Dear friends,

April started well, with the super-rich losing more money in a week than I can even conceive of.  Bloomberg reports that the 20 wealthiest people on Earth lost a combined $9.1 billion in the first week of April as renewed concerns that Europe’s debt crisis might worsen drove the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index to its largest decline of 2012.  Bill Gates, a year older than me, lost $558.1 million on the week. (World’s Richest Lose $9 Billion as Global Markets Decline).

I wonder if he even noticed?

Return of the Giants

Mark Jewell, writing for the AP, celebrated the resurgence of the superstar managers (Star Fund Managers Recover Quickly from Tough 2011).  He writes, “A half dozen renowned managers are again beating their peers by big margins, after trailing the vast majority last year. Each is a past winner of Morningstar’s manager of the year award in his fund category, and four have been honored as top manager of the decade.”  Quick snapshots of Berkowitz, Miller and Bill Gross follow, along with passing mention of Brent Lynn of Janus Overseas Fund (JDIAX), Michael Hasenstab of Templeton Global Bond (TPINX) and David Herro of Oakmark International (OAKIX).

A number of funds with very good long-term records were either out-of-step with the market or made bad calls in 2011, ending them in the basement.  There are 54 four- or five-star rated funds that tanked in 2011; that is, that trailed at least 90% of their peers.  Of those, 23 – 43% of the group – rebounded sharply this year and ended up with 10% returns for the year, through 4/30/11.  The rest of the worst-to-first roster:

American Century Zero Coupon 2015 and 2020

Fairholme

Federated International Leader

Jones Villalta Opportunity

SEI Tax-Exempt Tax-Advantaged

Fidelity Advisor Income Replacement 2038, 2040 and 2042

JHancock3 Leveraged Companies

Templeton Global Total Return CRM International Opportunity

Fidelity Capital & Income

REMS Real Estate Value Opportu

Templeton Global Bond and Maxim Templeton Global Bond

Catalyst/SMH Total Return Income

Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock

ING Pioneer High Yield

Templeton International Bond

API Efficient Frontier Income

Hartford Capital Appreciation

PIMCO Total Return III

Before we become too comfortable with the implied “return to normal, we really can trust The Great Men again,” we might also look at the roster of great funds that got hammered in 2011 and are getting hammered again in 2012.  Brian Barash at Cambiar Aggressive Value, Leupp and Ronco (no, not the TV gadgets guy) at Lazard U.S. Realty Income Open, The “A” team at Manning & Napier Pro-Blend Maximum Term and Whitney George & company at Royce Micro-Cap range from the bottom 2 – 25% of their peer groups.

Other former titans – Ariel (ARGFX), Clipper (CFIMX, a rare two-star “Gold” fund), Muhlenkamp Fund (MUHLX), White Oak Growth (WOGSX) – seem merely stuck in the mud.

“A Giant Sucking Sound,” Investor Interest in Mutual Funds . . .

and a lackadaisical response from the mutual fund community.

Apropos my recent (and ongoing) bout with the flu, we’re returning to the odd confluence of the Google Flu tracker and the fate of the fund industry.  In October 2011, we posted our first story using the Google Trends data, the same data that allows Google to track incidence of the flu by looking at the frequency and location of flu-related Google searches.  In that article, we included a graph, much like the one below, of public interest in mutual funds.  Here was our original explanation:

That trend line reflects an industry that has lost the public’s attention.  If you’ve wondered how alienated the public is, you could look at fund flows – much of which is captive money – or you could look at a direct measure of public engagement.   The combination of scandal, cupidity, ineptitude and turmoil – some abetted by the industry – may have punched an irreparable hole in industry’s prospects.

This is a static image of searches in the U.S. for “mutual funds,” from January 2004 to April 2012.

And it isn’t just a retreat from investing and concerns about money.  We can separately track the frequency of “mutual funds” against all finance-related searches, which is shown on this live chart:

In brief, the industry seems to have lost about 75% of its mindshare (sorry, it’s an ugly marketing neologism for “how frequently potential buyers think about you”).

That strikes me as “regrettable” for Fidelity and “potentially fatal” for small firms whose assets haven’t yet reached a sustainable level.

I visit a lot of small fund websites every month, read more shareholder communications than I care to recall and interview a fair number of managers.  Here’s my quick take: a lot of firms materially impair their prospects for survival by making their relationship with their shareholders an afterthought.  These are the folks who take “my returns speak for themselves” as a modern version of “Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door” (looks like Emerson actually did say it, but in a San Francisco speech rather than one of his published works).

In reality, your returns mumble.  You’re one of 20,000 datapoints and if you’re not a household name, folks aren’t listening all that closely.

According to Google, the most popular mutual-fund searches invoke “best, Vanguard (three variants), Fidelity (three variants), top, American.”

On whole, how many equity managers do you suppose would invest in a company that had no articulated marketing strategy or, at best, mumbled about the quality of their mousetraps?

And yet, this month alone, in the course of my normal research, I dealt with four fund companies that don’t even have working email links on their websites and several more whose websites are akin to a bunch of handouts left on a table (one or two pages, links to mandatory documents and a four-year-old press release).  And it’s regrettably common for a fund’s annual report to devote no more than a paragraph or two to the fund itself.

There are small operations which have spectacularly rich and well-designed sites.  I like the Observer’s design, all credit for which goes to Anya Zolotusky of Darn Good Web Design.  (Anya’s more interesting than you or me; you should read her bio highlights on the “about us” page.)  I’ve been especially taken by Seafarer Funds new site.  Three factors stand out:

• The design itself is clear, intuitive and easily navigated;
• There’s fresh, thoughtful content including manager Andrew Foster’s responses to investor questions; and,
• Their portfolio data is incredibly rich, which implies a respect for the active intelligence and interest of their readers.

Increasingly, there are folks who are trying to make life easier for small to mid-sized firms.  In addition to long established media relations firms like Nadler & Mounts or Kanter & Company, there are some small firms that seem to be seeking out small funds.  I’ve had a nice exchange with Nina Eisenman of FundSites about her experience at the Mutual Fund Education Alliance’s eCommerce show.  Apparently some of the big companies are designing intriguing iPad apps and other mobile manifestations of their web presence while representatives of some of the smaller companies expressed frustration at knowing they needed to do better but lacking the resources.

“What we’re trying to do with FundSites is level the playing field so that a small or mid-sized fund company with limited resources can produce a website that provides investors and advisors with the kind of relevant, timely, compliant information the big firms publish. Seems like there is a need for that out there.”

I agree but it really has to start at the top, with managers who are passionate about what they’re doing and about sharing what they’ve discovered.

Barron’s on FundReveal: Meh

Speaking of mousetraps, Barron’s e-investing writer Theresa Carey dismissed FundReveal as “a lesser mousetrap” (04/21/12). She made two arguments: that the site is clunky and that she didn’t locate any commodity funds that she couldn’t locate elsewhere.  Her passage on one of the commodity funds simultaneously revealed both the weakness in her own research and the challenge of using the FundReveal system.  She writes:

The top-ranked fund from Fidelity over the past three years is the Direxion Monthly Commodity Bull 2X (DXCLX). While it gets only two Morningstar stars, FundReveal generally likes it, awarding a “B” risk-return rating, second only to “A.” Scouring its 20,000-fund database, FundReveal finds just 61 funds that performed better than the Fidelity pick. (emphasis mine)

Here’s the problem with Theresa’s research: FundReveal does not rank funds on a descending scale of A, B, C, and D. Each of the four quadrants in their system gets a letter designation: “A” is “higher return, lower risk” and “B” is higher return, higher risk.”  Plotted in the “B” quadrant are many funds, some noticeably riskier than the others.  Treating “B” as if it were a grade on a junior high report card is careless and misleading.

And I’m not even sure what she means by “just 61 funds … performed better” since she’s looking at simple absolute returns over three years or FundReveal’s competing ADR calculation.  In either case, we’d need to know why that’s a criticism.  Okay, they found 61 superior funds.  And so … ?

Her article does simultaneously highlight a challenge in using the FundReveal system.  For whatever its analytic merits, the site is more designed for folks who love spreadsheets than for the average investor and the decision to label the quadrants with A through D does carry the risk of misleading casual users.

The Greatest Fund that’s not quite a Fund Anymore

In researching the impending merger of two Firsthand Technology funds (recounted in our “In Brief” section), I came across something that had to be a typo: a fund that had returned over 170% through early April.  As in, 14 weeks, 170% returns.

No typo, just a familiar name on a new product.  Firsthand Technology Value Fund, despite having 75% of their portfolio in cash (only $15.5 of $68.4 million was invested), peaked at a 175% gain.

What gives?  At base, irrational exuberance.  Firsthand Technology Value was famous in the 1990s for its premise – hire the guys who work in Silicon Valley and who have firsthand knowledge of it to manage your investments – and its performance.  In long-ago portfolio contests, the winner routinely was whoever had the most stashed in Tech Value.

The fund ran into performance problems in the 2000s (duh) and legal problems in recent years (related to the presence of too many illiquid securities in the portfolio).  As a result, it transformed into a closed-end fund investing solely in private securities in early 2011.  It’s now a publicly-traded venture capital fund that invests in technology and cleantech companies that just completed a follow-on stock offering. The fund, at last report, held stakes in just six companies.  But when one of those companies turned out to be Facebook, a bidding frenzy ensued and SVVC’s market price lost all relationship to the fund’s own estimated net asset value.  The fund is only required to disclose its NAV quarterly.  At the end of 2011, it was $23.92.  At the end of the first quarter of 2012, it was $24.56 per share.

Right: NAV up 3%, market price up 175%.

In April, the fund dropped from $46.50 to its May 1 market price, $26.27.  Anyone who held on pocketed a gain of less than 10% on the year, while folks shorting the stock in April report gains of 70% (and folks who sold and ran away, even more).

It’s a fascinating story of mutual fund managers returning to their roots and investors following their instincts; which is to say, to rush off another cliff.

Four Funds and Why They’re Really Worth Your While

Each month, the Observer profiles between two and four mutual funds that you likely have not heard about, but really should have.  Our “Most intriguing new funds: good ideas, great managers” do not yet have a long track record, but have other virtues which warrant your attention.  They might come from a great boutique or be offered by a top-tier manager who has struck out on his own.  The “most intriguing new funds” aren’t all worthy of your “gotta buy” list, but all of them are going to be fundamentally intriguing possibilities that warrant some thought. Two intriguing newer funds are:

Amana Developing World Fund (AMDWX): Amana, which everyone knew was going to be cautious, strikes some as near-comatose.  We’ve talked with manager Nick Kaiser about his huge cash stake and his recent decision to begin deploying it.  This is an update on our May 2011 profile.

FMI International (FMIJX): For 30 years, FMI has been getting domestic stock investing right.  With the launch of FMI International, they’ve attempted to “extend their brand” to international stocks.  So far it’s been performing about as expected, which is to say, excellently

The “stars in the shadows” are all time-tested funds, many of which have everything except shareholders.

Artisan Global Value (ARTGX): can you say, “it’s about time”?  While institutional money has long been attracted to this successful, disciplined value strategy, retail investors began to take notice just in the past year. Happily, the strategy has plenty of capacity remaining.  This is an update on our May 2011 profile.

LKCM Balanced (LKBAX): LKCM Balanced (with Tributary Balanced, Vanguard Balanced Index and Villere Balanced) is one of a small handful of consistently, reliably excellent balanced funds.  The good news for prospective shareholders is that LKCM slashed the minimum investment this year, from $10,000 to $2,000, while continuing its record of great, risk-conscious performance.

The Best of the Web: Curated Financial News Aggregators

Our third “Best of the Web” feature focuses on human-curated financial news aggregators.  News aggregators such as Yahoo! News and Google News are wildly popular.  About a third of news users turn to them and Google reports about 100,000 clicks per minute at the Google News site.

The problem with aggregators such as Google is that they’re purely mechanical; the page content is generated by search algorithms driven by popularity more than the significance of the story or the seriousness of the analysis.

In this month’s “Best of the Web,” Junior and I test drove a dozen financial news aggregators, but identified only two that had consistently excellent, diverse and current content.  They are:

Abnormal Returns: Tadas Viskanta’s six year old venture, with its daily linkfests and frequent blog posts, is for good reason the web’s most widely-celebrated financial news aggregator.

Counterparties: curated by Felix Salman and Ryan McCarthy, this young Reuter’s experiment offers an even more eclectic mix than AR and does so with an exceptionally polished presentation.

As a sort of mental snack, we also identified two cites that couldn’t quite qualify here but that offered distinctive, fascinating resources: Smart Briefs, a sort of curated newsletter aggregator and Fark, an irreverent and occasionally scatological collection of “real news, real funny.”  You can access Junior’s column from “The Best” tab or here.  Columns in the offing include coolest fund-related tools, periodic tables (a surprising number), and blogs run by private investors.

We think we’ve done a good and honest job but Junior, especially, would like to hear back from readers about how the feature works for you and how to make it better, about sites we’re missing and sites we really shouldn’t miss.  Drop us a line. We read and appreciate everything and respond to as much as we can.

A “Best of” Update: MoneyLife with Chuck Jaffe Launches

Chuck Jaffe’s first episode of the new MoneyLife show aired April 30^th. The good news: it was a fine debut, including a cheesy theme song and interviews with Bill O’Neil, founder of Investor’s Business Daily and originator of the CAN-SLIM investing system, and Tom McIntyre.  The bad news: “our Twitter account was hijacked within the 48 hours leading up to the show, which is one of many adventures you don’t plan for as you start something like this.”  Assuming that Chuck survives the excitement of his show’s first month, Junior will offer a more-complete update on June 1.  For now, Chuck’s show can be found here.

