Dear friends,

Welcome to the New Year!

And to an odd question: why is it a New Year?  That is, why January 1?  Most calendrical events correspond to something: cycles of the moon and stars, movement of the seasons, conclusions of wars or deaths of Great Men.

But why January 1?  It corresponds with nothing.

Here’s the short answer: your recent hangover and binge of bowl watching were occasioned by the scheming of some ancient Roman high priest, named a pontifex, and the political backlash to his overreach. Millennia ago, the Romans had a year that started sensibly enough, at the beginning of spring when new life began appearing. But the year also ended with the winter solstice and a year-end party that could stretch on for weeks.  December, remember? Translates as “the tenth month” out of ten.

So what happened in between the party and the planting? The usual stuff, I suppose: sex, lies, lies about sex, dinner and work.  What didn’t happen was politics: new governments, elected in the preceding year, weren’t in power until the new year began. And who decided exactly when the new year began? The pontifex. And how did the pontifex decide? Oracles, goat entrails and auguries, mostly. And also a keen sense of whether he liked the incoming government more than the outgoing one.  If the incoming government promised to be a pain in the butt, the new year might start a bit later.  If the new government was full of friends, the new year might start dramatically earlier. And if the existing government promised to be an annoyance in the meanwhile, the pontifex could declare an extended religious holiday during which time the government could not convene.

Eventually Julius Caesar and the astronomer Sosigenes got together to create a twelve month calendar whose new year commenced just after the hangover from the year-end parties faded. Oddly, the post-Roman Christian world didn’t adopt January 1 (pagan!) as the standard start date for another 1600 years.  Pope Gregory tried to fiat the new start day. Protestant countries flipped him off. In England and the early US, New Year’s Day was March 25^th, for example. Eventually the Brits standardized it in their domains in 1750.

Pagan priest examining the gall bladder of a goat. Ancient politics and hefty campaign contributions.

So, why exactly does it make sense for you to worry about how your portfolio did in 2014?  The end date of the year is arbitrary. It corresponds neither to the market’s annual flux nor to the longer seven(ish) year cycles in which the market rises and falls, much less your own financial needs and resources.

I got no clue. You?

I’d hoped to start the year by sharing My Profound Insights into the year ahead, so I wandered over to the Drawer of Clues. Empty. Nuts. The Change Jar of Market Changes? Nothing except some candy wrappers that my son stuffed in there. The white board listing The Four Funds You Must Own for 2015? Carried off by some red-suited vagrant who snuck in on Christmas Eve. (Also snagged my sugar cookies and my bottle of Drambuie. Hope he got pulled over for impaired flying.)

Oddly, I seem to be the only person who doesn’t know where things are going. The Financial Times reports that “the ‘divergence’ between the economies of the US and the rest of the world … features in almost every 2015 outlook from Wall Street strategists.” Yves Kuhn, an investment strategist from Luxembourg, notes the “the biggest consensus by any margin is to be long dollar, short euro … I have never seen such a consensus in the market.” Barron’s December survey of economists and strategists: “the consensus is ‘stick with the bull.’” James Paulsen, allowed that “There’s some really, really strong Wall Street consensus themes right now” in favor of US stocks, the dollar and low interest rates.  

Of course, the equally universal consensus in January 2014 was for rising interest rates, soaring energy prices and a crash in the bond market.

Me? I got no clue. Here’s the best I got:

• Check to see if you’ve got a plan. If not, get one. Fund an emergency account. Start investing in a conservative fund for medium time horizon needs. Work through a sensible asset allocation plan for the long-term. It’s not as hard as you want to imagine it is.
• Pursue it with some discipline. Find a sustainable monthly contribution. Set your investments on auto-pilot. Move any windfalls – whether it’s a bonus or a birthday check – into your savings. If you get a raise (I’m cheering for you!), increase your savings to match.
• Try not to screw yourself. Again. Don’t second guess yourself. Don’t obsess about your portfolio. Don’t buy because it’s been going up and you’re feeling left out. Don’t sell because your manager is being patient and you aren’t.
• Try not to let other people screw you. Really, if your fund has a letter after its name, figure out why. It means you’re paying extra. Be sure you know what exactly you’re paying and why.
• Make yourself useful, ‘cause then you’ll also make yourself happy. Get in the habit of reading again. Books. You know: the dead tree things. There’s pretty good research suggesting that the e-versions disrupt sleep and addle your mind. Try just 30 minutes in the evening with the electronics shut down, perusing Sarah Bakewell’s How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer (2011) or Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (2012). Read it with someone you enjoy hugging. Upgrade your news consumption: listen to the Marketplace podcasts or programs. Swear you’ll never again watch a “news program” that has a ticker constantly distracting you with unexplained 10 word snippets that pretend to explain global events. Set up a recurring contribution to your local food bank (I’ll give you the link to mine if you can’t find your own), shelter (animal or otherwise), or cause. They need you and you need to get outside yourself, to reconnect to something more important than YouTube, your portfolio or your gripes.

For those irked by sermonettes, my senior colleague has been reflecting on the question of what lessons we might draw from the markets of 2014 and offers a far more nuanced take in …

Reflections – 2014

By Edward Studzinski

The Mountains are High, and the Emperor is Far, Far Away

Chinese Aphorism

Year-end 2014 presents investors with a number of interesting conundrums. For a U.S. dollar investor, the domestic market, as represented by the S&P 500, provided a total return of 13.6%, at least for those invested in it by the proxy of Vanguard’s S&P 500 Index Fund Admiral Shares. Just before Christmas, John Authers of the Financial Times, in a piece entitled “Investment: Loser’s Game” argued that this year, with more than 90% of active managers on track to underperform their benchmarks, a tipping point may have finally been reached. The exodus of money from actively managed funds has accelerated. Vanguard is on track to take in close to $200B (yes, billion) into its passive funds this year.

And yet, I have to ask if it really matters. As I watch the postings on the Mutual Fund Observer’s discussion board, I suspect that achieving better than average investment performance is not what motivates many of our readers. Rather, there is a Walter Mittyesque desire to live vicariously through their portfolios. And every bon mot that Bill (take your pick, there are a multitude of them) or Steve or Michael or Bob drops in a print or televised interview is latched on to as a reaffirmation the genius and insight to invest early on with one of The Anointed. The disease exists in a related form at the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Circus in Omaha. Sooner or later, in an elevator or restaurant, you will hear a discussion of when that person started investing with Warren and how much money they have made. The reality is usually less that we would like to know or admit, as my friend Charles has pointed out in his recent piece about the long-term performance of his investments.

Rather than continuing to curse the darkness, let me light a few candles.

