers_2

Type

A fund’s broad investment approach. The MFO rating system groups funds into three types: Fixed Income (FI), Asset Allocation (AA), and Equity (EQ). Asset allocation funds typically manage a mixed portfolio of equities, bonds, cash and real property. Typically, but not always, equity funds principally invest in stocks, while fixed income funds principally invest in bonds.

Category

A fund’s current investment style as defined by Lipper. There are 155 such classifications or categories, like Large-Cap Value, Core Bond, and Alternative Long/Short Equity. A detailed description can be found here.

Annualized Percent Return (APR)

A fund’s annualized average rate of total return each year over period evaluated. It is an abstract number, or so-called “geometric return,” since actual annual returns can be well above or below the average, but annualizing greatly facilitates comparison of fund performance. APR is equivalent to CAGR, or compound annual rate of return. It reflects reinvestment of dividend and capital gain distributions, while deducting for fund expenses and fees. It excludes any sales loads.

Maximum Drawdown (MAXDD)

The percentage of greatest reduction in fund value below its previous maximum over period evaluated. MAXDD can be the most frightening of a fund’s many statistics, but surprisingly it is not widely published. Many top rated and renowned funds incurred maximum drawdowns of -60% or worse in 2009. The date (month/year) of MAXDD occurrence is also tabulated in the MFO rating system.

Standard Deviation (STDEV) 

A measure of fund volatility. The higher a fund’s standard deviation, the more its return has varied over time. That can be both good and bad, since a rise or fall in value will cause standard deviation to increase. Typically, but not always, money market funds have lowest standard deviations, stocks funds have highest, while bond funds are in-between. In the MFO rating system, STDEV indicates the typical percentage variation above or below average return a fund has experienced in a year’s time. On good or bad years, variations from average returns have been two or three times the standard deviation, and every now and then even more.

Downside Deviation (DSDEV)

Another measure of fund volatility, but it measures only downward variation. Specifically, it measures a fund’s return below the risk free rate of return, which is the 90-day T-Bill rate (aka cash). Money market and very short term bond funds typically have downside deviations very close to zero, since they normally return T-Bill rate or higher. Stock funds typically have the highest downside deviations, especially in bear markets. In the MFO rating system, DSDEV indicates the typical percentage decline below its average excess return a fund has experienced in a year’s time.

Ulcer Index (UI) 

A third measure of fund volatility and the most direct measure of a fund’s bouts with declining (and uncomfortable, hence its name) performance. It measures both magnitude and duration of drawdowns in value. A fund with high Ulcer Index means it has experienced deep or extended declines, or both. Ulcer Index for money market funds is typically zero. During bull markets, stock funds too can have a low Ulcer Index, but when the bull turns, watch out. In the MFO rating system, UI indicates the typical percentage decline in value a fund has experienced at some point during the period evaluated.

Risk Group 

2013-06-27_1922_rev1The score or ranking used in the MFO rating system to designate a fund’s risk relative to overall market, defined by SP500 index. Funds less than 20% of market are placed in risk group 1 and deemed “very conservative,” while those greater than 125% are placed in risk group 5 deemed “very aggressive.” Note that the system uses all three risk measures (STDEV, DSDEV, and UI) and all evaluation periods across a fund’s life when making the risk determination. The evaluation periods are 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years, as applicable. In this way, the system can be very sensitive to risk. For example, a fund with a 10 year record of moderate risk may get an elevated risk ranking, temporarily at least, if it experiences a rough patch in the past 12 months.  Also, probably good to emphasize here that risk is fundamental to producing excess return and many top rated funds are also very aggressive. The reference market itself in the MFO system is deemed “aggressive” by definition.

Sharpe Ratio 

A measure of risk adjusted return, which is to say it helps quantify whether a fund is delivering returns commensurate with the risk it is taking. Specifically, it is the ratio of the fund’s annualized excess return divided its standard deviation. A fund’s “excess return” is any amount above risk-free investment, which is typically 90-day T-Bill. Sharpe is best used when comparing funds of same investment category over same evaluation period. The higher its Sharpe, the better a fund is performing relative to its risk, or more precisely, its volatility.