Briefly noted …

Steward Capital Mid-Cap Fund (SCMFX), in a nod to fee-only financial planners, dropped its sales load on April 2.  Morningstar rates it as a five-star fund (as of 4/30/12) and its returns over the past 1-, 3- and 5-year periods are among the best of any mid-cap core fund.  The investment minimum is $1000 and the expense ratio is 1.5% on $35 million in assets.

Grandeur Peak Global Advisors recently passed $200 million in assets under management.  Roughly $140M is in Global Opportunities (GPGOX/GPGIX) and $60M is in International Opportunities (GPIOX/GPIIX).  That’s a remarkable start for funds that launched just six months ago.

Calamos is changing the name of its high-yield fixed-income fund to Calamos High Income from Calamos High Yield (CHYDX) on May 15, 2012 because, without “income” in the name investors might think the fund focused on high-yielding corn hybrids (popular here in Iowa).

T. Rowe Price High Yield (PRHYX) and its various doppelgangers closed to new investors on April 30, 2012.

Old Mutual Heitman REIT is in the process of becoming the Heitman REIT Fund, but I’m not sure why I’d care.

ING’s board of directors approved merging ING Index Plus SmallCap (AISAX) into ING Index Plus MidCap (AIMAX) on or about July 21, 2012. The combined funds will be renamed ING SMID Cap Equity. In addition, ING Index Plus LargeCap (AELAX) was approved to merge into ING Corporate Leaders 100 (IACLX) on or about June 28, 2012.  Let’s note that ING Corporate Leaders 100 is a different, and distinctly inferior fund, than ING Corporate Leaders Trust “B”.

Huntington New Economy Fund (HNEAX), which spent most of the last decade in the bottom 5-10% of mid cap growth funds, is being merged into Huntington Mid Corp America Fund (HUMIX) in May 2012.  HUMIX is less expensive than HNEAX, though still grievously overpriced (1.57%) for its size ($139 million in assets) and performance (pretty consistently below average).

The Firsthand Funds are moving to merge Firsthand Technology Leaders Fund (TLFQX) into Firsthand Technology Opportunities Fund TEFQX). The investment objective of TLF is identical to that of TOF and the investment risks of TLF are substantially similar to those of TOF.  TLF is currently managed solely by Kevin Landis (TLF was co-managed by Kevin Landis and Nick Schwartzman from April 30, 2010 to December 13, 2011).

The $750 million Delaware Large Cap Value Fund is being merged into the $750 million Delaware Value® Fund, which “does not require shareholder approval, and you are not being asked to vote.”

The reorganization has been carefully reviewed by the Trust’s Board of Trustees. The Trustees, most of whom are not affiliated with Delaware Investments®, are responsible for protecting your interests as a shareholder. The Trustees believe the reorganization is in the best interests of the Funds based upon, among other things, the following factors:

Shareholders of both Funds could benefit from the combination of the Funds through a larger pool of assets, including realizing possible economies of scale . . .

Uhhh . . . notes to the “Board of Trustees [who] are responsible for protecting [my] interests”: (1) it’s “who,” not “whom.”  (2) If Delaware Value’s asset base is doubling and you’re anticipating “possible economies of scale,” why didn’t you negotiate a decrease in the fund’s expense ratio?

Snow Capital All Cap Value Fund (SNVAX) is being closed and liquidated as of the close of business on May 14, 2012.  The fund, plagued by high expenses and weak performance, had attracted only $3.7 million despite the fact that the lead manager (Richard Snow) oversees $2.6 billion.

Likewise,  Dreyfus Dynamic Alternatives Fund and Dreyfus Global Sustainability Fund were both liquidated in mid-April.

Forward seems to be actively repositioning itself away from “vanilla” products and into more-esoteric, higher cost funds.  In March, Forward Banking and Finance Fund and Forward Growth Fund were sold to Emerald Advisers, who had been running the funds for Forward, rebranded as Emerald funds.  Forward’s board added International Equity to the dustbin of history on April 30, 2012 and Mortgage Securities in early 2011.  Balancing off those departures, Forward also launched four new funds in the past 12 months: Global Credit Long/Short, Select Emerging Markets Dividend, Endurance Long/Short, Managed Futures and Commodity Long/Long.

On April 17, 2012, the Board of Trustees of the ALPS ETF Trust authorized an orderly liquidation of the Jefferies|TR/J CRB Wildcatters Exploration & Production Equity Fund (WCAT), which will be completed by mid-May.  The fund drew fewer than $10 million in assets and managed, since inception, to lose a modest amount for its (few) investors.

Effective on June 5, 2012, the equity mix in Manning & Napier Pro-Blend Conservative Term will include a greater emphasis on dividend-paying common stocks and a larger allocation to REITs and REOCs. Their other target date funds are shifting to a modestly more conservative asset allocation.

Nice work if you can get it.  Emily Alejos and Andrew Thelen were promoted to become the managers of Nuveen Tradewinds Global All-Cap Plus Fund of April 13.  The fund,  after the close of business on May 23, 2012, is being liquidated with the proceeds sent to the remaining shareholders.  Nice resume line and nothing they can do to goof up the fund’s performance.

News Flash: on April 27, 2012 Wilmington Multi-Manager International Fund (GVIEX), a fund typified by above average risks and expenses married with below average returns, trimmed its management team from 27 managers down to a lean and mean 26 with the departure of Amanda Cogar.

In closing . . .

Thanks to all the folks who supported the Observer in the months just passed.  While the bulk of our income is generated by our (stunningly convenient!) link to Amazon, two or three people each month have made direct financial contributions to the site.  They are, regardless of the amount, exceedingly generous.  We’re deeply grateful, as much as anything, for the affirmation those gestures represent.  It’s good to know that we’re worth your time.

In June we’ll continuing updating profiles including Osterweis Strategic Investment (OSTVX – gone from “quietly confident” to “thoughtful”) and Fidelity Global Strategies (FDYSX – skeptical then, skeptical now).  We’ll profile a new “star in the shadows,” Huber Small Cap Value (HUSIX) and greet the turbulent summer months by beginning a series of profiles on long/short funds that might be worth the money.  June’s profile will be ASTON/River Road Long-Short Fund (ARLSX).

As ever,

Dear friends,

Are you feeling better?  2011 saw enormous stock market volatility, ending with a total return of one-quarter of one percent in the total stock market.  Who then would have foreseen Q1 2012: the Dow and S&P500 posted their best quarter since 1998.  The Dow posted six consecutive months of gains, and ended the quarter up 8%.  The S&P finished up 12% and the NASDAQ up 18% (its best since 1991).

Strong performance is typical in the first quarter of any year, and especially of a presidential election year.  Investors, in response, pulled $9.4 billion out of domestic equity funds and – even with inflows into international funds – reduced their equity investments by $3.2 billion dollars.  They fled, by and large, into the safety of the increasingly bubbly bond market.

It’s odd how dumb things always seem so sensible when we’re in the midst of doing them.

Do You Need Something “Permanent” in your Portfolio?

The title derives from the Permanent Portfolio concept championed by the late Harry Browne.  Browne was an advertising executive in the 1960s who became active in the libertarian movement and was twice the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president of the United States.  In 1981, he and Terry Coxon wrote Inflation-Proofing Your Investments, which argued that your portfolio should be positioned to benefit from any of four systemic states: inflation, deflation, recession and prosperity.  As he envisioned it, a Permanent Portfolio invests:

25% in U.S. stocks, to provide a strong return during times of prosperity.

25% in long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, which should do well during deflation.

25% in cash, in order to hedge against periods of recession.

25% in precious metals (gold, specifically), in order to provide protection during periods of inflation.

The Global X Permanent ETF (PERM) is the latest attempt to implement the strategy.  It’s also the latest to try to steal business from Permanent Portfolio Fund (PRPFX) which has drawn $17.8 billion in assets (and, more importantly from a management firm’s perspective, $137 million in fees for an essentially passive strategy).  Those inflows reflect PRPFX’s sustained success: over the past 15 years, it has returned an average of 9.2% per year with only minimal stock market exposure.

PRPFX is surely an attractive target, since its success not attributable to Michael Cuggino’s skill as a manager.  His stock picking, on display at Permanent Portfolio Aggressive Growth (PAGRX) is distinctly mediocre; he’s had one splendid year and three above-average ones in a decade.  It’s a volatile fund whose performance is respectable mostly because of his top 2% finish in 2005.  His fixed income investing is substantially worse.  Permanent Portfolio Versatile Bond (PRVBX) and Permanent Portfolio Short Term Treasury (PRTBX) are flat-out dismal.  Over the past decade they trail 95% of their peer funds.  All of his funds charge above-average expenses.  Others might conclude that PRPFX has thrived despite, rather than because of, its manager.

Snowball’s annual rant: Despite having received $48 million as his investment advisory fee (Mr. Cuggino is the advisor’s “sole member,” president and CEO), he’s traditionally been shy about investing in his funds though that might be changing.  “As of April 30, 2010,” according to his Annual Report, “Mr. Cuggino owned shares in each of the Fund’s Portfolios through his ownership of Pacific Heights.” A year later, that investment is substantially higher but corporate and personal money (if any) remain comingled in the reports.  In any case, he “determines his own compensation.”  That includes some portion of the advisor’s profits and the $65,000 a year he pays himself to serve on his own board of trustees.  On the upside, the advisor has authorized a one basis point fee waiver, as of 12/31/11.  Okay, that’s over.  I promise I’ll keep quiet on the topic until the spring of 2013.

It’s understandable that others would be interested in getting a piece of that highly-profitable action.  It’s surprising that so few have made the attempt.  You might argue that Hussman Strategic Total Return (HSTRX) offers a wave in the same direction and the Midas Perpetual Portfolio (MPERX), which invests in a suspiciously similar mix of precious metals, Swiss francs, growth stocks and bonds, is a direct (though less successful) copy.  Prior to December 29, 2008, MPERX (then known as Midas Dollar Reserves) was a government money market fund.  That day it changed its name to Perpetual Portfolio and entered the Harry Browne business.

A simple portfolio comparison shows that neither PRPFX nor MPERX quite matches Browne’s simple vision, nor do their portfolios look like each other.

Should you invest in one, or any, of these vehicles?  If so, proceed with extreme care.  There are three factors that should give you pause.  First, two of the four underlying asset classes (gold and long-term bonds) are three decades into a bull market.  The projected future returns of gold are unfathomable, because its appeal is driven by psychology rather than economics, but its climb has been relentless for 20 years.  GMO’s most recent seven-year asset class projections show negative real returns for both bonds and cash.  Second, a permanent portfolio has a negative correlation with interest rates.  That is, when interest rates fall – as they have for 30 years – the funds return rises.  When interest rates rise, the returns fall.  Because PRPFX was launched after the Volcker-induced spike in rates, it has never had to function in a rising rate environment.  Third, even with favorable macro-economic conditions, this portfolio can have long, dismal stretches.  The fund posts its annual returns since inception on its website.  In the 14 years between 1988 and 2001, the fund returned an average of 4.1% annually.  During those same years inflation average 3% annually, which means PRPFX offered a real return of 1.1% per year.

And, frankly, you won’t make it to any longer-term goal with 1.1% real returns.

There are two really fine analyses of the Permanent Portfolio strategy.  Geoff Considine penned “What Investors Should Fear in the Permanent Portfolio” for Advisor Perspectives (2011) and Bill Bernstein wrote a short piece “Wild About Harry” for the Efficient Frontier (2010).

RiverPark Funds: Launch Alert and Fund Family Update

RiverPark Funds are making two more hedge funds available to retail investors, folks they describe as “the mass affluent.”  Given the success of their previous two ventures in that direction – RiverPark/Wedgewood Fund (RWGFX) and RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX, in which I have an investment) – these new offerings are worth a serious look.

RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity Fund is a long/short fund that has been managed by Mitch Rubin since its inception as a hedge fund in the fall of 2009.  The RiverPark folks believe, based on their conversation with “people who are pretty well versed on the current mutual funds that employ hedge fund strategies” that the fund has three characteristics that set it apart:

• it uses a fundamental, bottom-up approach
• it is truly shorting equities (rather than Index ETFs)
• it has a growth bias for its longs and tends to short value.

Since inception, the fund generated 94% of the stock market’s return (33.5% versus 35.8% for the S&P500 from 10/09 – 02/12) with only 50% of its downside risk (whether measured by worst month, worst quarter, down market performance or max drawdown).

While the hedge fund has strong performance, it has had trouble attracting assets.  Morty Schaja, RiverPark’s president, attributes that to two factors.  Hedge fund investors have an instinctive bias against firms that run mutual funds.  And RiverPark’s distribution network – it’s most loyal users – are advisors and others who are uninterested in hedge funds.  It’s managed by Mitch Rubin, one of RiverPark’s founders and a well-respected manager during his days with the Baron funds.  The expense ratio is 1.85% on the institutional shares and 2.00% on the retail shares and the minimum investment in the retail shares is $1000.  It will be available through Schwab and Fidelity starting April 2, 2012.

RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund pursued a covered call strategy.  Here’s how Gargoyle describes their investment strategy:

The Fund invests all of its assets in a portfolio of undervalued mid- to large-cap stocks using a quantitative value model, then conservatively hedges part of its stock market risk by selling a blend of overvalued index call options, all in a tax-efficient manner. Proprietary tools are used to maintain the Fund’s net long market exposure within a target range, allowing investors to participate as equities trend higher while offering partial protection as equities trend lower.

Since inception (January 2000), the fund has posted 900% of the S&P500’s returns (150% versus 16.4%, 01/00 – 02/12).  Much of that outperformance is attributable to crushing the S&P from 2000-2002 but the fund has still outperformed the S&P in 10 of 12 calendar years and has done so with noticeably lower volatility.  Because the strategy is neither risk-free nor strongly correlated to the movements of the stock market, it has twice lost a little money (2007 and 2011) in years in which the S&P posted single-digit gains.