1. When are index funds appropriate for an investment program? For most of middle America, I am hard pressed to think of when they are not. They are particularly important for those individuals who are not immortal. You may have constructed a wonderful portfolio of actively-managed funds. Unfortunately, if you pass away suddenly, your spouse or family may find that they have neither the time nor the interest to devote to those investments that you did. And that assumes a static environment (no personnel changes) in the funds you are invested in, and that the advisors you have selected, if any, will follow your lead. But surprise – if you are dead, often not at the time of your choice, you cannot control things from the hereafter. Sit in trust investment committee meetings as I did for many years, and what you will most likely hear is – “I don’t care what old George wanted – that fund is not on our approved list and to protect ourselves, we should sell it, regardless of its performance or the tax consequences.”
2. How many mutual funds should one own? The interplay here is diversification and taxes. I suspect this year will prove a watershed event as investors find that their actively-managed fund has generated a huge tax bill for them while not beating its respective benchmark, or perhaps even losing money. The goal should probably be to own fewer than ten in a family unit, including individual and retirement investments. The right question to ask is why you invested in a particular fund to begin with. If you can’t remember, or the reason no longer applies, move on. In particular, retirement and 401(k) assets should be consolidated down to a smaller number of funds as you get older. Ideally they should be low cost, low expense funds. This can be done relatively easily by use of trustee to trustee transfers. And forget target date funds – they are a marketing gimmick, predicated on life expectancies not changing.
3. Don’t actively managed funds make sense in some circumstances? Yes, but you really have to do a lot of due diligence, probably more than most investment firms will let you do. Just reading the Morningstar write-ups will not cut it. I think there will be a time when actively-managed value funds will be the place to be, but we need a massive flush-out of the industry to occur first, followed by fear overcoming greed in the investing public. At that point we will probably get more regulation (oh for the days of Franklin Roosevelt putting Joe Kennedy in charge of the SEC, figuring that sometimes it makes sense to have the fox guarding the hen house).
4. Passive funds are attractive because of low expenses, and the fact that you don’t need to worry about managers departing or becoming ill. What should one look for in actively-managed funds? The simple answer is redundancy. Dodge and Cox is an ideal example, with all of their funds managed by reasonably-sized committees of very experienced investment personnel. And while smaller shops can argue that they have back-up and succession planning, often that is marketing hype and illusion rather than reality. I still remember a fund manager more than ten years ago telling me of a situation where a co-manager had been named to a fund in his organization. The CIO told him that it was to make the Trustees happy, giving the appearance of succession planning. But the CIO went on to say that if something ever happened to lead manager X, co-manager Y would be off the fund by sundown since Y had no portfolio management experience. Since learning such things is difficult from the outside, stick to the organizations where process and redundancy are obvious. Tweedy, Browne strikes me as another organization that fits the bill. Those are not meant as recommendations but rather are intended to give you some idea of what to look for in kicking tires and asking questions.

A few final thoughts – a lot of hedge funds folded in 2014, mainly for reasons of performance. I expect that trend to spread to mutual funds in 2015, especially those that are at best marginally profitable. Some of this is a function of having the usual acquiring firms (or stooges, as one investment banker friend calls them) – the Europeans – absent from the merger and acquisition trail. Given the present relationship of the dollar and the Euro, I don’t expect that trend to change soon. But I also expect funds to close just because the difficulty of outperforming in a world where events, to paraphrase Senator Warren, are increasingly rigged, is almost impossible. In a world of instant gratification, that successful active management is as much an art as a science should be self-evident. There is something in the process of human interaction which I used to refer to as complementary organizational dysfunction that produces extraordinary results, not easily replicable. And it involves more than just investment selection on the basis of reversion to the mean.

One example of genius would be Thomas Jefferson, dining alone, or Warren Buffet, sitting in his office, reading annual reports.  A different example would be the 1927 Yankees or the Fidelity organization of the 1980’s. In retrospect what made them great is easy to see. My advice to people looking for great active management today – look for organizations without self-promotion, where individuals do not seek out to be the new “It Girl” and where the organizations focus on attracting curious people with inquiring but disciplined minds, so that there ends up being a creative, dynamic tension. Avoid organizations that emphasize collegiality and consensus. In closing, let me remind you of that wonderful scene where Orson Welles, playing Harry Lime in The Third Man says,

… in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love – they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock.

Where In The World Is Your Fund Adviser?

When our esteemed colleague Ed Studzinski shares his views on an adviser or fund house, he invariably mentions location.

I’ve started to take notice.

Any place but Wall Street
Some fund advisers seem to identify themselves with their location. Smead Capital Management, Inc., which manages Smead Value Fund (SMVLX), states: ”Our compass bearings are slightly Northwest of Wall Street…” The firm is headquartered in Seattle.

SMVLX is a 5-year Great Owl sporting top quintile performance over the past 5-, 3-, and even 1-year periods (ref. Ratings Definitions):

Bill Smead believes the separation from Wall Street gives his firm an edge.

Legendary value investor Bruce Berkowitz, founder of Fairholme Capital Management, LLC seems to agree. Fortune reported that he moved the firm from New Jersey to Florida in 2006 in order to … ”put some space between himself and Wall Street … no matter where he went in town, he was in danger of running into know-it-all investors who might pollute his thinking. ’I had to get away,’ he says.”

In 2002, Charles Akre of Akre Capital Management, LLC, located his firm in Middleburg, Virginia. At that time, he was sub-advising Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co.’s FBR Focus Fund, an enormously successful fund. The picturesque town is in horse country. Since 2009, the firm’s Akre Focus Fund (AKREX/AKRIX) is a top-quintile performer and another 5-year Great Owl:

Perhaps location does matter?

Tales of intrigue and woe
Unfortunately, determining an adviser’s actual work location is not always so apparent. Sometimes it appears downright labyrinthine, if not Byzantine.

Take Advisors Preferred, LLC. Below is a snapshot of the firm’s contact page. There is no physical address. No discernable area code. Yet, it is the named adviser for several funds with assets under management (AUM) totaling half a billion dollars, including Hundredfold Select Alternative (SFHYX) and OnTrack Core Fund (OTRFX).

Advisors Preferred turns out to be a legal entity that provides services for sub-advisers who actually manage client money without having to hassle with administrative stuff … an “adviser” if you will by name only … an “Adviser for Hire.” To find addresses of the sub-advisers to these funds you must look to the SEC required fund documents, the prospectus or the statement of additional information (SAI).

Hunderfold Funds is sub-advised by Hunderfold Funds, LLC, which gives its sub-advisory fees to the Simply Distribute Charitable Foundation. Actually, the charity appears to own the sub-adviser. Who controls the charity? The people that control Spectrum Financial Inc., which is located, alas, in Virginia.