Sortino Ratio 

Another measure of risk adjusted return, but in this case it is relative to the amount of downside volatility (DSDEV) a fund incurs. It is a modification of the Sharpe intended to address a criticism that Sharpe unfairly penalizes so-called good volatility (ie., rising value), which investors don’t mind at all.  In other words, a fund that goes up much more than down may be underappreciated in Sharpe, but not Sortino. Like Shape, Sortino is best used when comparing funds of same investment category over same evaluation period.

Martin Ratio

A third measure of risk adjusted return. Like Sharpe and Sortino, it measures excess return, but relative to its typical drawdown. After the 2000 tech bubble and 2008 financial crisis, which together resulted in a “lost decade” for stocks, investors have grown very sensitive to drawdowns. Martin excels at identifying funds that have delivered superior returns while mitigating drawdowns. It too is best used when comparing funds of same investment category over same evaluation period – this very comparison is the basis for determining a fund’s Return Group rank in the MFO rating system.

Return Group 

The score or ranking of a fund’s performance based on Martin Ratio relative to other funds in same investment category over same evaluation period. The evaluation periods are 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years, as applicable. Funds in the top 20 percentile are placed in return group 5, while those in bottom 20 percentile are in return group 1. MFO “Great Owl” designations are assigned to funds that have earned top performance rank for all evaluation periods 3 years or longer, as applicable.

Some other qualifications:

  • The system includes oldest share class only.
  • The system does not account for category drift.
  • Funds are presented only once based on age group, but the return rankings reflect all funds existing. For example, if a 3 year fund scores a 5 return, it did so against all existing funds over the 3 year period, not just the 3 year olds.
  • All calculations are made with using monthly total returns from Lipper Data Feed Service for U.S. Open End funds.
  • The ratings are based strictly on historical returns.
  • The ratings will be updated quarterly.

May 1, 2025

Dear friends,

Welcome to May, traditionally, the month in which to sell in!

These first few weeks of May are an odd time on campus. My seniors are scrambling for jobs (or antidepressants), the juniors are teeing up internships, and the youngsters are … well, mostly wondering what just happened to Continue reading →

Living Paycheck To Paycheck and the Role of Financial Counselors

For most of us, saving money is the first step to investing, yet 25% to 35% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. This article looks at why people are living paycheck to paycheck and how lower- and middle-income Americans in particular may be able to increase emergency savings leading to saving more for retirement. The concepts are just as relevant to higher-income people as well.

In addition to volunteering at Habitat For Humanity, I also volunteer at a local non-profit organization, Neighbor To Neighbor, which offers programs in eviction avoidance, utility shut-off avoidance, affordable housing, housing search, foreclosure prevention, and counseling including financial coaching, debt consolidation, and reverse mortgages. Many of the people seeking assistance at Neighbor To Neighbor have experienced Continue reading →

October 1, 2024

Dear friends,

Welcome to the Samhain / the coming of the dark edition of the Mutual Fund Observer!

October is an interesting month. Traditionally perilous for the financial markets. It begins with the sullen remnants of summer and ends with festivals of the harvest (even for those of us in cities) and of the coming season when nature slips into dormancy. Halloween, whose sales now begin in August and whose iconic ghouls now Continue reading →

Trending Funds at the Inflection of Falling Rates

Investors waited impatiently as the Federal Reserve considered cutting interest rates. Will it be 0.25% or 0.5%? They finally cut rates by 0.5% on September 18th. The S&P 500 is up 20% year to date as investors contemplated whether we would have a recession or manage the elusive soft landing. There have been three periods this year where the market fell 5% or more. The S&P 500 has been relatively flat for the past three months but spiked over 1% after the Fed made the cut.

My survival instinct tells me to sell stocks and buy bonds, but my self-control tells me Continue reading →

Underconsumption Core and Financial Counselors

In addition to volunteering at Habitat For Humanity, I also volunteer at Neighbor To Neighbor which offers programs in eviction avoidance, utility shut-off avoidance, affordable housing, housing search, foreclosure prevention, and counseling including Financial Coaching, Debt Consolidation, and reverse mortgages, among other services. My role is to prescreen people to get assistance within Neighbor To Neighbor and direct them to external sources of assistance.