Mr. Schaja has worked with this strategy since he “spearheaded a research effort for a similar strategy while at Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette 25 years ago.”  Given ongoing uncertainties about the stock market, he argues “a buy-write strategy, owning equities and writing or selling call options on the underlying portfolio offers a very attractive risk return profile for investors. . . investors are willing to give up some upside, for additional income and some downside protection.  By selling option premium of about 1 1/2% per month, the Gargoyle approach can generate attractive risk adjusted returns in most markets.”

The hedge fund has about $190 million in assets (as of 02/12).  It’s managed by Joshua Parker, President of Gargoyle, and Alan Salzbank, its Managing Partner – Risk Management.  The pair managed the hedge fund since inception (including of its predecessor partnership since its inception in January 1997).  The expense ratio is 1.25% on the institutional shares and 1.5% on the retail shares and the minimum investment in the retail shares is $1000.  The challenge of working out a few last-minute brokerage bugs means that Gargoyle will launch on May 1, 2012.

Other RiverPark notes:

RiverPark Large Growth (RPXFX) is coming along nicely after a slow start. It’s a domestic, mid- to large-cap growth fund with 44 stocks in the portfolio.  Mitch Rubin, who managed Baron Growth, iOpportunity and Fifth Avenue Growth as various points in his career, manages it. Its returns are in the top 3% of large-growth funds for the past year (through March 2012), though its asset base remains small at $4 million.

RiverPark Small Cap Growth (RPSFX) continues to have … uh, “modest success” in terms of both returns and asset growth.  It has outperformed its small growth peers in six of its first 17 months of operation and trails the pack modestly across most trailing time periods. It’s managed by Mr. Rubin and Conrad van Tienhoven.

RiverPark/Wedgewood Fund (RWGFX) is a concentrated large growth fund which aims to beat passive funds at their own game.  It’s been consistently at or near the top of the large-growth pack since inception.  David Rolfe, the manager, strikes me as bright, sensible and good-humored and the fund has drawn $200 million in assets in its first 18 months of operation.

RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX) pursues a distinctive, and distinctly attractive, strategy.  He buys a bunch of securities (called high yield bonds among them) which are low-risk and inefficiently priced because of a lack of buyers.  The key to appreciating the fund is to utterly ignore Morningstar’s peer rankings.  He’s classified as a “high yield bond fund” despite the fact that the fund’s objectives and portfolio are utterly unrelated to such funds.  It’s best to think of it as a sort of cash-management option.  The fund’s worst monthly loss was 0.24% and its worst quarter was 0.07%.   As of 3/28/12, the fund’s NAV ($10.00) is the same as at launch but its annual returns are around 4%.

Finally, a clarification.  I’ve fussed at RiverPark in the past for being too quick to shut down funds, including one mutual fund and several actively-managed ETFs.  Matt Kelly of RiverPark recently wrote to clear up my assumption that the closures were RiverPark’s idea:

Adam Seessel was the sub-adviser of the RiverPark/Gravity Long-Biased Fund. . . Adam became friendly with Frank Martin who is the founder of Martin Capital Management . . . a year ago, Frank offered Adam his CIO position and a piece of the company. Adam accepted and shortly thereafter, Frank decided that he did not want to sub-advise anyone else’s mutual fund so we were forced to close that fund.

Back in 2009, [RiverPark president Morty Schaja] teamed up with Grail Advisers to launch active ETFs. Ameriprise bought Grail last summer and immediately dismissed all of the sub-advisers of the grail ETFs in favor of their own managers.

Thanks to Matt for the insight.

FundReveal, Part 2: An Explanation and a Collaboration

For our “Best of the Web” feature, my colleague Junior Yearwood sorts through dozens of websites, tools and features to identify the handful that are most worth your while.  On March 1, he identified the low-profile FundReveal service as one of the three best mutual fund rating sites (along with Morningstar and Lipper).  The award was made based on the quality of evidence available to corroborate a ratings system and the site’s usability.

Within days, a vigorous and thoughtful debate broke out on the Observer’s discussion board about FundReveal’s assumptions.  Among the half dozen questions raised, two in particular seemed to resonate: (1) isn’t it unwise to benchmark everything – including gold and short-term bond funds – against the risk and return profile of the S&P 500?  And (2) you assume that past performance is not predictive, but isn’t your system dependent on exactly that?

I put both of those questions to the guys behind FundReveal, two former Fidelity executives who had an important role to play in changing the way trading decisions were made and employees rewarded.  Here’s the short version of their answers.  Fuller versions are available on their blog.

(1) Why does FundReveal benchmark all funds against the S&P? Does the analysis hold true if other benchmarks are used?

FundReveal uses the S&P 500 as a single, consistent reference for comparing performance between funds, for 4 of its 8 measures. The S&P also provides a “no-brainer” alternative to any other investments, including mutual funds. If an investor wishes to participate in the market, without selecting specific sectors or securities, an S&P 500 index fund or ETF provides that alternative.

Four of FundReveal’s eight measurements position funds relative to the index. Four others are independent of the S&P 500 index comparison.

An investor can compare a fund’s risk-return performance against any index fund by simply inserting the symbol of an index fund that mimics the index. Then the four absolute measures for a fund (average daily returns, volatility of daily returns, worst case return and number of better funds) can be compared against the chosen index fund.

ADR and Volatility are the most direct and closest indicators of a mutual fund’s daily investment and trading decisions. They show how well a fund is being managed. High ADR combined with low Volatility are indicators of good management. Low ADR with high Volatility indicates poor management.

(2) Why is it that FundReveal says that past total returns are not useful in deciding which funds to invest in for the future? Why do your measures, which are also calculated from past data, provide insight into future fund performance?

Past total returns cannot indicate future performance. All industry performance ratings contain warnings to this effect, but investors continue using them, leading to “return chasing investor behavior.”

[A conventional calculations of total return]  includes the beginning and ending NAV of a fund, irrespective of the NAVs of the fund during the intervening time period. For example, if a fund performed poorly during most of the days of a year, but its NAV shot up during the last week of the year, its total return would be high. The low day-to-day returns would be obscured. Total Return figures cannot indicate the effectiveness of investment decisions made by funds every day.

Mutual funds make daily portfolio and investment decisions of what and how much to hold, sell or buy. These decisions made by portfolio managers, supported by their analysts and implemented by their traders, produce daily returns: positive some days, and negative others. Measuring their average daily values and their variability (Volatility) gives direct quantitative information about the effectiveness of the daily investment decisions. Well managed funds have high ADR and low Volatility. Poorly managed funds behave in the opposite manner.

I removed a bunch of detail from the answers.  The complete versions of the S&P500 benchmark and past performance as predictor are available on their blog.

My take is two-fold: first, folks are right in criticizing the use of the S&P500 as a sole benchmark.  An investor looking for a conservative portfolio would likely find himself or herself discouraged by the lack of “A” funds.  Second, the system itself remains intriguing given the ability to make more-appropriate comparisons.  As they point out in the third paragraph, there are “make your own comparison” and “look only at comparable funds” options built into their system.

In order to test the ability of FundReveal to generate useful insights in fund selection, the Observer and FundReveal have entered into a collaborative arrangement.  They’ve agreed to run analyses of the funds we profile over the next several months.  We’ll share their reasoning and bottom line assessment of each fund, which might or might not perfectly reflect our own.  FundReveal will then post, free, their complete assessment of each fund on their blog.  After a trial of some months, we’re hoping to learn something from each other – and we’re hoping that all of our readers benefit from having a second set of eyes looking at each of these funds.

Both the Tributary and Litman Gregory profiles include their commentary, and the link to their blog appears at the end of each profile.  Please do let me know if you find the information helpful.

Lipper: Your Best Small Fund Company is . . .

GuideStone Funds.

GuideStone Funds?

Uhh … Lipper’s criterion for a “small” company is under $40 billion under management which is, by most standards, not small.  Back to GuideStone.

From their website: “GuideStone Funds, a controlled affiliate of GuideStone Financial Resources, provides a diversified family of Christian-based, socially screened mutual funds.”

Okay.  In truth, I had no prior awareness of the family.  What I’ve noticed since the Lipper awards is that the funds have durn odd names (they end in GS2 or GS4 designations), that the firm’s three-year record (on which Lipper made their selection) is dramatically better than either the firm’s one-year or five-year record.  That said, over the past five years, only one GuideStone fund has below-average returns.

Fidelity: Thinking Static

As of March 31, 2012, Fidelity’s Thinking Big viral marketing effort has two defining characteristics.  (1) it has remained unchanged from the day of its launch and (2) no one cares.  A Google search of the phrase Fidelity  +”Thinking Big” yields a total of six blog mentions in 30 days.

Morningstar: Thinking “Belt Tightening”

Crain’s Chicago Business reports that Morningstar lost a $12 million contact with its biggest investment management client.  TransAmerica Asset Management had relied on Morningstar to provide advisory services on its variable annuity and fund-of-funds products.  The newspaper reports that TransAmerica simplified things by hiring Tim Galbraith, Morningstar’s director of alternative investments, to handle the work in-house.  TransAmerica provided about 2% of Morningstar’s revenue last year.

Given the diversity of Morningstar’s global revenue streams, most reports suggest this is “unfortunate” rather than “terrible” news, and won’t result in job losses.  (source: “Morningstar loses TransAmerica work,” March 27 2012)

James Wang is not “the greatest investor you’ve never heard of”

Investment News gave that title to the reclusive manager of the Oceanstone Fund (OSFDX) who was the only manager to refuse to show up to receive a Lipper mutual fund award.  He’s also refused all media attempts to arrange an interview and even the chairman of his board of trustees sounds modestly intimidated by him.  Fortune has itself worked up into a tizzy about the guy.

Nonetheless, the combination of “reclusive” and an outstanding five-year record still don’t add up to “the greatest investor you’ve never heard of.”  Since you read the Observer, you’ve surely heard of him, repeatedly.  As I’ve noted in a February 2012 story:

1. the manager’s explanation of his investment strategy is nonsense.  He keeps repeating the magic formula: IV = IV divided by E, times E.  No more than a high school grasp of algebra tells you that this formula tells you nothing.  I shared it with two professors of mathematics, who both gave it the technical term “vacuous.”  It works for any two numbers (4 = 4 divided by 2, times 2) but it doesn’t allow you to derive one value from the other.
2. the shareholder reports say nothing. The entire text of the fund’s 2010 Annual Report, for example, is three paragraph.  One reports the NAV change over the year, the second repeats the formula (above) and the third is vacuous boilerplate about how the market’s unpredictable.
3. the fund’s portfolio turns over at triple the average rate, is exceedingly concentrated (20 names) and is sitting on a 30% cash stake.  Those are all unusual, and unexplained.

That’s not evidence of investing genius though it might bear on the old adage, “sometimes things other than cream rise to the top.”

Two Funds and Why They’re Really Worth Your While

Each month, the Observer profiles between two and four mutual funds that you likely have not heard about, but really should have.

Litman Gregory Masters Alternative Strategies (MASNX): Litman Gregory has assembled four really talented teams (order three really talented teams and “The Jeffrey”) to manage their new Alternative Strategies fund.  It has the prospect of being a bright spot in valuable arena filled with also-ran offerings.

Tributary Balanced, Institutional (FOBAX): Tributary, once identified with First of Omaha bank and once traditionally “institutional,” has posted consistently superb returns for years.  With a thoughtfully flexible strategy and low minimum, it deserves noticeably more attention than it receives.

The Best of the Web: A Week of Podcasts

Our second “Best of the Web” feature focuses on podcasts, portable radio for a continually-connected age.  While some podcasts are banal, irritating noise (Junior went through a month’s worth of Advil to screen for a week’s worth of podcasts), others offer a rare and wonderful commodity: thoughtful, useful analysis.

In “A Week of Podcasts,” Junior and I identified four podcasts to help power you through the week, three to help you unwind and (in an exclusive of sorts) news of Chuck Jaffe’s new daily radio show, MoneyLife with Chuck Jaffe.

We think we’ve done a good and honest job but Junior, especially, would like to hear back from readers about how the feature works for you and how to make it better, about sites we’ve missing and sites we really shouldn’t miss.  Drop us a line, we read and appreciate everything and respond to as much as we can.

Briefly noted . . .

Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income (SFGIX), managed by Andrew Foster, is up about 3% since its mid-February launch.  The average diversified emerging markets fund is flat over the same period.  The fund is now available no-load/NTF at Schwab and Scottrade.  For reasons unclear, the Schwab website (as of 3/31/12) keeps saying that it’s not available.  It is available and the Seafarer folks have been told that the problem lies in Schwab’s website, portions of which only update once a month. As a result, Seafarer’s availability may not be evident until April 11..

On the theme of a very good fund getting dramatically better, Villere Balanced Fund (VILLX) has reduced its capped expense ratio from 1.50% to 0.99%.  While the fund invests about 60% of the portfolio in stocks, its tendency to include a lot of mid- and small-cap names makes it a lot more volatile than its peers.  But it’s also a lot more rewarding: it has top 1% returns among moderate allocation funds for the past three-, five- and ten-year periods (as of 3/30/2012).  Lipper recently recognized it as the top “Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Growth Fund” of the past three and five years.

Arbitrage Fund (ARBFX) reopened to investors on March 15, 2012. The fund closed in mid-2010 was $2.3 billion in assets and reopened with nearly $3 billion.  The management team has also signed-on to subadvise Litman Gregory Masters Alternative Strategies (MASNX), a review of which appears this month.

Effective April 30, 2012, T. Rowe Price High Yield (PRHYX, and its advisor class) will close to new investors.  Morningstar rates it as a Four Star / Silver fund (as of 3/30/2012).