The SAI also reveals that the fund’s statutory trust is not administered by the adviser, Advisors Preferred, but by Gemini Funds Services, LLC. The trust itself is a so-called shared or “series trust” comprised of independent funds. Its name is Northern Lights Fund Trust II. (Ref. SEC summary.) The trust is incorporated in Delaware, like many statutory trusts, while Gemini is headquartered in New York.

Why use a series trust? According to Gemini, it’s cheaper. “Rising business costs along with the increased level of regulatory compliance … have magnified the benefits of joining a shared trust in contrast to the expenses associated with registering a standalone trust.”

How does Hundredfold pass this cost savings on to investors? SFHYX’s latest fact sheet shows a 3.80% expense ratio. This fee is not a one-time load or performance based; it is an annual expense.

OnTrack Funds is sub-advised by Price Capital Management, Inc, which is located in Florida. Per the SEC Filing, it actually is run out of a residence. Its latest fact sheet has the expense ratio for OTRFX at 2.95%, annually. With $130M AUM, this expense translates to $3.85M per year paid by investors the people at Price Capital (sub adviser), Gemini Funds (administrator), Advisors Preferred (adviser), Ceros Financial (distributer), and others.

What about the adviser itself, Advisors Preferred? It’s actually controlled by Ceros Financial Services, LLC, which is headquartered in Maryland. Ceros is wholly-owned by Ceros Holding AG, which is 95% owned by Copiaholding AG, which is wholly-owned by Franz Winklbauer.  Mr. Winklbauer is deemed to indirectly control the adviser. In 2012, Franz Winklbauer resigned as vice president of the administrative board from Ceros Holding AG. Copiaholding AG was formed in Switzerland.

Which is to say … who are all these people?

Where do they really work?

And, what do they really do?

Maybe these are related questions.

If it’s hard to figure out where advisers work, it’s probably hard to figure out what they actually do for the investors that pay them.

Guilty by affiliation
Further obfuscating adviser physical location is industry trend toward affiliation, if not outright consolidation. Take Affiliated Managers Group, or more specifically AMG Funds LLC, whose main office location is Connecticut, as registered with the SEC. It currently is the named adviser to more than 40 mutual funds with assets under management (AUM) totaling $42B, including:

• Managers Intermediate Duration Govt (MGIDX), sub advised by Amundi Smith Breeden LLC, located in North Carolina,
• Yacktman Service (YACKX), sub advised by Yacktman Asset Management, L.P. of Texas, and
• Brandywine Blue (BLUEX), sub advised by Friess Associates of Delaware, LLC, located in Delaware (fortunately) and Friess Associates LLC, located in Wyoming.

All of these funds are in process of being rebranded with the AMG name. No good deed goes unpunished?

AMG, Inc., the corporation that controls AMG Funds and is headquartered in Massachusetts, has minority or majority ownership in many other asset managers, both in the US and aboard. Below is a snapshot of US firms now “affiliated” with AMG. Note that some are themselves named advisers with multiple sub-advisers, like Aston.

AMG describes its operation as follows: “While providing our Affiliates with continued operational autonomy, we also help them to leverage the benefits of AMG’s scale in U.S. retail and global product distribution, operations and technology to enhance their growth and capabilities.”

Collectively, AMG boasts more than $600B in AUM. Time will tell whether its affiliates become controlled outright and re-branded, and more importantly, whether such affiliation ultimately benefits investors. It currently showcases full contact information of its affiliates, and affiliates like Aston showcase contact information of its sub-advisers.

Bottom line
Is Bill Smead correct when he claims separation from Wall Street gives his firm an edge? Does location matter to performance? Whether location influences fund performance remains an interesting question, but as part of your due diligence, there should be no confusion about knowing where your fund adviser (and sub-adviser) works.

Closing the capital gains season and thinking ahead

This fall Mark Wilson has launched Cap Gains Valet to help investors track and understand capital gains distributions. In addition to being Chief Valet, Mark is chief investment officer for The Tarbox Group in Newport Beach, CA. He is, they report, “one of only four people in the nation that has both the Certified Financial Planner® and Accredited Pension Administrator (APA) designations.” As the capital gains season winds down, we asked Mark if he’d put on his CIO hat for a minute and tell us what sense an investor should make of it all. Yeah, lots of folks got hammered in 2014 but that’s past. What, we asked, about 2015 and how we act in the year ahead? Here are Mark’s valedictory comments:

As 2014 comes to a close, so does capital gains season. After two straight months thinking about capital gains distributions for CapGainsValet.com, it is a great time for me to reflect on the website’s inaugural year.

At The Tarbox Group (my real job), our firm has been formally gathering capital gains estimates for the mutual funds and ETFs we use in client accounts for over 20 years. Strategizing around these distributions has been part of our year-end activities for so long I did not expect to learn much from gathering and making this information available. I was wrong. Here are some of the things I learned (or learned again) from this project:

• Checking capital gains estimates more than once is a good idea. I’m sure this has happened before, but this year we saw a number of funds “up” their estimates a more than once before their actual distribution date. Given that a handful of distributions doubled from their initial estimates, it is possible that having this more up-to-date information might necessitate a different strategy.
• Many mutual fund websites are terrible. Given the dollars managed and fees fund companies are collecting, there is no reason to have a website that looks like a bad elementary school project. Not having easily accessible capital gains estimates is excusable, but not having timely commentary, performance information, or contact information is not.
• Be wary of funds that have a shrinking asset base. This year I counted over 50 funds that distributed more than 20% of their NAV. The most common reason for the large distributions… funds that have fallen out of favor and have had huge redemptions. Unfortunately, shareholders that stick around often get stuck with the tax bill.
• Asset location is important. We found ourselves saying “good thing we own that in an IRA!” more than once this year. Owning actively managed funds in tax deferred accounts reduces stress, extra work and tax bills. Deciding which account to hold your fund can be as important a decision as which fund to hold.

CapGainsValet is “going dark” this week. Be on the lookout for our return in October or November. In the meantime, have a profitable 2015!

Fund companies explain their massive taxable distributions to us

Well, actually, most of them don’t.

I had the opportunity to chat with Jason Zweig as he prepared his year end story on how to make sense out of the recent state of huge capital gains distributions. In preparing in advance of my talk with Jason, I spent a little time gettin’ granular. I used Mark Wilson’s site to track down the funds with the most extraordinary distributions.

Cap Gains Valet identified a sort of “dirty dozen” of funds that paid out 30% or more of their NAV as taxable distributions. “Why on earth,” we innocently asked ourselves, “would they do that?” So we started calling and asking. In general, we discovered that fund advisers reacted to the question about the same way that you react to the discovery of curdled half-and-half in your coffee: with a wrinkled nose and irritated expression.

For those of you who haven’t been following the action, here’s our cap gains primer:

Capital gains are profits that result from the sales of appreciated securities in a portfolio. They come in two flavors: long-term capital gains, which result from the sale of stocks the fund has held for a while, and short-term gain gains, which usually result for the bad practice of churning the portfolio.