As a housing opportunity resource for Northern Colorado, Neighbor to Neighbor (N2N) services are designed to meet each individual where they are now – from homeless and low-income individuals seeking a place to live; to families needing assistance to secure their existing homes; to prospective buyers ready to explore the homebuying process. Our trained housing professionals assist clients through obstacles and develop personalized solutions to help them achieve their housing goals.

Neighbor To Neighbor’s Financial Coaching includes Continue reading →

MFO Premium Introduces ETF Benchmarks

Our colleague Devesh Shah encouraged the incorporation of ETF Benchmarks into MFO Premium. Traditional benchmarks cannot be purchased. Similarly, category averages, which are the basis for much of the ratings on MFO Premium, also cannot be purchased. Establishing an ETF “benchmark,” Devesh argues, makes for a more relevant and practical comparison.

Furthermore, the Continue reading →

The Wisdom of the Elders

I celebrated my 69th birthday last month and will just be reaching my prime next year. I volunteer at Habitat For Humanity two days per week building homes for those that might not otherwise be able to afford them. I have been greatly influenced by the wisdom of the now elders in finance. My friend Dave Hogle and I used to take a three-hour drive to the nearest Costco and discuss Continue reading →

The Options Conundrum: Fund Comparisons, Performance, and Risk

Having looked at the qualitative rationale for why options-based funds are offered by fund managers and sought by some investors, it behooves us to quantitatively analyze options funds’ performance. There is no ONE BENCHMARK that can be used to compare ALL the options funds. That may be a good thing. It’s made me think of what a good way to create a customized benchmark for each fund might look like. The benefit of keeping things focused on the small picture is we can look at one fund at a time, in detail, without drawing too Continue reading →

March 1, 2024

Dear friends,

In like a lion, out like a lamb? The Total Stock Market Index has risen 12% in the past three months, as has the S&P 500. Nvidia stock is up 76% in the same period while semiconductor stocks inched up … 48%.

The thermometer in Davenport today topped 76 degrees, just a bit warm for a late winter day. We heard that participants in the March 1st Polar Plunges at locations across the upper Midwest had to be Continue reading →

The Unfortunate Manager, the Ill-timed Bus, and You

On June 23, 2023, Robert B. Bruce (1931-2023) passed away. It diminishes a rich life and generous soul to describe him merely as “one of the portfolio managers of the Bruce Fund.” A Wisconsin graduate, he had a long-time friendship with Ab Nicholas, another renowned investor, and namesake of the Nicholas Fund, with whom he created an endowment for Wisconsin athletics. His obituary celebrates “a model of hard work, generosity, and unpretentious success” who passed away “in the embrace of his family.” From 1965-1972, Bob helped manage the Mathers Fund (MATRX) to phenomenal success, then set out on his own in 1972. He eventually purchased a small mutual fund in 1983, brought on his eldest son, Jeff, as partner and co-manager, and crafted a 40-year record of distinction and success. Continue reading →

In conversation with Andrew Foster @ Seafarer Funds (SIGIX & SIVLX) : On Emerging Markets

Introduction: Trouble in the Emerging Market Equities asset class

Emerging Market Equities (EM Eq), as tracked by the iShares MSCI Emerging Market ETF, are up almost 10% this year. That would generally be welcome news for the ignored asset class. But the news is not good enough. I have the distinct sense that investors of multiple stripes are “giving up” on EM Eq. There isn’t a wholesale liquidation as much as the flow of money in EM has slowed down. The long-held conviction that EM Eq is an asset class where one has to be involved has now Continue reading →

Strong June Propels New Bull Market

Despite pervasive skepticism based on: Russian invasion. China US tension. Inflation. Rising rates. Bank collapses. Default fears. The S&P 500 has been climbing generally for 9 months. Axios describes this year’s market as “climbing a wall of worry.”

A strong June of 6.6% return propelled the index to 26% over its October low, which qualifies the advance as a new bull market. Continue reading →

Battle of the Titans for Portfolio Management – Fidelity vs Vanguard

Asset Manager Titans Fidelity and Vanguard have options for portfolio management that vary allocations across asset classes over time which include assessments of long-term market trends. Fidelity has the Business Cycle Approach while Vanguard has the time-varying-asset approach based on the Vanguard Capital Markets Model (VCMM). In this article, I briefly describe Continue reading →