Neuberger Berman Regency (NBRAX) has been renamed Neuberger Berman Mid Cap Intrinsic Value and Neuberger Berman Partners (NPNAX) have been renamed Neuberger Berman Large Cap Value.  And, since there already was a Neuberger Berman Large Cap Value fund (NVAAX), the old Large Cap Value has now been renamed Neuberger Berman Value.  This started in December when Neuberger Berman fired Basu Mullick, who managed Regency and Partners.  He was, on whole, better than generating high volatility than high returns.  Partners, in particular, is being retooled to focus on mid-cap value stocks, where Mullick tended to roam.

American Beacon announced it will liquidate American Beacon Large Cap Growth (ALCGX) on May 18, 2012 in anticipation of “large redemptions”. American Beacon runs the pension plan for American Airlines.  Morningstar speculates that the termination of American’s pension plan might be the cause.

Aberdeen Emerging Markets (GEGAX) is merging into Aberdeen Emerging Markets Institutional (ABEMX). Same managers, same strategies.  The expense ratio will drop substantially for existing GEGAX shareholders (from 1.78% to 1.28% or so) but the investment minimum will tick up from $1000 to $1,000,000.

Schwab Premier Equity (SWPSX) closed at the end of March as part of the process of merging it into Schwab Core Equity (SWANX).

Forward is liquidating Forward International Equity Fund, effective at the end of April.  The combination of “small, expensive and mediocre” likely explains the decision.

Invesco has announced plans to merge Invesco Capital Development (ACDAX) into Invesco Van Kampen Mid Cap Growth (VGRAX) and Invesco Commodities Strategy (COAAX) Balanced-Risk Commodity Strategy (BRCAX).  In both mergers, the same management team runs both funds.

Allianz is merging Allianz AGIC Target (PTAAX) into Allianz RCM Mid-Cap (RMDAX), a move which will bury Target’s large asset base and modestly below-average returns into Mid-Cap’s record of modestly above-average returns.

ING Equity Dividend (IEDIX) will be rebranded as ING Large Cap Value.

Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value (LAVLX) has changed its name to Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Stock Fund at the end of March.

With this month’s issue, we celebrate the first anniversary of the Observer’s launch.  I am delighted by our first year and delighted to still be here.  The Internet Archive places the lifespan of a website at 44-70 days.  It’s rather like “dog years.”  In “website lifespan years,” we are actually celebrating something between our fifth and eighth anniversary.  In truth, there’s no one we’d rather celebrate it with that you folks.

Highlights of a good year:

• We’ve seen 65,491 “Unique Visitors” from 103 countries. (Fond regards to Senegal!).
• Outside North America, Spain is far and away the source of our largest number of visits.  (Gracias!)
• Junior’s steady dedication to the site and to his “Best of the Web” project has single-handedly driven Trinidad and Tobago past Sweden to 24^th place on our visitor list.  His next target: China, currently in 23^rd.
• 84 folks have made financial contributions (some more than once) to the site and hundreds of others have used our Amazon link.   We have, in consequence, ended our first year debt-free, bills paid and spirits high.  (Thanks!)
• Four friends – Chip, Anya, Accipiter, and Junior – put in an enormous number of hours behind the scenes and under the hood, and mostly are compensated by a sense of having done something good. (Thank you, guys!)
• We are, for many funds, one of the top results in a Google search.  Check PIMCO All-Asset All-Authority (#2 behind PIMCO’s website), Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (#4), RiverPark Short Term High Yield (#5), Matthews Asia Strategic Income (#6), Bretton Fund (#7) and so on.

That reflects the fact that we – you, me and all the folks here – are doing something unusual.  We’re examining funds and opportunities that are being ignored almost everywhere else.  The civility and sensibility of the conversation on our discussion board (where a couple hundred conversations begin each month) and the huge amount of insight that investors, fund managers, journalists and financial services professionals share with me each month (you folks write almost a hundred letters a month, almost none involving sales of “v1agre”) makes publishing the Observer joyful.

We have great plans for the months ahead and look forward to sharing them with you.

See you in a month!

Dear friends,

In the midst of the stock market’s recent generosity – 250 mutual funds booked returns of 20% or more in the first two months of 2012 – it’s easy to forget how bad 2011 was for the smart money crowd.  The average equity hedge fund, represented by the HFRX Equity Hedge Index, lost 19% for the year.  The value guys lost more than the growth guys. The Economist took some glee in reproducing a hypothetical letter from a hedge fund manager.  It reads, in part,

It is also time to move on from the concept of delivering “alpha”, the skill you’ve paid us such fat fees for. Upon reflection, we have decided that we’re actually much better at giving you “smart beta”. This term is already being touted at industry conferences and we hope shortly to be able to explain what it means. Like our peers we have also started talking a lot about how we are “multi-strategy” and “capital-structure agnostic”, and boasting about the benefits of our “unconstrained” investment approach. This is better than saying we don’t really understand what’s going on.

As an unofficial representative of the dumb money crowd, I’ll peel my eyes away from the spectacle of the Republican Party deciding which vital organ to stab next, just long enough to offer a cheery “nyah-nyah-nyah.”

The Observer in The Journal

As many of you know, The Wall Street Journal profiled the Observer in a February 6 article entitled “Professor’s Advice: It’s Best to Be Bored.” I talked a bit about the danger of “exciting” opportunities, offered leads on a dozen cool funds, and speculated about two emerging bubbles.  Neither should be a great surprise, but both carry potentially enormous consequences.

The bubbles in question are U.S. bonds and gold.  And those bubbles are scary because those assets have proven to be the last refuge for tens of millions of older investors (who, by the way, vote in huge numbers) whose portfolios were slammed by the stock market’s ferocious, pointless decade.  Tim Krochuk of GRT Capital Partners volunteers the same observation in a conversation this week.  “If rates return to normal – 4 or 5% – holders of long bonds are going to lose 40 – 50%.  If you thought that a 40% stock market fall led to blood in the streets, wait until you see what happens after a hit that big in retirees’ ‘safe’ portfolios.”  Folks from Roger Ibbotson to Teresa Kong have, this week, shared similar concerns.

For visual learners, here are the two graphs that seem best to reflect the grounds for my concern.

The first graph is the yield on benchmark 10-year Treasuries.  When the line is going up, Treasuries are in a bear market.  When the line is going down, they’re in a bull market.  Three things stand out, even to someone like me who’s not a financial professional:

• A bear market in bonds can last decades.
• The current bull market in bonds has proceeded, almost without interruption for 30 years.
• With current yields at 2% and inflation at 3% (i.e., there’s a negative real yield already), there’s nowhere much for the bull to go from here.

The second graph is the price of gold.  Since investing in gold is a matter of theology rather than economics, there’s not much to say beyond “gee, do you suppose it’ll rise forever?”

It might.  Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics calculates that $1 investing in U.S. stocks in 1800 and held for about 200 years would be worth $500,000.   $1 in gold would be worth $0.78.  But this time’s different.  It always is.

In celebration of boring investments

In investing terms, “income” was once dismissed as the province of the elderly whose other eccentricities included reflection on the state of their bowel movements and strong convictions about Franklin Roosevelt.  Market strategies abjured dividend-paying firms, reasoning that dividends only arose when management was too timid or stupid to find useful things to do with their earnings.  And equity managers who were trapped by the word “income” in their fund name tried various dodges to avoid it.  In the mid-90s, for example, Fidelity Dividend Growth fund (FDGFX) invested in fast growing small caps, under the theory that  those firms had “the potential to increase (or begin paying) dividends in the future.”  Even today, it’s possible to find funds (Gabelli, Columbia, Huber, FAM) named “Equity Income” with yields below 0.6%.

The problem was compounded by organizational structures that isolated the equity and fixed-income teams from each other.  Even most stock/bond hybrid funds maintained the division: 60% of the portfolio was controlled by the equity manager, 40% by the fixed income manager.  Period.   Only a handful of managers – chief among them, David Winters at Wintergreen (WGRNX) and his forebears at the Mutual Series, Marty Whitman at Third Avenue Value (TAVFX), Steve Romick at FPA Crescent (FPACX) and Andrew Foster and Paul Matthews at Matthews Asian Growth and Income (MACSX) – had the freedom, the confidence and the competence to roam widely over a firm’s capital structure.

Today, some of the best analysis and most innovative product design is being done on income-sensitive funds.  That might reflect the simple fact that funds without income (alternately, gold exposure) have had a disastrous decade.  Jeremy Grantham observes in his latest quarterly letter

The U.S. market was terrible for the last 10 years, gaining a pathetic 0.5% per year overall, after inflation adjustments and even including dividends. Without dividends, the [S&P 500] index itself has not gone up a penny in real terms from mid-1997 to end-2011, or 14½ years. This is getting to be a long time!

Now dividend-stocks are (unwisely) declared as an alternative to bonds (“stock dividends, as an alternative or supplement to bonds, are shaping up to have better yields and less risk” notes a 2012 article in Investment News) and investors poured money into them in 2011.

The search for income is increasingly global.  Morningstar reports that “There now are 24 equity income funds that invest at least 25% of their assets outside of the U.S. and 30 funds that invest at least 75%, with the majority of those funds being launched in the last few years, according to Lipper.”

Among the cool options now available:

Calamos Evolving World Growth (CNWGX), which invests broadly in emerging market stocks, the stocks of developed market firms which derive at least 20% of sales in emerging markets, then adds convertibles or bonds to manage volatility. 4.75% front load, 1.68% e.r.

Global X Permanent ETF (PERM) which will pursue a Permanent Portfolio-like mix of 25% stocks, 25% gold and silver, 25% short-term bonds, and 25% long-term government bonds.  Leaving aside the fact that with Global X nothing is permanent, this strategy for inflation-proofing your portfolio has some merits.  We’ll look at PERM and its competitors in detail in our April issue.

Innovator Matrix Income Fund (IMIFX), which intends to rotate through a number of high-yielding surrogates for traditional asset classes.  Those include master limited partnerships, royalty trusts, REITs, closed end funds and business development companies.  In, for example, a low-inflation, low-growth environment, the manager would pursue debt REITs and closed-end bond funds to generate yield but might move to royalty trusts and equity REITs if both inflation and growth accelerated.  Hmmm.

iShares Morningstar Multi-Asset High Income Index Fund, still in registration, which will invest 20% in stocks, 60% in bonds (including high-yield corporates, emerging markets and international) and 20% in “alternative assets” (which means REITs and preferred shares).  Expenses not yet announced.

WisdomTree Emerging Markets Equity Income (DEM), which launched in 2007.  It holds the highest-paying 30% of stocks (about 300) in the WisdomTree Emerging Markets Dividend Index.  The fund has returned 28% annually over the past three years (through 1/31/12), beating the emerging markets average by 5% annually.  By Morningstar’s calculation, the fund outperforms its peers in both rising and falling markets. Expenses of 0.63%.

In September of 2010, I lamented “the best fund that doesn’t exist,” an emerging markets balanced fund.  Sophisticated readers searched and did find one closed-end fund that fit the bill, First Trust Aberdeen Emerging Opportunities (FEO), which I subsequently profiled as a “star in the shadows.”  A pack of emerging markets balanced funds have since comes to market:

AllianceBernstein Emerging Markets Multi Asset (ABAEX) will hold 0-65% bonds (currently 40%), with the rest in stocks and cash.  4.25% front load, 1.65% e.r.

Dreyfus Total Emerging Markets (DTMAX), which has an unconstrained allocation between stocks and bonds.  5.75% load, 1.65% e.r.

Fidelity Total Emerging Markets (FTEMX), launched in November and already approaching $100 million in assets, the fund has a pretty static 60/40 allocation.  No-load, 1.40% e.r.

First Trust/Aberdeen Emerging Opportunities (FEO), a closed-end fund and an Observer “Star in the Shadows” fund.  About 60% bonds, 40% stocks.  Exchange traded, 1.76% e.r.

Lazard Emerging Markets Multi-Strategy (EMMOX), which has a floating allocation between stocks, bonds (including convertibles) and currency contracts. No-load, 1.60% e.r.

PIMCO Emerging Multi-Asset (PEAAX), the most broadly constructed of the funds, is benchmarked against an index which invests 50/50 between stocks and bonds.  The fund itself can combine stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities. 5.5% load for the “A” shares, 1.74% expenses.

Templeton Emerging Markets Balanced (TAEMX), which must have at least 25% each in stocks and bonds but which is currently 65/30 in favor of stocks.  5.75% front load, 1.54% expenses.

While the options for no-load, low-cost investors remain modest, they’re growing – and growing in a useful direction.

Launch Alert (and an interview): Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income

In my February 2012 Commentary, I highlighted the impending launch of Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income (SFGIX and SIGIX).  I noted

The fund will be managed by Andrew Foster, formerly manager of Matthews Asia Growth & Income (MACSX) and Matthews’ research director and acting chief investment officer.

The great debate surrounding MACSX was whether it was the best Asia-centered fund in existence or merely one of the two or three best funds in existence.  Here’s the broader truth within their disagreement: Mr. Foster’s fund was, consistently and indisputably one of the best Asian funds in existence.

The launch provoked three long, thoughtful discussion threads about the prospects of the new fund, the Seafarer prospectus was our most downloaded document in the month of February and Chip, our sharp-eyed technical director, immediately began plotting to buy shares of the fund for her personal portfolio.

Mr. Foster and I agreed that the best way to agree potential investors’ questions was, well, to address potential investors’ questions.  He read through many of the comments on our discussion broad and we identified these seven as central, and often repeated.

Kenster1_GlobalValue:  Could he tell us more about his investment team? He will be lead manager but will there be a co-manager? If not, then an Assistant Manager? How about the Analysts – tell us more about them? Does he plan to add another analyst or two this year to beef up his team?