Even funds which have lost a lot of money can hit you with a capital gains tax bill. A fund might be down 40% year-to-date and if the only shares it sold were the Google shares it wangled at Google’s 2004 IPO, you could be hit with a tax bill for a large gain.

Two things trigger large taxable distributions: a new portfolio manager or portfolio strategy which requires cleaning out the old portfolio or forced redemptions because shareholders are bolting and the manager needs to sell stuff – often his best and most liquid stuff – to meet redemptions.

So, how did this Dirty Dozen make the list?

Neuberger Berman Large Cap Disciplined Growth (NBCIX, 53% distribution). I had a nice conversation with Neil Groom for Neuberger Berman. He was pretty clear about the problem: “we’ve struggled with performance,” and over 75% of the fund shares have been redeemed. The manager liquidates shares pro rata – that is, he sells them all down evenly – and “there are just no losses to offset those sales.” Neuberger is now underwriting the fund’s expenses to the tune of $300,000/year but remains committed to it for a couple reasons. One is that they see it as a core investment product. And the other is that the fund has had long winning streaks and long losing streaks in the past, both of which they view as a product of their discipline rather than as a failing by their manager.

We reached out to the folks at Russell LifePoints 2040 Strategy (RXLAX, 35% distribution) and Russell LifePoints 2050 Strategy (RYLRX, 33% distribution): after getting past the “what does it matter? These funds are held in tax-deferred retirement accounts” response – why is true but still doesn’t answer the question “why did this happen to you and not all target-date funds?” Russell’s Kate Stouffer reported that the funds “realized capital gains in 2014 predominantly as a result of the underlying fund reallocation that took place in August 2014.” The accompanying link showed Russell punting two weak Russell funds for two newly-launched Russell funds overseen by the same managers.

Turner Emerging Growth (TMCGX, 48% distribution), Midcap Growth (TMGFX, 42% distribution) and Small Cap Growth (TSCEX, 54% distribution): I called Turner directly and bounced around a bit before being told that “we don’t speak to the media. You’ll need to contact our media relations firm.” Suh-weet! I did. They promised to make some inquiries. Two weeks later, still no word. Two of the three funds have changed managers in the past year and Turner has seen a fair amount of asset outflows, which together might explain the problem.

Janus Forty (JDCAX, 33% distribution): about a half billion in outflows, a net loss in assets of about 75% from its peak plus a new manager in mid-2013 who might be reshaping the portfolio.

Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value (EHSTX, 29% distribution): new lead manager in mid-2014 plus an 80% decline in assets since 2010 led to it.

Nationwide HighMark Large Cap Growth (NWGLX, 42% distribution): another tale of mass redemption. The fund had $73 million in assets as of July 2013 when a new co-manager was added. The fund rose since then, but a lot less than its peers or its benchmark, investors decamped and the fund ended up with $40 million in December 2014.

Nuveen NWQ Large-Cap Value (NQCAX, 47% distribution) has been suffering mass redemptions – assets were $1.3 billion in mid-2013, $700 million in mid-2014, and $275 million at year’s end. The fund also had weak and inconsistent returns: bottom 10% of its peer group for the past 1, 3 and 5 years and far below average – about a 20% return over the current market cycle as compared to 38% for its large cap value peers – despite a couple good years.

Wells Fargo Small Cap Opportunities (NVSOX, 41% distribution) has a splendid record, low volatility, a track record for reasonably low payouts, a stable management team … and crashing assets. The fund held $700 million in October 2013, $470 million in March 2014 and $330 million in December 2014. With investment minimums of $1 million (Administrative share class) and $5 million (Institutional), the best we can say is that it’s nice to see rich people being stupid, too.

A couple of these funds are, frankly, bad. Most are mediocre. And a couple are really good but, seemingly, really unlucky. For investors in taxable accounts, their fate highlights an ugly reality: your success can be undermined by the behavior of your funds’ other investors. You really don’t want to be the last one out the door, which means you need to understand when others are heading out.

Hear “it’s a stock-pickers market”? Run quick … away

Not from the market necessarily, but from any dim bulb whose insight is limited not only by the need to repeat what others have said, but to repeat the dumbest things that others have said.

“Active management is oversold.” Run!

“Passive investing makes no sense to us or to our investors.” Run faster!

Ted, the discussion board’s indefatigable Linkster, pointed us at Henry Blodget’s recent essay “14 Meaningless Phrases That Will Make You Sound Like A Stock-Market Wizard” at his Business Insider site.  Yes, that Henry Blodget: the poster child for duplicitous stock “analysis” who was banned for life from the securities industry. He also had to “disgorge” $2 million in profits, a process that might or might not have involved a large bucket. In any case, he knows whereof he speaks.)  He pokes fun at “the trend is your friend” (phrased differently it would be “follow the herd, that’s always a wise course”) and “it’s a stockpicker’s market,” among other canards.

Chip, the Observer’s tech-crazed tech director, appreciated Blodget’s attempt but recommends an earlier essay: “Stupid Things Finance People Say” by Morgan Housel of Motley Fool. Why? “They cover the same ground. The difference is the he’s actually funny.”

Hmmm …

Blodget: “It’s not a stock market. It’s a market of stocks.” It sounds deeply profound — the sort of wisdom that can be achieved only through decades of hard work and experience. It suggests the speaker understands the market in a way that the average schmo doesn’t. It suggests that the speaker, who gets that the stock market is a “market of stocks,” will coin money while the average schmo loses his or her shirt.

Housel: “Earnings were positive before one-time charges.” This is Wall Street’s equivalent of, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

Blodget: “I’m cautiously optimistic.” A classic. Can be used in almost all circumstances and market conditions … It implies wise, prudent caution, but also a sunny outlook, which most people like.

Housel: “We’re cautiously optimistic.” You’re also an oxymoron.

Blodget: “Stocks are down on ‘profit taking.” …It sounds like you know what professional traders are doing, which makes you sound smart and plugged in. It doesn’t commit you to a specific recommendation or prediction. If the stock or market goes down again tomorrow, you can still have been right about the “profit taking.” If the stock or market goes up tomorrow, you can explain that traders are now “bargain hunting” (the corollary). Whether the seller is “taking a profit” — and you have no way of knowing — the buyer is at the same time placing a new bet on the stock. So collectively describing market activity as “profit taking” is ridiculous.

Housel: “The Dow is down 50 points as investors react to news of [X].” Stop it, you’re just making stuff up. “Stocks are down and no one knows why” is the only honest headline in this category.

Your pick.  Or try both for the same price!