He’s currently got a team of four.  In addition to himself, he works with:

Michelle Foster, his wife, CFO, Chief Administrator and partner.  She has a remarkable investing resume.  She started as an analyst with JP Morgan, was a Principal at Barclay’s Global Investors (BGI) where she developed ETFs (including one that competed directly with Andrew’s India fund), and then joined investment advisory team at Litman/Gregory Asset Management.

William Maeck, his Associate Portfolio Manager and Head Trader.  William was actually Foster’s first boss at A. T. Kearney in Singapore where Andrew worked before joining Matthews.  Before joining Seafarer, he worked with Credit Suisse Securities as an investment advisor for high net worth individuals and family offices.  For now, William mostly monitors trading issues for the fund and has limited authority to execute trades at Foster’s direction.  With time, he should move toward more traditional co-manager responsibilities.

Kate Jaquet, Senior Research Analyst and Chief Compliance Officer.  Kate brings a lot of experience in fixed-income and high-yield investing and in Latin America.  She began her career in emerging markets in 1995 as an economic policy researcher for the international division of The Adam Smith Institute in London.  In 1997, she joined Credit Suisse First Boston as an investment banking and fixed-income analyst within their Latin America group. In 2000, she joined Seneca Capital Management in San Francisco as a senior research analyst in their high yield group.  She worked on high yield and distressed issuers, the metals & mining, oil & gas, and utilities industries, emerging market sovereigns and select emerging market corporate issuers.

AndyJ : I’m still mildly curious about the context of his leaving Matthews. Simply “pursuing other opportunities” might be the whole story, or it might not – even if perfectly true, there’s likely a context that would be interesting to know about.

Good and fair question.  Mr. Foster has a deep and abiding respect for Matthews and a palpable concern for his former shareholders.  When he joined Matthews in 1998, the firm managed $180 million.  It had grown a hundredfold by the time he left.  As a long-time member of the team, sometime chief investment officer, chief research officer and portfolio manager, he’d made a huge and rewarding commitment to the company.  About his leaving Mr. Foster made two points:

1. A fund like this has been on his mind for a decade.  It wasn’t clear, ten years ago, whether Matthews would remain purely Asia-focused or would broaden its geographic horizons.  As part of those deliberations, Paul Matthews asked Andrew to design a global version of MACSX.  He was very excited about the potential of such a fund.  After a long debate, Matthews concluded that it would remain an Asia specialist.  He respects their decision (indeed, as manager, helped make it pay off) but never gave up the dream of the broader fund and knew it would never fit at Matthews.
2. He did not leave until he was sure that his MACSX shareholders were in good hands.  He worked hard to build “an extremely capable team,” even celebrating the fact that he only hired “people smarter than me.”  He became convinced that the fund was in the hands of folks who’d put the shareholders first.  In order to keep it that way, he “made sure I didn’t do anything to advance [Seafarer] at the expense of Matthews.”  As a result, his current team is drawn from outside Matthews and he has not sought to aggressively recruit former shareholders out of the prior fund so as to drive growth in the new one.

Kenster1_GlobalValue: What does he see as potentially the top 3 countries in the fund if he were investing & managing the Seafarer fund right now? As an example – Indonesia looks great but what are his thoughts on this country? How would he rate it? Would he be lightly invested in Indonesia because he feels it might be too growthy at this time?

While he didn’t address Indonesia in particular, Mr. Foster did highlight six markets that were “particularly interesting.”  They are:

1. Vietnam
2. Brazil
3. Mexico
4. Turkey
5. Poland
6. South Africa

He argues that there are substantial political and cultural challenges in many of these countries, and that that turmoil obscures the fundamental strength of the underlying economy.  While it’s possible to conclude that you’d have to be nuts to sink your money in broken countries, Andrew notes that “broken can be good . . . the key is determining whether you’re experiencing chaos or progress, both raise a lot of dust.”  His general conclusion, having lived through generations of Asian crisis, “I’ve seen this story before.”

Maurice: I’d be interested in what Mr. Foster brings new to the table. Why would I not if invest new dollars with Matthews?

He thinks that two characteristics will distinguish Seafarer:

1. The Fund can provide exposure to multiple asset classes, as its strategy allows for investment in equities, convertible bonds, and fixed income.
2. The Fund has a broad geographical mandate. It’s not just broader than Asia, it’s also broader than “emerging markets.”   SFGIX / SIGIX  is pursuing exposure to emerging and frontier markets around the world, but Mr. Foster notes that in some instances the most effective way to gain such exposure is through the securities in neighboring countries.  For example, some of the best access to China is through securities listed in Singapore and Hong Kong; Australia plays a similar role for some Asian markets.

MikeM :  It seems to me that if you are looking for Asian exposure, this may not be your fund. This fund is not supposed to be an Asian concentrated fund like his previous fund at Matthews, MACSX.

Yes and no.  Mr. Foster can invest anywhere and is finding a lot of markets today that have the characteristics that Asia had ten years ago.  They’re fundamentally strong and under-recognized by investors used to looking elsewhere.  That said, he considers Asia to be “incredibly important” (a phrase he used four times during our conversation) and that “a large portion of the portfolio, particularly at the outset” will be invested in the Asian markets with which he’s intimately acquainted.

AndyJ: It’s danged expensive. There’s a closed-end fund, FEO, from the long-successful people at Aberdeen, which has a proven track record using a “balanced” EM strategy and costs the same as the investor shares of the Foster fund will. So, I’m not totally sure that Seafarer as a brand new entity is worthier of new $ at this point than FEO.

His response: “I hear you.”  His money, and his family’s, is in the fund and he wants it to be affordable. The fund’s opening expense ratio is comparable to what Matthews charged when they reached a billion in assets. He writes, “I view it as one of the firm’s central duties to ensure that expenses become more affordable with scale, and over time.” Currently, he can’t pass along the economies of scale, but he’s committed to do so as soon as it’s economically possible. His suspicion is that many funds get complacent with their expense structure, and don’t work to aggressively pursue savings.

fundalarm — it’s almost exclusively about pay. If you’re a star, and your name is enough to attract assets, why would you want to share the management fee with others when you can have your own shop. Really. Very. Simple.  Answer.

While Mr. Foster didn’t exactly chuckle when I raised this possibility, he did make two relevant observations.  First, if he were just interested in his own financial gain, he’d have stayed with Matthews. Second, his goal is to pursue asset growth only to the degree that it makes economic sense for his shareholders.  By his estimation, the fund is economically sustainable at $100-125 million in assets.  As it grows beyond that level, it begins accumulating economies of scale which will benefit shareholders.  At the point where additional assets begin impairing shareholder value, he’ll act to restrict them.

Seafarer represents a thoughtfully designed fund, with principled administration and one of the field’s most accomplished managers.  It’s distinctive, makes sense and has been under development for a decade.  It’s worthy of serious consideration and will be the subject of a fund profile after it has a few months of operation.

Launch Alert: Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund (WAFMX)

Just as one door closes, another opens. Wasatch closed their wildly successful Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund (WAEMX) to new investors on February 24, 2012.  The fund gathered $1.2 billion in assets and has returned 51% per year over the three years ending 2/29/2012. They immediately opened another fund in the same universe, run by the same manager.

Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund (WAFMX) became available to retail investors on March 1, 2012.  It has been open only to Wasatch employees for the preceding weeks.  It will be a non-diversified, all-cap fund with a bias toward small cap stocks.  The managers report:

In general, frontier markets and small emerging market countries, with the exception of the oil-producing Persian Gulf States, tend to have relatively low gross national product per capita compared to the larger traditionally-recognized emerging markets and the world’s major developed economies. Frontier and small emerging market countries include the least developed markets even by emerging market standards. We believe frontier markets and small emerging market countries offer investment opportunities that arise from long-term trends in demographics, deregulation, offshore outsourcing and improving corporate governance.

The Fund may invest in the equity securities of companies of any size, although we expect a significant portion of the Fund’s assets to be invested in the equity securities of companies under US$3 billion at the time of purchase.

We travel extensively outside the U.S. to visit companies and expect to meet with senior management. We use a process of quantitative screening followed by “bottom up” fundamental analysis with the objective of owning the highest quality growth companies tied economically to frontier markets and small emerging market countries.

The manager is Laura Geritz.  She has been a portfolio manager for the Wasatch Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund since 2009 and for the Wasatch International Opportunities Fund since 2011. The minimum investment is $2000, reduced to $1000 for accounts with an automatic investing plan.  The expense ratio will be 2.25%, after waivers.    We will, a bit after launch, try to speak with Ms. Geritz and will provide a full profile of the fund.

Fidelity is Thinking Big

(May God have mercy on our souls.)

Despite the ironic timing – they simultaneously announce a bunch of long overdue but still pretty vanilla bond funds at the same time they trumpet their big ideas – Fido has launched its first major ad campaign which doesn’t involve TV.  Fidelity is thinking big.

In one of those “did they have the gang at Mad Magazine write this?” press releases, Fido will be “showcasing thought-provoking insights” which “builds on Fidelity’s comprehensive thought leadership” “through an innovative new thought leadership initiative.”

Do you think so?

So what does “thinking big” look like?  At their “thinking big” microsite, it’s a ridiculous video that runs for under three minutes, links that direct you to publishers websites so that you can buy three to five year old books, and links to articles that are a year or two old.  The depth and quality of analysis in the video are on par with a one-page Time magazine essay.  It mixes fun facts (it takes 635 gallons of water to make one pound of hamburger), vacuous observations (water shortages “could further exacerbate regional water issues”) and empty exhortations (“think about it.  We do.”).

According to the Boston Business Journal, the campaign “was created by Fidelity’s internal ad agency, Fidelity Communications and Advertising. Arnold Worldwide, the mutual fund firm’s ad agency of record, did not work on the campaign.”  It shows.  While the VP for communications described this as “the first campaign where we’ve actually attempted to create a viral program without a large supporting TV effort,” he also adds that Fidelity isn’t taking a position on these issues, they’re just “stating the facts.”

Yep.  That’s the formula for going viral: corporate marketing footage, one talking head and a “just the facts” ethos.

A quick suggestion from the guy with a PhD in communication: perhaps if you stopped producing empty, boilerplate shareholder communications (have you read one of your annual reports?) and stopped focusing on marketing, you might actually educate investors.  A number of fund companies provide spectacularly good, current, insightful shareholder communications (T. Rowe Price and Matthews Asia come immediately to mind).  Perhaps you could, too?

The Best of the Web: A new Observer experiment

This month marks the debut of the Observer’s “best of the web” reviews.  The premise is simple: having a million choices leaves you with no choices at all.  When you’ve got 900 cable channels, you’ll almost always conclude “there’s nothing on” and default to watching the same two stations. It’s called “the paradox of choice.”  Too many options cause our brains to freeze and make us miserable.

The same thing is true on the web.  There are a million sites offering financial insight; faced with that daunting complexity, we end up sticking with the same one or two.  That’s comforting, but may deny you access to helpful perspectives.

One solution is to scan the Observer’s discussion board, where folks post and discuss a dozen or more interesting topics and articles each day.  Another might be our best of the web feature.  Each month, based on reader recommendations and his own evaluations, contributing editor Junior Yearwood will post reviews for three to five related sites.  Each is a page long and each highlights what you need know: what’s the site about, what does it do well, what’s our judgment?

The debut issue features fund rating sites.  Everyone knows Morningstar, but how many folks have considered the insights available from, and strengths or weaknesses of, its dozen smaller competitors?  Take the case of a single splendid fund, Artisan International Value (ARTKX).  Depending on who you ask, it’s seen as somewhere between incredibly excellent (for our money, it is) and utterly undistinguished.  Here’s the range of assessments from a variety of sites:

• BarCharts.com: 96% buy
• Morningstar: Five stars, Gold
• FundMojo: 89/100, a Master
• Lipper: 24 of 25 possible points, a Leader
• U.S. News: 8.1/100
• FundReveal: less risky, lower return
• MaxFunds 79/100, good
• TheStreet.com: C-, hold
• Zacks: 3/5, hold.

After a month of reading, Junior and I identified three sites that warranted your time, and named eight more that you probably won’t be bookmarking any time soon.

If you’re wondering “what do those mean?”  Or “does Zacks know something that Morningstar doesn’t?” – or even if you’re not – we’re hoping you’ll check out “the best of the web.”

Numbers that you really shouldn’t trust

Claymore/Mac Global Solar Energy Index ETF (XTANX) is up 1120% YTD!

(Source: BarCharts.com, YTD Leaders, as of 2/29/2012)

Or not.  First, it’s a Guggenheim ETF now.  Second, there was a 10:1 reverse split on February 15.  BarCharts has a “strong buy” rating on the shares.

GMO Domestic Bond III (GMBDX) is up 767%!

(Same source)

Uhh.  No.  9:1 reverse split on January 17.

There are 77 T. Rowe Price funds that waive the investment minimum for investors with an automatic investing plan!

(Source: Morningstar premium fund screener, 2/29/2012)

Uhh. No.  T. Rowe discontinued those waivers on August 1, 2011.

The “real” expense of running Manning & Napier Dividend Focus (MNDFX) is 5.6%.

(Source: Manning and Napier website, 2/29/2012)

Likewise: no.  An M&N representative said that the figures represented the fund’s start-up state (high expenses, no shareholders) but that they weren’t allowed to change them yet.  (???)  The actual e.r. without an expense waiver is 1.05%, but they have no intention of discontinuing the waiver.

NorthRoad International is a five-star fund that offers tiny beta and huge alpha

(Source: Morningstar profile, 2/29/2011)

Uhh.  No.  Not even a little.  Why not?  Because until June 30, 2011, this was the Madison Mosaic Small/Mid-Cap Fund.  Because US smaller stocks were bouncing back from the bloody meltdown from October 2007 – March 2009, this fund returns that were great by international large cap standards and those returns have been folded seamlessly into Morningstar’s assessment.