Alternately, if you’re looking to pick up hot chicks as well as hot picks at your next Wall Street soiree, The Financial Times helpfully offered up “Strategist’s icebreakers serve up the season’s party from hell” (12/27/2014). They recommend chucking out the occasional “What’s all the fuss about the central banks?” Or you might try the cryptic, “Inflation isn’t keeping me up at night — for now.”

Top developments in fund industry litigation

Fundfox, launched in 2012, is the mutual fund industry’s only litigation intelligence service, delivering exclusive litigation information and real-time case documents neatly organized and filtered as never before. For a complete list of developments last month, and for information and court documents in any case, log in at www.fundfox.com and navigate to Fundfox Insider.

New Lawsuit

• The plaintiff in existing fee litigation regarding ten Russell funds filed a new complaint, covering a different damages period, that additionally adds a new section 36(b) claim for excessive administrative fees. (McClure v. Russell Inv. Mgmt. Co.)

Orders

• The court consolidated ERISA lawsuits regarding “stable value funds” offered by J.P. Morgan to 401(k) plan participants. (In re J.P. Morgan Stable Value Fund ERISA Litig.)
• The court preliminarily approved a $9.475 million settlement of an ERISA class action that challenged MassMutual‘s receipt of revenue-sharing payments from unaffiliated mutual funds. (Golden Star, Inc. v. Mass Mut. Life Ins. Co.)
• The court gave its final approval to the $22.5 million settlement of Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA litigation. Plaintiffs had alleged that defendants imprudently caused and permitted retirement plans to invest in (1) Regions common stock (“despite the dire financial problems facing the Company”), (2) certain bond funds (“heavily and imprudently concentrated and invested in high-risk structured finance products”), and (3) the RMK Select Funds (“despite the fact that they incurred unreasonably expensive fees and were selected . . . solely to benefit Regions”). (In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litig.)

Briefs

• The plaintiff filed a reply brief in her appeal to the Eighth Circuit regarding gambling-related securities held by the American Century Ultra Fund. Defendants include independent directors. (Seidl v. Am. Century Cos.)
• In the ERISA class action alleging that TIAA-CREF failed to honor redemption and transfer requests in a timely fashion, the plaintiff filed her opposition to TIAA-CREF’s motion to dismiss. (Cummings v. TIAA-CREF.)

Amended Complaints

• Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the consolidated fee litigation regarding the Davis N.Y. Venture Fund: “The investment advisory fee rate charged to the Fund is as much as 96% higher than the rates negotiated at arm’s length by Davis with other clients for the same or substantially the same investment advisory services.” (In re Davis N.Y. Venture Fund Fee Litig.)
• Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the consolidated fee litigation regarding the Harbor International and and High-Yield Bond Funds: “Defendant charges investment advisory fees to each of the Funds that include a mark-up of more than 80% over the fees paid by Defendant to the Subadvisers who provide substantially all of the investment advisory services required by the Funds.” (Zehrer v. Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc.)

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and news from DailyAlts.

By Brian Haskins, editor of DailyAlts.com

As they say out here in Hollywood, that’s a wrap. Now we can close the books on 2014 and take a look at some of the trends that emerged over the year, and make a few projections about what might be in store for 2015. So let’s jump in.

Early in 2014, it was clear that assets were flowing strongly into liquid alternatives, with twelve-month growth rates hovering around 40% for most of the first half of the year. While the growth rates declined as the year went on, it was clear that 2014 was a real turning point in both asset growth and new fund launches. In total, more than $26 billion of net new assets flowed into the category over the past twelve months.

Three of the categories that garnered the most new asset flows were non-traditional bonds, long/short equity and multi-alternative strategies. Each of these makes sense, as follows:

• Non-traditional bonds provide a hedge against a rise in interest rates, so investors naturally were looking for a way to avoid what was initially thought to be a sure thing in 2014 – rising rates. As we know, that turned not to be the case, and instead we saw a fairly steady decline in rates over the year. Nonetheless, investors who flowed into these funds should be well positioned should rates rise in 2015.
• On the equity side, long/short equity provides a hedge against a decline in the equity markets, and here again investors looked to position their portfolios more conservatively given the long bull run. As a result, long/short equity funds saw strong inflows for most of the year with the exception of the $11.9 billion MainStay Marketfield Fund (MFLDX) which experienced more than $5 billion of outflows over eight straight months on the back of a difficult performance period. As my old boss would say, they have gone from the penthouse to the doghouse. But with nearly $12 billion remaining in the fund and a 1.39% management fee, their doghouse probably isn’t too bad.
• Finally, investors favored multi-alternative funds steadily during the year. These funds provide an easy one-stop-shop for making an allocation to alternatives, and for many investors and financial advisors, these funds are a solid solution since they package multiple alternative investment strategies into one fund. I would expect to see multi-alternative funds continue to play a dominant role in portfolios over the next few years while the industry becomes more comfortable with evaluating and allocating to single strategy funds.

Now that the year has come to a close, we can take a step back and look at 2014 from a big picture perspective. Here are five key trends that I saw emerge over the year:

1. The conversion of hedge funds into mutual funds – This is an interesting trend that will likely continue, and gain even more momentum in 2015. There are a few reasons why this is likely. First, raising assets in hedge funds has become more difficult over the past five years. Institutional investors allocate a bulk of their assets to well-known hedge fund managers, and performance isn’t the top criteria for making the allocations. Second, investing in hedge funds involves the review of a lot of non-standard paperwork, including fee agreements and other terms. This creates a high barrier to entry for smaller investors. Thus, the mutual fund vehicle is a much easier product to use for gathering assets with smaller investors in both the retail and institutional channels. As a result, we will see many more hedge fund conversions in the coming years. Third, the track record and the assets of a hedge fund are portable over to a mutual fund. This gives new mutual funds that convert from a hedge fund a head start over all other new funds.
2. The re-emergence of managed futures funds – A divergence in global economic policies among central banks created more opportunities for managers that look for asset prices that move in opposite directions. Managed futures managers do just that, and 2014 proved to be the first year in many where they were able to put positive, double digit returns on the board. It is likely that 2015 will be another solid year for these strategies as strong price trends will likely continue with global interest rates, currencies, commodity prices and other assets over the year.
3. More well-known hedge fund managers are getting into the liquid alternatives business – It’s hard to resist strong asset flows if you are an asset manager, and as discussed above, the asset flows into liquid alternatives have been strong. And expectations are that they will continue to be strong. So why wouldn’t a decent hedge fund manager want to get in the game and diversify their business away from institutional and high net worth assets. Some of the top hedge fund managers are recognizing this and getting into the space, and as more do, it will become even more acceptable for those who haven’t.
4. A continued increase in the use of alternative beta strategies, and the introduction of more complex alternative beta funds – Alternative beta (or smart beta) strategies give investors exposure to specific “factors” that have otherwise not been easy to obtain historically. With the introduction of alternative beta funds, investors can now fine tune their portfolio with specific allocations to low or high volatility stocks, high yielding stocks, high momentum stocks, high or low quality stocks, etc. A little known secret is that factor exposures have historically explained more of an active manager’s excess returns (returns above a benchmark) than individual stock selection. With the advent of alternative beta funds in both the mutual fund and ETF format, investors have the ability to build more risk efficient portfolios or turn the knobs in ways they haven’t been able to in the past.
5. An increase in the number of alternative ETFs – While mutual funds have a lower barrier to entry for investors than hedge funds, ETFs are even more ubiquitous. Nearly every ETF can be purchased in nearly every brokerage account. Not so for mutual funds. The biggest barrier to seeing more alternative ETFs has historically been the fact that most alternative strategies are actively managed. This is slowly changing as more systematic “hedge fund” approaches are being developed, along with alternative ETFs that invest in other ETFs to gain their underlying long and short market exposures. Expect to see this trend continue in 2015.