In NorthRoad’s defense: the fund’s own publicity material makes the change very clear and refuses to include any comparisons that precede the fund’s new mandate.  And, since the change, it has been a distinctly above-average international fund with reasonable fees.  It’s just not the fund that Morningstar describes.

Any three-year performance number.  The market reached its bottom in the first week of March, 2009 and began a ferocious rally.  We are now entering the point where the last remnants of a fund’s performance during the market downturn are being cycled-out of the three-year averages.  As of 3/01/2012, there are 18 funds which have returned more than 50% per year, on average for the past three years.  Half of all funds have three-year returns above 21% per year.  Forester Value (FVALX), the great hero of 2008 and the recipient of a ton of money in 2009, now has three-year returns that trail 99% of its peers.

Two funds and why they’re worth your time . . .

Really, really worth your time.

Each month we provide in-depth profiles of two funds that you should know more about, one new and one well-established.

Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX): most US investors have little or no exposure to Asian fixed-income markets, which are robust, secure and growing. Matthews, which already boasts the industry’s deepest corps of Asia specialists, has added a first-rate manager and made her responsible for the first Asian income fund available to U.S. retail investors.

GRT Value (GRTVX): what do you get when you combine one of the best and most experienced small cap investors, a corps of highly professional and supportive partners, a time-tested, risk-conscious strategy and reasonable expenses? GRTVX investors are finding out.

Briefly noted:

T. Rowe Price Real Assets (PRAFX) opened to retail investors in December, 2011.  The fund invests in companies that own “stuff in the ground.”  The fund was launched in May 2011 but was only available for use in other T. Rowe Price funds.  A 5% allocation to real assets became standard in their target-date funds, and might represent a reasonable hedge in most long-term portfolios.  The fund’s opening to retail investors was largely unexplained and unnoticed.

Wasatch Microcap Value (WAMVX) has reopened to new investors through Schwab, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and other intermediaries.

Talented managers with good marketers attract cash!  What a great system.  The folks at Grandeur Peaks passed $100 million in assets after four months of operation.  The exceedingly fine River Park /Wedgewood Fund (RWGFX) just passed $200 million.   When I first profiled the fund, July 2011, it had $200,000 in assets.  Dave Rolfe, the manager, estimates that the fund’s strategy can accommodate $5 billion.

Vanguard finally put Vanguard Asset Allocation out of its misery by merging it into Vanguard Balanced Index fund (VBINX) on 2/10/2012.  Last fall the Observer identified Vanguard Asset Allocation as one of the fund universe’s 12 worst funds based on its size and its wretched consistency.  We described funds on the list this way:

These funds that have finished in the bottom one-fourth of their peer groups for the year so far.  And for the preceding 12 months, three years, five years and ten years.  These aren’t merely “below average.”  They’re so far below average they can hardly see “mediocre” from where they are.

RiverNorth DoubleLine Strategic Income (RNSIX) will close to new investors on March 30, 2012. The fund, comanaged by The Great Gundlach, gathered $800 million in its first 14 months.

Wells Fargo will liquidate Wells Fargo Advantage Social Sustainability (WSSAX) and Wells Fargo Advantage Global Health Care (EHABX) by the end of March, 2012.  It’s also merging Wells Fargo Advantage Strategic Large Cap Growth (ESGAX) into Wells Fargo Advantage Large Cap Growth (STAFX), likely in June.

Bridgeway is merging Bridgeway Aggressive Investors 2 (BRAIX) into Bridgeway Aggressive Investors 1 (BRAGX) and Bridgeway Micro-Cap Limited (BRMCX) into Bridgeway Ultra-Small Company (BRUSX).   Bridgeway had earlier announced a change in BRUSX’s investment mandate to allow for slightly larger (though still tiny) stocks in its portfolio.  In hindsight, that appears to have been the signal of the impending merger.  BRUSX, which closed when it reached just $22.5 million in assets, is a legendary sort of fund.  $10,000 invested at its 1994 launch would now be worth almost $120,000 against its peers $50,000.

Invesco Small Companies (ATIIX) will close to new investors on March 5, 2012.  That’s in response to an entirely-regrettable flood of hot money triggered by the fund’s great performance in 2011.  Meanwhile, Invesco also said it will reopen Invesco Real Estate (IARAX) to new investors on March 16.

Delaware Large Cap Value (DELDX) is merging into Delaware Value (DDVAX), itself an entirely-respectable large cap value fund with noticeably lower expenses.

Likewise Lord Abbett is merged Lord Abbett Large-Cap Value (LALAX) into Lord Abbett Fundamental Equity (LDFVX).

Proving the adage that nothing in life is certain but death and taxes, State Street Global Advisors will kill its Life Solutions funds on May 15.  Among the soon-to-be decedents are Balanced, Growth and Income & Growth.  Also going are SSgA Disciplined Equity (SSMTX) and Directional Core Equity (SDCQX).

Speaking of death, the year’s second mass execution of ETFs occurred on February 17 when Global X took out eight ETFs at once: Farming, Fishing, Mexico Small Caps, Oil, Russell Emerging Markets Growth, Russell Emerging Markets Value, and Waste Management.  The 17 HOLDRS Trusts, which promised to “revolutionize stock investing” were closed in December and liquidated on January 9, 2012.

Our chief programmer, Accipiter, was looking for a bit of non-investing reading this month and asked folks on the board for book recommendations. That resulting outpouring was so diverse and thoughtful that we wanted to make it available for other readers. As a result, our Amazon store (it’s under Books, on the main menu bar) now has a “great non-investing reads” department. You’ll be delighted by some of what you find there.

Oh, and Accipiter: there will be a quiz over the readings.

Amazon’s time limit

If you’re one of the many people who support the Observer, thank you!  Thank you, thank you, thank you!  A dozen readers contributed to the Observer this month (thank you!) by mail or via PayPal.  That’s allowed us to more than offset the rising costs caused by our rising popularity.  You not only make it all worthwhile, you make it all possible.

If you’re one of the many people who support the Observer by using our link to Amazon.com, thank you – but here’s a warning: the link you create expires or can be wiped out as you navigate.

If you enter Amazon using the Observer’s link (consider bookmarking it), or any other Associate’s link, and put an item in your Shopping Cart, the item carries a special code which serves to identify the referring site (roughly: “us”).  It appears the link expires about 24 hours after you set it, so if something’s been in your shopping cart for six weeks (as sometimes happens with me), you might want to re-add it.

Which I mention because Amazon just restated their policy.

A WORD OF WARNING BEFORE YOU GO:

We are going try to cull dead accounts from our email list in the next month, since the monthly charge for sending our notice climbs precipitously after we pass 2500 names.  Anyone who has subscribed to receive an email notice but who has never actually opened one of them (it looks like more than a hundred folks) will be dropped.  We’d feel bad if we inadvertently lost you, so please do be sure to open the email notice (don’t just look at it in a preview pane) at least once so we know you’re still there.

Take great care and I’ll write again, soon.

Dear friends,

Welcome to the Year of the Dragon.  The Chinese zodiac has been the source of both enthusiasm (“Year of the Dragon and the scaly beast’s unmatched potency as a symbol for prosperity and success – as part of China’s own zodiac – promises an extra special 12 months”) and merriment (check the CLSA Asia-Pacific Market’s Feng Shui Report)  in the investing community.  The Dragon itself is characterized as “magnanimous, stately, vigorous, strong, self-assured, proud, noble, direct, dignified, eccentric, intellectual, fiery, passionate, decisive, pioneering, artistic, generous, and loyal. Can be tactless, arrogant, imperious, tyrannical, demanding, intolerant, dogmatic, violent, impetuous, and brash.”

Sort of the Gingrich of Lizards.

The Wall Street Journal reports (1/30/12) that Chinese investors have developed a passion for packing portfolios with “fungus harvested from dead caterpillars . . . homegrown liquors, mahogany furniture and jade, among other decidedly non-Western asset classes.”

Given that the last Year of the Dragon (2000) was a disappointment and a prelude to a disaster, I think I’ll keep my day job and look for really good sales on cases of peanut butter (nothing soothes the savaged investor quite like a PB&J . . . and maybe a sprinkle of caterpillar fungus).

Morningstar’s Fund Manager of the Year Awards

I’m not sure if the fund industry would be better off if John Rekenthaler had stayed closer to his bully pulpit, but I know the rest of us would have been.  Mr. Rekenthaler (JR to the cognoscenti) is Morningstar’s vice president of research but, in the 1990s and early part of the past decade, played the role of bold and witty curmudgeon and research-rich gadfly.   I’d long imagined a meeting of JR and FundAlarm’s publisher Roy Weitz as going something like this: 

The ugly reality is that age and gentility might have reduced it to something closer to: 

For now, I think I’ll maintain my youthful illusions.

Each year Morningstar awards “Fund Manager of the Year” honors in three categories: domestic equity, international equity and fixed-income.  While the recognition is nice for the manager and his or her marketers, the question is: does it do us as investors any good.  Is last year’s Manager of the Year, next year’s Dud of the Day?

One of the things I most respect about Morningstar is their willingness to provide sophisticated research on (and criticisms of) their own systems.  In that spirit, Rekenthaler reviewed the performance of Managers of the Year in the years following their awards.

His conclusions:

Domestic Fund Manager of the Year: “meh.”  On whole, awardees were just slightly above average with only three disasters, Bill Miller (1998), Jim Callinan (1999 – if you’re asking “Jim Who?” you’ve got a clue about how disastrous), and Mason Hawkins (2006).  Bruce Berkowitz will appear in due course, I fear.   JR’s conclusion: “beware of funds posting high returns because of financials and/or technology stocks.”

Fixed-Income Manager of the Year: “good” and “improving.”  On whole, these funds lead their peers by 50-80 basis points/year which, in the fixed income world, is a major advantage.  The only disaster has been a repeated disaster: Bob Rodriquez of FPA New Income earned the award three times and has been mediocre to poor in the years following each of those awards.  Rekenthaler resists the impulse to conclude that Morningstar should “quit picking Bob Rodriguez!” (he’s more disciplined than I’d be).  JR notes that Rodriquez is streaky (“two or three truly outstanding years” followed by mediocrity and disappointment before taking off again) and that “it’s a tough fund to own.”

International Fund Manager of the Year:  Ding! Ding! Ding!  Got it right in a major way.  As Rekenthaler puts it, “the Morningstar team selecting the International-Stock winners should open a hotline on NFL games.”  Twelve of the 13 international honorees posted strong returns in the years after selection, while the final honoree Dodge & Cox International (DODFX) has beaten its peer group but just by a bit.

Rekenthaler’s study, Do the Morningstar Fund Manager of the Year Awards Have Staying Power? is available at Morningstar.com, but seems to require a free log-in to access it.

Fun with Numbers: The Difference One Month Makes

Investors often look at three-year returns to assess a fund’s performance.  They reason, correctly, that they shouldn’t be swayed by very short term performance.  It turns out that short term performance has a huge effect on a fund’s long-term record.

The case in point is Matthews Asian Growth and Income (MACSX), a FundAlarm “Star in the Shadows” fund, awarded five stars and a “Silver” rating by Morningstar.  It’s in my portfolio and is splendid.  Unless you look at the numbers.  As of January 27 2011, it ranked dead last – the 100th percentile – in its Morningstar peer group for the preceding three years.  Less than one month earlier, it was placed in the 67^th percentile, a huge drop in 20 trading days.

Or not, since its trailing three-year record as of January 27 showed it returning 18.08% annually.  At the beginning of the month, its three-year return was 14.64%.

How much difference does that really make?  $10,000 invested on January 1 2009 would have grown to $15,065 in three years.  The same amount invested on January 27 2009 and left for three years would have grown to $16,482.  Right: the delay of less than a month turned a $5100 gain into a $6500 one.

What happened?   The January 27 calculation excludes most of January 2009, when MACSX lost 3.3% while its peers dropped 7.8% and it includes most of January 2012, when MACSX gained 4.8% but its peers rallied 10.2%.  That pattern is absolutely typically for MACSX: it performs brilliantly in falling markets and solidly in rising ones.  If you look at a period with sharp rises – even in a single month – this remarkably solid performer seems purely dreadful.

Here’s the lesson: you’ve got to look past the numbers.  The story of any fund can’t be grasped by looking at any one number or any one period.  Unless you understand why the fund has done what it has and what it supposed to be doing for your portfolio, you’re doomed to an endless cycle of hope, panic and missteps.  (From which we’re trying to save you, by the way.)

Looking Past the Numbers, Part Two: The Oceanstone Fund

Sometimes a look past the numbers will answer questions about a fund that looking dowdy. That’s certainly the case with MACSX. In order instances, it should raise them about a fund that’s looking spectacular. The Oceanstone Fund (OSFDX) is a case in point. Oceanstone invests in a diversified portfolio of undervalued stocks from micro- to mega-cap. Though it does not reflect the fund’s current or recent portfolio, Morningstar classifies it as a “small value” fund.  And I’ve rarely seen a fund with a more-impressive set of performance numbers:

In the approximately five years from launch through 1/30/2011, Oceanstone’s manager turned $10,000 into $59,000.  In 2009, powered by gains in Avis Budget Group and Dollar Thrifty Automotive (1,775 percent and 2,250 percent respectively), the fund made 264%.  And still, the fund has only $17 million in assets.

Time to jump in?  Send the big check, and wait to receive the big money?