There is no doubt that 2015 will bring some surprises, but by definition we don’t know what those are today. We will keep you posted as the year progresses, and in the meantime, Happy New Year and all the best for a prosperous 2015!

Observer Fund Profiles:

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

RiverPark Large Growth (RPXFX/RPXIX): it’s a discipline that works. Find the forces that will consistently drive growth in the years ahead.  Do intense research to identify great firms that are best positioned to reap enduring gains from them. Wait. Wait. Wait. Then buy them when they’re cheap. It’s worked well, except for that pesky “get investors to notice” piece.

River Park Large Growth Conference Call Highlights

On December 17th we spoke for an hour with Mitch Rubin, manager of RiverPark Large Growth (RPXFX/RPXIX), Conrad van Tienhoven, his long-time associate, and Morty Schaja, CEO of RiverPark Funds. About 20 readers joined us on the call.

Here’s a brief recap of the highlights:

• The managers have 20 years’ experience running growth portfolios, originally with Baron Asset Management and now with RiverPark. That includes eight mutual funds and a couple hedge funds.
• Across their portfolios, the strategy has been the same: identify long-term secular trends that are likely to be enduring growth drivers, do really extensive fundamental research on the firm and its environment, and be patient before buying (the target is paying less than 15-times earnings for companies growing by 20% or more) or selling (which is mostly just rebalancing within the portfolio rather than eliminating names from the portfolio).
• In the long term, the strategy works well. In the short term, sometimes less so. They argue for time arbitrage. Investors tend to underreact to changes which are strengthening firms. They’ll discount several quarters of improved performance before putting a stock on their radar screen, then may hesitate for a while longer before convincing themselves to act. By then, the stock may already have priced-in much of the potential gains. Rubin & co. try to track firms and industries long enough that they can identify the long-term winners and buy during their lulls in performance.

In the long term, the system works. The fund has returned 20% annually over the past three years. It’s four years old and had top decile performance in the large cap growth category after the first three years.

Then we spent rather a lot of time on the ugly part.

In relative terms, 2014 was wretched for the fund. The fund returned about 5.5% for the year, which meant it trailed 93% of its peers. It started the year with a spiffy five-star rating and ended with three. So, the question was, what happened?

Mitch’s answer was presented with, hmmm … great energy and conviction. There was a long stretch in there where I suspect he didn’t take a breath and I got the sense that he might have heard this question before. Still, his answer struck me as solid and well-grounded. In the short term, the time arbitrage discipline can leave them in the dust. In 2014, the fund was overweight in a number of underperforming arenas: energy E&P companies, gaming companies and interest rate victims.

• Energy firms: 13% of the portfolio, about a 2:1 overweight. Four high-quality names with underlevered balance sheets and exposure to the Marcellus shale deposits. Fortunately for consumers and unfortunately for producers, rising production, difficulties in selling US natural gas on the world market and weakening demand linked to a spillover from Russia’s travails have caused prices to crater.
  
  The fundamental story of rising demand for natural gas, abetted by better US access to the world energy market, is unchanged. In the interim, the portfolio companies are using their strong balance sheets to acquire assets on the cheap.

• Gaming firms: gaming in the US, with regards to Ol’ Blue Eyes and The Rat Pack, is the past. Gaming in Asia, they argue, is the future. The Chinese central government has committed to spending nearly a half trillion dollars on infrastructure projects, including $100 billion/year on access, in and around the gambling enclave of Macau. Chinese gaming (like hedge fund investing here) has traditionally been dominated by the ultra-rich, but gambling is culturally entrenched and the government is working to make it available to the mass affluent in China (much like liquid alt investing here). About 200 million Chinese travel abroad on vacation each year. On average, Chinese tourists spend a lot more in the casinos and a lot more in attendant high-end retail than do Western tourists. In the short term, President Xi’s anti-corruption campaign has precipitated “a vast purge” among his political opponents and other suspiciously-wealthy individuals. Until “the urge to purge” passes, high-rolling gamblers will be few and discreet. Middle class gamblers, not subject to such concerns, will eventually dominate. Just not yet.
• Interest rate victims: everyone knew, in January 2014, that interest rates were going to rise. Oops. Those continuingly low rates punish firms that hold vast cash stakes (think “Google” with its $50 billion bank account or Schwab with its huge network of money market accounts). While Visa and MasterCard’s stock is in the black for 2014, gains are muted by the lower rates they can charge on accounts and the lower returns on their cash flow.

Three questions came up:

• Dan Schein asked about the apparent tension between the managers’ commitment to a low turnover discipline and the reported 33-40% turnover rate. Morty noted that you need to distinguish between “name turnover” (that is, firms getting chucked out of the portfolio) and rebalancing. The majority of the fund’s turnover is simple internal rebalancing as the managers trim richly appreciated positions and add to underperforming ones. Name turnover is limited to two or three positions a year, with 70% of the names in the current portfolio having been there since inception.
• I asked about the extent of international exposure in the portfolio, which Morningstar reports at under 2%. Mitch noted that they far preferred to invest in firms operating under US accounting requirements (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and U.S. securities regulations, which made them far more reliable and transparent. On the other hand, the secular themes which the managers pursue (e.g., the rise of mobile computing) are global and so they favor U.S.-based firms with strong global presence. By their estimate, two thirds of the portfolio firms derive at least half of their earnings growth from outside the US and most of their firms derived 40-50% of earnings internationally; Priceline is about 75%, Google and eBay around 60%. Direct exposure to the emerging markets comes mainly from Visa and MasterCard, plus Schlumberger’s energy holdings.
• Finally I asked what concern they had about volatility in the portfolio. Their answer was that they couldn’t predict and didn’t worry about stock price volatility. They were concerned about what they referred to as “business case volatility,” which came down to the extent to which a firm could consistently generate free cash from recurring revenue streams (e.g., the fee MasterCard assesses on every point-of-sale transaction) without resorting to debt or leverage.