I don’t know.  But you do owe it to yourself to look beyond the numbers first.  When you do that, you might notice:

1. that the manager’s explanation of his investment strategy is nonsense.  Here’s the prospectus description of what he’s doing:

In deciding which common stocks to purchase, the Fund seeks the undervalued stocks as compared to their intrinsic values. To determine a stock’s intrinsic value (IV), the Fund uses the equation: IV = IV/E x E. In this equation, E is the stock’s earnings per share for its trailing 4 quarters, and a reasonable range of its IV/E ratio is determined by a rational and objective evaluation of the current available information of its future earnings prospects.

Read that formula: IV = IV divided by E, times E.  No more than a high school grasp of algebra tells you that this formula tells you nothing.  I shared it with two professors of mathematics, who both gave it the technical term “vacuous.”  It works for any two numbers (4 = 4 divided by 2, times 2) but it doesn’t allow you to derive one value from the other.  If you know “the stock’s earnings” and are trying to determine it’s “investment value,” this formula can’t do it.

2. that the shareholder reports say nothing.  Here is the entire text of the fund’s 2010 Annual Report:

Oceanstone Fund (the Fund) started its 2011 fiscal year on 7/1/2010 at net asset value (NAV) of $28.76 per share. On 12/27/2010, the Fund distributed a short-term capital gain dividend of $2.7887 per share and a long-term capital gain dividend of $1.7636. On 6/30/2011, the Fund ended this fiscal year at NAV of $35.85 per share. Therefore, the Fund’s total return for this fiscal year ended 6/30/2011 is 42.15%. During the same period, the total return of S&P 500 index is 30.69%.

For portfolio investment, the Fund seeks undervalued stocks. To determine a stock’s intrinsic value (IV), the Fund uses the equation IV = IV/E x E, as stated in the Fund’s prospectus. To use this equation, the key is to determine a company’s future earnings prospects with reasonable accuracy and subsequently a reasonable range for its IV/E ratio. As a company’s future earnings prospects change, this range for its IV/E ratio is adjusted accordingly.

Short-term, stock market can be volatile and unpredictable. Long-term, the deciding factor of stock price, as always, is value. Going forward, the Fund strives to find at least some of the undervalued stocks when they become available in U.S. stock market, in an effort to achieve a good long-term return for the shareholders.

One paragraph reports NAV change, the second reproduces the vacuous formula in the prospectus and the third is equally-vacuous boilerplate about markets.  What, exactly, is the manager telling you?  And what does it say that he doesn’t think you deserve to know more?

3. that Oceanstone’s Board is chaired by Rajendra Prasad, manager of Prasad Growth (PRGRX).  Prasad Growth, with its frantic trading (1300% annual turnover), collapsing asset base and dismal record (bottom 1% of funds for the past 3-, 5- and 10-year period) is a solid candidate for our “Roll Call of the Wretched.”  How, then, does his presence benefit Oceanstone’s shareholders?

4. the fund’s portfolio turns over at triple the average rate, is exceedingly concentrated (20 names) and is sitting on a 30% cash stake.  Those are all unusual, and unexplained.

You need to look beyond the numbers.  In general, a first step is to read the managers’ own commentary.  In this case, there is none.  Second, look for coverage in reliable sources.  Except for this note and passing references to 2009’s blistering performance, none again.  Your final option is to contact the fund advisor.   The fund’s website has no email inquiry link or other means to facilitate contact, so I’ve left a request for an interview with the fund’s phone reps.  They seemed dubious.  I’ll report back, in March, on my success or failure.

And Those Who Can’t Teach, Teach Gym.

Those of us who write about the investment industry occasionally succumb to the delusion that that makes us good investment managers.  A bunch of funds have managers who at least wave in the direction of having been journalists:

• Sierra Strategic Income Fund: Frank Barbera, CMT, was a columnist for Financial Sense from 2007 until 2009.
• Roge Partners:  Ronald W. Rogé has been a guest personal finance columnist for ABCNews.com.
• Auer Growth:  Robert C. Auer, founder of SBAuer Funds, LLC, was from 1996 to 2004, the lead stock market columnist for the Indianapolis Business Journal “Bulls & Bears” weekly column, authoring over 400 columns, which discussed a wide range of investment topics.
• Astor Long/Short ETF Fund: Scott Martin, co-manager, is a contributor to FOX Business Network and a former columnist with TheStreet.com
• Jones Villalta Opportunity Fund: Stephen M. Jones was financial columnist for Austin Magazine.
• Free Enterprise Action Fund: The Fund’s investment team is headed by Steven J. Milloy, “lawyer, consultant, columnist, adjunct scholar.”

Only a handful of big-time financial journalists have succumbed to the fantasy of financial acumen.  Those include:

• Ron Insana, who left CNBC in March 2006 to start a hedge fund, lost money for his investors, closed the fund in August 2008, joined SAC Capital for a few months then left.  Now he runs a website (RonInsanaShow.com) hawking his books and providing one minute market summaries, and gets on CNBC once a month.
• Lou Dobbs bolted from hosting CNN’s highly-rated Moneyline show in 1999 in order to become CEO of Space.com.  By 2000 he was out of Space and, by 2001, back at CNN.
• Jonathan Clements left a high visibility post at The Wall Street Journal to become Director of Financial Education, Citi Personal Wealth Management.  Sounds fancy.  Frankly, it looks like he’s been relegated to “blogger.”  As I poke around the site, he seems to write a couple distinctly mundane, 400-word essays a week.
• Jim Cramer somehow got rich in the hedge fund world.  Since then he’s become a clown whose stock picks are, by pretty much every reckoning, high beta and zero alpha.   And value of his company, TheStreet.com’s, stock is down 94.3% since launch.
• Jim Jubak, who writes the “Jubak’s Picks” column for MSN Money, launched Jubak Global Equity (JUBAX), which managed to turn $10,000 at inception into $9100 by the end of 2011 while his peers made $11,400.

You might notice a pattern here.

The latest victim of hubris and comeuppance is John Dorfman, former Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal columnist.  You get a sense of Dorfman’s marketing savvy when you look at his investment vehicles.

Dorfman founded Thunderstorm Capital in 1999, and then launched The Lobster Fund (a long-short hedge fund) in 2000.  He planned launch of The Oyster Fund (a long-only hedge fund) and The Crab Fund (short-only) shortly thereafter, but that never quite happened.  Phase One: name your investments after stuff that’s found at low tide, snatched up, boiled and eaten with butter.

He launched Dorfman Value Fund in 2008. Effective June 30, 2009, the fund’s Board approved changing the name from Dorfman Value Fund to Thunderstorm Value Fund.  The reason for the name change is that the parent firm of Thunderstorm Mutual Funds LLC “has decided the best way to promote a more coherent marketing message is to rebrand all of its products to begin with the word ‘Thunderstorm’.”

Marketers to mutual fund: “Well, duh!”

Earth to Dorfman: did you really think that naming your fund after a character in Animal House (Kent Dorfman, an overweight, clumsy legacy pledge), especially one whose nickname was “Flounder,” was sharp to begin with? Name recognition is all well and good . . . . as long as your name doesn’t cause sniggering. I can pretty much guarantee that when I launch my mutual fund, it isn’t going to be Snowball Special (DAVYX).

Then, to offset having a half-way cool name, they choose the ticker symbol THUNX.  THUNX?  As in “thunks.”  Yes, indeed, because nothing says “trust me” like a vehicle that goes “thunk.”

Having concluded that low returns, high expenses, a one-star rating, and poor marketing aren’t the road to riches, the advisor recommended that the Board close (on January 17, 2012) and liquidate (on February 29, 2012) the fund.

Does Anyone Look at this Stuff Before Running It?

They’re at it again.  I’ve noted, in earlier essays, the bizarre data that some websites report.  In November, I argued, “There’s no clearer example of egregious error without a single human question than in the portfolio reports for Manning & Napier Dividend Focus (MNDFX).”  The various standard services reported that the fund, which is fully invested in stocks, held between 60 – 101% of its portfolio in cash.

And now, there’s another nominee for the “what happens when humans no longer look at what they publish” award.  In the course of studying Bretton Fund (BRTNX), I looked at the portfolios of the other hyper-concentrated stock funds – portfolios with just 10-15 stocks.

One such fund is Biondo Focus (BFONX), an otherwise undistinguished fund that holds 15 stocks (and charges way too much).   One striking feature of the fund: Morningstar reports that the fund invested 30% of the portfolio in a bank in Jordan.  That big gray circle on the left represents BFONX’s stake in Union Bank.

There are, as it turns out, four problems with this report.

1. There is no Union Bank in Jordan.  It was acquired by, and absorbed in, Bank Al Etihad of Amman.
2. The link labeled Union Bank (Jordan) actually leads to a report for United Bankshares, Inc. (UBSI).  UBSI, according to Morningstar’s report, mostly does business in West Virginia and D.C.
3. Biondo Focus does not own any shares of Union or United, and never has.
4. Given the nature of data contracts, the mistaken report is now widespread.

Joe Biondo, one of the portfolio managers, notes that the fund has never had an investment in Union Bank of Jordan or in United Bankshares in the US.  They do, however, use Union Bank of California as a custodian for the fund’s assets.  The 30% share attributed to Union Bank is actually a loan run through Union Bank, not even a loan from Union Bank.

The managers used the money to achieve 130% equity exposure in January 2012.  That exposure powered the portfolio to a 21.4% gain in the first four weeks of January 2012, but didn’t offset the fund’s 24% loss in 2011.  From January 2011 – 2012, it finished in the bottom 1% of its peer group.

Google, drawing on Morningstar, repeats the error, as does MSN and USA Today while MarketWatch and Bloomberg get it right. Yahoo takes error in a whole new direction when provides this list of BFONX’s top ten holdings:

Uhhh, guys?  Even in daycare the kids managed to count past two on their way to ten.  For the record, these are holdings five and six.

Doesn’t Anyone at the SEC Look at their Stuff Before Posting It?

The Securities and Exchange Commission makes fund documents freely available through their EDGAR search engine.  In the relentless, occasionally mind-numbing pursuit of new funds, I review each day’s new filings.  The SEC posts all of that day’s filings together which means that all the filings should be from that day.  To find them, check “Daily Filings” then “Search Current Events: Most Recent Filings.”

Shouldn’t be difficult.  But it is.  The current filings for January 5, 2012 are actually dated:

• January 5, 2012
• October 14, 2011
• September 2, 2011
• August 15, 2011
• August 8, 2011
• July 27, 2011
• July 15, 2011
• July 1, 2011
• June 15, 2011
• June 6, 2011
• May 26, 2011
• May 23, 2011
• January 10, 2011

For January 3^rd, only 20 of 98 listings are correct.  Note to the SEC: This Isn’t That Hard!  Hire A Programmer!

Fund Update: HNP Growth and Preservation

We profiled HNP Growth and Preservation (HNPKX) in January 2012.  The fund’s portfolio is set by a strict, quantitative discipline: 70% is invested based on long-term price trends for each of seven asset classes and 30% is invested based on short-term price trends.  The basic logic is simple: try to avoid being invested in an asset that’s in the midst of a long, grinding bear market.  Don’t guess about whether it’s time to get in or out, just react to trend.  This is the same strategy employed by managed futures funds, which tend to suffer in directionless markets but prosper when markets show consistent long-term patterns.

Since we published our profile, the fund has done okay.  It returned 3.06% in January 2012, through 1/27.  That’s a healthy return, though it lagged its average peer by 90 bps.  It’s down about 5.5% since launch, and modestly trails its peer group.  I asked manager Chris Hobaica about how investors should respond to that weak initial performance.  His reply arrived too late to be incorporated in the original profile, but I wanted to share the highlights.

Coming into August the fund was fully invested on the long term trend side (fairly rare…) and overweight gold, Treasuries and real estate on the short term momentum side. . .  Even though the gold and Treasuries held up [during the autumn sell-off], they weren’t enough to offset the remaining assets that were being led down by the international and emerging assets.  Also, as is usually the case, assets class correlations moved pretty close to 1.

Generally though, this model isn’t designed to avoid short-term volatility, but rather a protracted bear market.  By the end of September, we had moved to gold, treasuries and cash.  So, the idea was that if that volatility continued into a bear market, the portfolio was highly defensive.

While we are never happy with negative returns, we explain to shareholders that the model was doing what it was supposed to do.  It became defensive when the trends reversed.  I am not worried by the short term drop (I don’t like it though), as there have been many other times over the backtest that the portfolio would have been down in the 8-10% range.

Three Funds, and why they’re worth your time

Really worth it.  Every month the Observer profiles two to four funds that we think you really need to know more about.  One category is the most intriguing new funds: good ideas, great managers. These are funds that do not yet have a long track record, but which have other virtues which warrant your attention.  They might come from a great boutique or be offered by a top-tier manager who has struck out on his own.  The “most intriguing new funds” aren’t all worthy of your “gotta buy” list, but all of them are going to be fundamentally intriguing possibilities that warrant some thought.  This month we’ll highlight three funds with outstanding heritages and fascinating prospects:

Bretton Fund (BRTNX): Bretton is an ultra-concentrated value fund managed by the former president of Parnassus Investments.  It has shown remarkable – and remarkably profitable – independence from style boxes, peers and indexes in its brief life.

Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities (GPGOX): here’s a happy thought.  Two brilliantly-successful managers who made their reputation running a fund just like this one have struck out on their own, worrying about a much smaller and more-nimble fund, charging less and having a great time doing it.

Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX): Matthews, which already boasts the industry’s deepest corps of Asia specialists, has added a first-rate manager and made her responsible for the first Asian income fund available to U.S. retail investors.

Launch Alert: Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income

Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income (SFGIX) is set to launch in mid-February, 2012.  The fund’s final prospectus is available at SeafarerFunds.com. The fund will be managed by Andrew Foster, formerly manager of Matthews Asia Growth & Income (MACSX) and Matthews’ research director or acting chief investment officer.