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

The RPXFX Conference Call

As with all of these funds, we’ve created a new Featured Funds page for RiverPark Large Growth Fund, pulling together all of the best resources we have for the fund.

Conference Calls Upcoming

We anticipate three conference calls in the next three months and we would be delighted by your company on each of them. We’re still negotiating dates with the managers, so for now we’ll limit ourselves to a brief overview and a window of time.

At base, we only do conference calls when we think we’ve found really interesting people for you to talk with. That’s one of the reasons we do only a few a year.

Here’s the prospective line-up for winter.

Bernard Horn is manager of Polaris Global Value (PGVFX) and sub-adviser to a half dozen larger funds. Mr. Horn is president of Polaris Capital Management, LLC, a Boston-based global and international value equity firm. Mr. Horn founded Polaris in 1995 and launched the Global Value Fund in 1998. Today, Polaris manages more than $5 billion for 30 clients include rich folks, institutions and mutual and hedge funds. There’s a nice bio of Mr. Horn at the Polaris Capital site.

Why talk with Mr. Horn? Three things led us to it. First, Polaris Global is really good and really small. After 16 years, it’s a four- to five-star fund with just $280 million in assets. He seems just a bit abashed by that (“we’re kind of bad at marketing”) but also intent on doing right for his shareholders rather than getting rich. Second, his small cap international fund (Pear Tree Polaris Foreign Value Small Cap QUSOX) is, if anything, better and it trawls the waters where active management actually has the greatest success. Finally, Ed and I have a great conversation with him in November. Ed and I are reasonably judgmental, reasonably well-educated and reasonably cranky. And still we came away from the conversation deeply impressed, as much by Mr. Horn’s reflections on his failures as much as by his successes. There’s a motto often misattributed to the 87 year old Michelangelo: Ancora imparo, “I am still learning.” We came away from the conversation with a sense that you might say the same about Mr. Horn.

Matthew Page and Ian Mortimer are co-managers of Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators (IWIRX) and Guinness Atkinson Dividend Builder (GAINX), both of which we’ve profiled in the past year. Dr. Mortimer is trained as a physicist, with a doctorate from Oxford. He began at Guinness as an analyst in 2006 and became a portfolio manager in 2011. Mr. Page (the friendly looking one over there->) earned a master’s degree in physics from Oxford and somehow convinced the faculty to let him do his thesis on finance: “Financial Markets as Complex Dynamical Systems.” Nice trick! He spent a year with Goldman Sachs, joined Guinness in 2005 and became a portfolio co-manager in 2006.

Why might you want to hear from the guys? At one level, they’re really successful. Five star rating on IWIRX, great performance in 2014 (also 2012 and 2013), laughably low downside capture over those three years (almost all of their volatility is to the upside), and a solid, articulated portfolio discipline. In 2014, Lipper recognized IWIRX has the best global equity fund of the preceding 15 years and they still can’t attract investors. It’s sort of maddening. Part of the problem might be the fact that they’re based in London, which makes relationship-building with US investors a bit tough. At another level, like Mr. Horn, I’ve had great conversations with the guys. They’re good listeners, sharp and sometimes witty. I enjoyed the talks and learned from them.

David Berkowitz will manage the new RiverPark Focused Value Fund once it launches at the end of March. Mr. Berkowitz earned both a bachelor’s and master’s degree in chemical engineering at MIT before getting an MBA at that other school in Cambridge. In 1992, Mr. Berkowitz and his Harvard classmate William Ackman set up the Gotham Partners hedge fund, which drew investments from legendary investors such as Seth Klarman, Michael Steinhardt and Whitney Tilson. Berkowitz helped manage the fund until 2002, when they decided to close the fund, and subsequently managed money for a New York family office, the Festina Lente hedge fund (hmmm … “Make haste slowly,” the family motto of the Medicis among others) and for Ziff Brother Investments, where he was a Partner as well as the Chief Risk and Strategy Officer. He’s had an interesting, diverse career and Mr. Schaja speaks glowingly of him. We’re hopeful of speaking with Mr. Berkowitz in March.

Would you like to join in?

It’s very simple. In February we’ll post exact details about the time and date plus a registration link for each call. The calls cost you nothing, last exactly one hour and will give you the chance to ask the managers a question if you’re so moved. It’s a simple phone call with no need to have access to a tablet, wifi or anything.

Alternately, you can join the conference call notification list. One week ahead of each call we’ll email you a reminder and a registration link.

Launch Alert: Cambria Global Momentum & Global Asset Allocation

Cambria Funds recently launched two ETFs, as promised by its CIO Mebane Faber, who wants to “disrupt the traditional high fee mutual fund and hedge fund business, mostly through launching ETFs.” The line-up is now five funds with assets under management totaling more than $350M:

• Cambria Shareholder Yield ETF (SYLD)
• Cambria Foreign Shareholder Yield ETF (FYLD)
• Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL)
• Cambria Global Momentum ETF (GMOM)
• Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF (GAA)

We wrote about the first three in “The Existential Pleasures of Engineering Beta” this past May. SYLD is now the largest actively managed ETF among the nine categories in Morningstar’s equity fund style box (small value to large growth). It’s up 12% this year and 32% since its inception May 2013.

GMOM and GAA are the two newest ETFs. Both are fund of funds.

GMOM is based on Mebane’s definitive paper “A Quantitative Approach To Tactical Asset Allocation” and popular book “The Ivy Portfolio: How to Invest Like the Top Endowments and Avoid Bear Markets.” It appears to be an in-house version of AdvisorShares Cambria Global Tactical ETF (GTAA), which Cambria stopped sub-advising this past June. Scott, a frequent and often profound contributor to our discussion board, describes GTAA in one word: “underwhelming.” (You can find follow some of the debate here.) The new version GMOM sports a much lower expense ratio, which can only help. Here is link to fact sheet.

GAA is something pretty cool. It is an all-weather strategic asset allocation fund constructed for global exposure across diverse asset classes, but with lower volatility than your typical long term target allocation fund. It is a “one fund for a lifetime” offering. (See DailyAlts “Meb Faber on the Genesis of Cambria’s Global Tactical ETF.”) It is the first ETF to have a permanent 0% management fee. Its annual expense ratio is 0.29%. From its prospectus:

Here’s is link to fact sheet, and below is snapshot of current holdings:

In keeping with the theme that no good deed goes unpunished. Chuck Jaffe referenced GAA in his annual “Lump of Coal Awards” series. Mr. Jaffe warned “investors should pay attention to the total expense ratio, because that’s what they actually pay to own a fund or ETF.” Apparently, he was irked that the media focused on the zero management fee. We agree that it was pretty silly of reporters, members of Mr. Jaffe’s brotherhood, to focus so narrowly on a single feature of the fund and at the same time celebrate the fact that Mr. Faber’s move lowers the expenses that investors would otherwise bear.