The great debate surrounding MACSX was whether it was the best Asia-centered fund in existence or merely one of the two or three best funds in existence.  Here’s the broader truth within their disagreement: Mr. Foster’s fund was, consistently and indisputably one of the best Asian funds in existence.  That distinction was driven by two factors: the fund’s focus on high-quality, dividend-paying stocks plus its willingness to hold a variety of securities other than common stocks.  A signal of the importance of those other securities is embedded in the fund’s ticker symbol; MACSX reflects the original name, Matthews Asian Convertible Securities Fund.

Those two factors helped make MACSX one of the two least volatile and most profitable Asian funds.  Whether measured by beta, standard deviation or Morningstar’s “downside capture ratio,” it typically incurs around half of the risk of its peers. Over the past 15 years, the fund’s returns (almost 11% per year) are in the top 1% of its peer group.  The more important stat is the fund’s “investor returns.”  This is a Morningstar calculation that tries to take into account the average investor’s fickleness and inept market timing.  Folks tend to arrive after a fund has done spectacularly and then flee in the midst of it crashing.  While it’s an imperfect proxy, “investor returns” tries to estimate how much the average investor in a fund actually made.  With highly volatile funds, the average investor might have earned nothing in a fund that made 10%.

In the case of MACSX, the average investor has actually made more than the fund itself.  That occurs when investors are present for the long-haul and when they’re in the habit of buying more when the fund’s value is falling.  This is an exceedingly rare pattern and a sign that the fund “works” for its investors; it doesn’t scare them away, so they’re able to actually profit from their investment.

Seafarer will take the MACSX formula global.  The Seafarer prospectus explains the strategy:

The Fund attempts to offer investors a relatively stable means of participating in a portion of developing countries’ growth prospects, while providing some downside protection, in comparison to a portfolio that invests purely in the common stocks of developing countries. The strategy of owning convertible bonds and dividend-paying equities is intended to help the Fund meet its investment objective while reducing the volatility of the portfolio’s returns.

Mr. Foster writes: “I hope to marry Asia Pacific with other ‘emerging markets,’ a few carefully-selected ‘frontier’ markets, alongside a handful of ‘developed’ countries.  I am excited about the possibilities.”

The fund’s minimum investment is $2500 for regular accounts and $1000 for IRAs.  The initial expense ratio is 1.60%, an amount that Mr. Foster set after considerable deliberation.  He didn’t want to charge an unreasonable amount but he didn’t want to risk bankrupting himself by underwriting too much of the fund’s expenses (as is, he expects to absorb 0.77% in expenses to reach the 1.6% level).  While the fund could have launched on February 1, Mr. Foster wanted a couple extra weeks for finish arrangements with some of the fund supermarkets and other distributors.

Mr. Foster has kindly agreed to an extended conversation in February and we’ll have a full profile of the fund shortly thereafter.  In the meantime, feel free to visit Seafarer Funds and read some of Andrew’s thoughtful essays on investing.

Briefly Noted

Fidelity Low-Priced Stock (FLPSX) manager Joel Tillinghast has returned from his four-month sabbatical.  It looks suspiciously like a rehearsal for Mr. Tillinghast’s eventual departure.  The five acolytes who filled-in during his leave have remained with the fund, which he’d managed solo since 1989.  If you’d had the foresight to invest $10,000 in the fund at inception, you’d have $180,000 in the bank today.

Elizabeth Bramwell is retiring in March, 2012.  Bramwell is an iconic figure who started her investment career in the late 1960s.  Her Bramwell Growth Fund became Sentinel Capital Growth (SICGX) in 2006, when she also picked up responsibility for managing Sentinel Growth Leaders (SIGLX), and Sentinel Sustainable Growth Opportunities (CEGIX). Kelli Hill, her successor, seems to have lots of experience but relatively little with mutual funds per se.  She’s sometimes described as the person who “ran Old Mutual Large Cap Growth (OILLX),” but in reality she was just one of 11 co-managers.

Fidelity has agreed to pay $7.5 million to shareholders of Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond fund (FUSBX) (and their attorneys) in settlement of a class action suit.  The plaintiffs claimed that Fidelity did not exercise reasonable oversight of the fund’s risks.  Despite being marketed as a low volatility, conservative option, the fund invested heavily in mortgage-backed securities and lost 17% in value from June 2007 – May 2008.  Fidelity, as is traditional in such cases, “believes that all of the claims are entirely without merit.”  Why pay them then?  To avoid “the cost and distraction” of trial, they say.  (Court Approves a $7.5 Million Settlement, MFWire, 1/27/12).

Fidelity is changing the name of Fidelity Equity-Income II (FEQTX) to Fidelity Equity Dividend Income fund. Its new manager Scott Offen, who took over the fund in November 2011, has sought to increase the fund’s dividend yield relative to his predecessor Stephen Peterson.

Bridgeway Ultra-Small Company (BRUSX) is becoming just a little less “ultra.”  The fund has, since launch, invested in the tiniest U.S. stocks, those in the 10^th decile by market cap.  As some of those firms thrived, their market caps have grown into the next-higher (those still smaller than microcap) decile.  Bridgeway has modified its prospectus to allow the fund to buy shares in these slightly-larger firms

Invesco has announced the merger of three more Van Kampen funds, which follows dozens of mergers made after they acquired Morgan Stanley’s funds in 2010.  The latest moves: Invesco High Income Muni (AHMAX) will merge into Invesco Van Kampen High Yield Municipal (ACTFX).  Invesco US Mid Cap Value (MMCAX) and Invesco Van Kampen American Value (MSAJX), run by the same team, are about to become the same fund.  And Invesco Commodities Strategy (COAIX) disappears into the more-active Invesco Balanced Risk Commodity Strategy (BRCNX). The funds share management teams and similar fees, but Invesco Commodities Strategy has closely tracked its Dow-Jones-UBS Commodity Total Return Index benchmark, while Invesco Van Kampen Balanced Risk Commodity Strategy is more actively managed.

DWS Dreman Small Cap Value (KDSAX), which is already too big, reopened to all investors on February 1, 2012.

Managers Emerging Markets Equity (MEMEX) will liquidate on March 9, 2012. The fund added a bunch of co-managers three years ago, but it’s lagged its peer group in each of the past five years.  It’s attracted $45 million in assets, apparently not enough to making it worth the advisor’s while.

On March 23, 2012, the $34 million ING International Capital Appreciation (IACAX) will also liquidate, done in by performance that was going steadily from bad to worse.

I’d missed the fact that back in mid-October, RiverPark Funds liquidated their RiverPark/Gravity Long-Biased Fund.  RiverPark has been pretty ruthless about getting rid of losing strategies (funds and active ETFs) after about a year of weakness.

The Observer: Milestones and Upgrades

The folks who bring you the Observer are delighted to announce two milestones and three new features, all for the same reasonable rate as before.  Which is to say, free.

On January 27, 2012, folks launched the 2000^th discussion thread on the Observer’s lively community forum.  The thread in question focused on which of two Matthews Asia funds, Growth and Income (MACSX) or Asia Dividend (MAPIX), was the more compelling choice.  Sentiment seemed to lean slightly toward MAPIX, with the caveat that the performance comparison should be tempered by an understanding that MACSX was not a pure-equity play.  One thoughtful poster analogized it to T. Rowe Price’s stellar Capital Appreciation (PRWCX) fund, in that both used preferred and convertible shares to temper volatility without greatly sacrificing returns.  In my non-retirement account, I own shares of MACSX and have been durn happy with it.

Also on January 27, the Observer attracted its 50,000^th reader.  Google’s Analytics program labels you as “unique visitors.”  We heartily agree.  While the vast majority of our readers are American, folks from 104 nations have dropped by.  I’m struck that we’re had several hundred visits from each of Saudi Arabia, Israel, France, India and Taiwan.  On whole, the BRICs have dispatched 458 visitors while the PIIGS account for 1,017.

In March the Observer will debut a new section devoted to providing short, thoughtful summaries and analyses of the web’s best investment and finance websites.  We’ve grown increasingly concerned that the din of a million cyber voices is making it increasingly hard for folks to find reliable information and good insights as they struggle to make important life choices.  We will, with your cooperation, try to help.

The project team responsible for the effort is led by Junior Yearwood.  Those of you who’ve read our primer on Miscommunication in the Workplace know of Junior as one of the folks who helped edit that volume.   Junior and I met some years ago through the good offices of a mutual friend, and he’s always proven to be a sharp, clear-eyed person and good writer.  Junior brings what we wanted: the perspectives of a writer and reader who was financially literate but not obsessed with the market’s twitches or Fidelity’s travails.  I’ll let him introduce himself and his project:

It’s rare that a 19-year-old YouTube sensation manages to sum up the feelings of millions of Americans and people the world over.  But Tay Zonday, whose richly-baritone opening line is “are you confused about the economy?” did.  “Mama, Economy;  Make me understand all the numbers” explains it all.

The fact is we all could use a little help figuring it all out.  “We” might be a grandmother who knows she needs better than a zero percent savings account, a financial adviser looking to build moats around her clients’ wealth, or even me, the former plant manager and current freelance journalist. We all have something in common; we don’t know everything and we’re a bit freaked out by the economy and by the clamor.

My project is to help us sort through it.  The idea originated with the estimable Chuck Jaffe MarketWatch.   I am not a savvy investor nor am I a financial expert. I am a guy with a sharp eye for detail and the ability to work well with others.   My job is to combine your suggestions and considered analysis with my own research, into a monthly collection of websites that we believe are worth your time.  David will oversee the technical aspects of the project.   I’ll be reaching out, in the months ahead, to both our professional readership (investment advisers, fund managers, financial planners, and others) and regular people like myself.

Each month we will highlight and profile around five websites in a particular category. The new section will be launching in March with a review of mutual fund rating sites.  In the following months we’ll look at macro-level blogs run by investment professionals, Asian investing and many of the categories that you folks feel most interested in.   I’d be pleased to hear your ideas and I can be reached at [email protected]

A special word of thanks goes out to Chuck. We hope we can do justice to your vision.

Finally, I remain stunned (and generally humbled) by the talent and commitment of the folks who daily help the Observer out.  I’m grateful, in particular, to Accipiter, our chief programmer who has been both creative and tireless in his efforts to improve the function of the Observer’s discussion board software.  The software has several virtues (among them, it was free) but isn’t easy to scan.  The discussion threads look like this:

MACSX yield 3.03 and MAPIX yield 2.93. Why go with either as opposed to the other?

14 comments MaxBialystock January 27| Recent Kenster1_GlobalValue3:54PM Fund Discussions

Can’t really see, at a glance, what’s up with the 14 comments.  Accipiter wrote a new discussion summary program that neatly gets around the problem.  Here’s that same discussion, viewed through the Summary program:

MACSX yield 3.03 and MAPIX yield 2.93. Why go with either as opposed to the other? By – MaxBialystock viewed (468)

• 2012-01-28 – scott : I was going to say MACSX is ex-Japan, but I guess it isn’t – didn’t it used to …
• 2012-01-28 – MaxBialys : Reply to @scott: Yes, it’s SUPPOSED to be…….
• 2012-01-28 – scott : Reply to @MaxBialystock: Ah. I own a little bit left of it, but I haven’t looke…
• 2012-01-28 – MikeM : If you go to their web, site, they have a compare option where you can put the…
• 2012-01-28 – InformalE : Pacific Tigers, MAPTX, is ex-Japan. I don’t think MACSX was ever ex-Japan.In re…
• 2012-01-28 – msf : You can’t put too much stock in the category or benchmark with these funds. M…
• 2012-01-28 – MaxBialys : Lots of work, thought and information. And CLEARLY expressed. MACSX is still ab…
• 2012-01-28 – catch22 : Hi Max, Per your post, it appears you are also attempting to compare the dividen…
• 2012-01-28 – Investor : I recently sold all of MACSX and reinvested most in MAPIX. I just did not feel …
• 2012-01-28 – fundalarm : Reply to @Investor: as mentioned before, i have done the same at the end of Dec…
• . 07:27:27 . – msf : Reply to @fundalarm: Though figures show long term performance of MAPIX to be b…
• 2012-01-28 – MaxBialys : Ya, well, I kinda hogtied myself. I got 11 X more in MAPIX than MACSX, and MACS…

The Summary is easy to use.  Simply go to the Discussions page and look at the gray bar across the top.  The menu options are Discussions – Activity – Summary – Sign In.  Signing up and signing in are easy, free and give you access to a bunch of special features, but they aren’t necessary for using the Summary.  Simply click “Summary”  and, in the upper right, the “comments on/off” button.  With “comments on,” you immediately see the first line of every reply to every post.  It’s a fantastic tool for scanning the discussions and targeting the most provocative comments.

In addition to the Summary view, Chip, our diligent and crafty technical director, constructed a quick index to all of the fund profiles posted at the Observer.  Simply click on the “Funds” button on the top of each page to go to the Fund’s homepage.  There you’ll see an alphabetized list of the fifty profiles (some inherited from FundAlarm) that are available on-site.  Profiles dated “April 2011” or later are new content while many of the others are lightly-updated versions of older profiles.

I’m deeply grateful to both Accipiter and Chip for the passion and superb technical expertise that they bring.  The Observer would be a far poorer place without.  Thanks to you both.

In closing . . .

Thanks to all the folks who supported the Observer in the months just passed.  While the bulk of our income is generated by our (stunningly convenient!) link to Amazon, two or three people each month have made direct financial contributions to the site.  They are, regardless of the amount, exceedingly generous.  We’re deeply grateful, as much as anything, for the affirmation those gestures represent.  It’s good to know that we’re worth your time.

In March, there’ll be a refreshed and expanded profile of Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX), profiles of Andrew Foster’s new fund, Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income (SFGIX) and ASTON/River Road Long-Short Fund (ARLSX) and a new look at an old favorite, GRT Value (GRTVX).

As ever,