Launch Alert: ValueShares International Quantitative Value

Wesley Gray announced the launch of ValueShares International Quantitative Value ETF (IVAL) on 19 December, his firm’s second active ETF. IVAL is the international sister to ValueShares Quantitative Value ETF (QVAL), which MFO profiled in December. Like QVAL, IVAL seeks the cheapest, highest quality value stocks … within the International domain. These stocks are selected in quant fashion based on value and quality criteria grounded in investing principles first outlined by Ben Graham and validated empirically through academic research.

The concentrated portfolio currently invests in 50 companies across 14 countries. Here’s breakout:

As with QVAL, there is no sector diversification constraint or, in this case, country constraint. Japan dominates current portfolio. Once candidate stocks pass the capitalization, liquidity, and quality screens, value is king.

Notice too no Russia or Brazil.

Wesley explains: “We only trade in liquid tradeable names where front-running issues are minimized. We also look at the custodian costs. Russia and Brazil are insane on both the custodial costs and the frontrunning risks so we don’t trade ’em. In the end, we’re trading in developed/developing markets. Frontier/emerging don’t meet our criteria.”

Here is link to IVAL overview. Dr. Gray informs us that the new fund’s expense ratio has just been reduced by 20bps to 0.79%.

Launch Alert: Pear Tree Polaris Small Cap Fund (USBNX/QBNAX)

On January 1, a team from Polaris Capital assumed control of the former Pear Tree Columbia Small Cap Fund, which has now been rechristened. For the foreseeable future, the fund’s performance record will bear the imprint of the departed Columbia team.  The Columbia team had been in place since the middle 1990s and the fund has, for years, been a study in mediocrity.  We mean that in the best possible way: it rarely cratered, it rarely soared and it mostly trailed the pack by a bit. By Morningstar’s calculation, the compounding effect of almost always losing by a little ended up being monumental: the fund trailed more than 90% of its peers for the past 1, 3, 5, and 10 year periods while trailing two-thirds over them over the past 15 years.

Which is to say, your statistical screens are not going to capture the fund’s potential going forward.

We think you should look at the fund, and hope to ask Mr. Horn about it on a conference call with him.  Here are the three things you need to know about USNBX if you’re in the market for a small cap fund:

• The management team here also runs Pear Tree Polaris Foreign Value Small Cap Fund (QUSOX / QUSIX) which has earned both five stars from Morningstar and a Great Owl designation from the Observer.
• The new subadvisory agreement pays Polaris 20 basis points less than Columbia received, which will translate into lower expenses that investors pay.
• The portfolio will be mostly small cap ($100 million – $5 billion) US stocks but they’ve got a global watch-list of 500 names which are candidates for inclusion and they have the ability to hedge the portfolio. The foreign version of the fund has been remarkable in its ability to manage risk: they typically capture one-third as much downside risk as their peers while capturing virtually all of the upside.

The projected expense ratio is 1.44%. The minimum initial investment is $2500, reduced to $1000 for tax-advantaged accounts and for those set up with an automatic investing plan. Pear Tree has not, as of January 1, updated the fund’s webpage is reflect the change but you should consider visiting Pear Tree’s homepage next week to see what they have to say about the upgrade.  We’ll plan profiles of both funds in the months ahead.

Funds in Registration

Yikes. We’ve never before had a month like this: there’s only one new, no-load retail fund on file with the SEC. Even if we expand the search to loaded funds, we only get to four or five.  Hmmm …

The one fund is RiverPark Focused Value Fund. It will be primarily a large cap domestic equity fund whose manager has a particular interest in “special situations” such as spin-offs or reorganizations and on firms whose share prices might have cratered. They’ll buy if it’s a high quality firm and if the stock trades at a substantial discount to intrinsic value. It will be managed by a well-known member of the hedge fund community, David Berkowitz.

Manager Changes

This month also saw an uptick in manager turnover; 73 funds reported changes, about 50% more than the month before. The most immediately noticeable of which was Bill Frels’ departure from Mairs & Power Growth (MPGFX) and Mairs & Power Balanced (MAPOX) after 15 and 20 years, respectively. They’re both remarkable funds: Balanced has earned five stars from Morningstar for the past 3, 5, 10 and since inception periods while Growth has either four or five stars for all those periods. Both invest primarily in firms located in the upper Midwest and both have negligible turnover.

Mr. Frels’ appointment occasioned considerable anxiety years ago because he was an unknown guy replacing an investing legend, George Mairs. At the time, we counseled calm because Mairs & Power had themselves calmly and deliberately planned for the handout.  I suppose we’ll do the same today, though we might use this as an excuse for calling M&P to update our 2011 profile of the fund. That profile, written just as M&P appointed a co-manager in what we said was evidence of succession planning, concluded “If you’re looking for a core holding, especially for a smaller portfolio where the reduced minimum will help, this has to be on the short-list of the most attractive balanced funds in existence.”  We were right and we don’t see any reason to alter that conclusion now.

Updates

Andrew Foster and the folks at Seafarer Partners really are consistently better communicators than almost any of their peers.  In addition to a richly informative website and portfolio metrics that almost no one else thinks to share, they have just published a semi-annual report with substantial content.

Two arguments struck me.  First, the fund’s performance was hampered by their decision to avoid bad companies:

the Fund’s lack of exposure to small and mid-size technology companies – mostly located in Taiwan – caused it to lag the benchmark during the market’s run-up. While interesting investments occasionally surface among the sea of smaller technology firms located in and around Taipei, this group of companies in general is not distinguished by sustainable growth. Most companies make components for consumer electronics or computers, and while some grow quickly for a while, often their good fortune is not sustainable, as their products are rapidly commoditized, or as technological evolution renders their products obsolete. Their share prices can jump rapidly higher for a time when their products are in vogue. Nevertheless, I rarely find much that is worthwhile or sustainable in this segment of the market, though there are sometimes exceptions.

As a shareholder in the fund, I really do applaud a discipline that avoids those iffy but easy short-term bets.

The second argument is more interesting and a lot more important for the investing community. Andrew argues that “value investing” might finally be coming to the emerging markets.

Yet even as the near-term is murky, I believe the longer-term outlook has recently come into sharper focus. A very important structural change – one that I think has been a long time in coming – has just begun to reshape the investment landscape within the developing world. I think the consequence of this change will play out over the next decade, at a minimum.

For the past sixteen years, I have subscribed to an investment philosophy that stresses “growth” over “value.” By “value,” I mean an investment approach that places its primary emphasis on the inherent cheapness of a company’s balance sheet, and which places secondary weight on the growth prospect of the company’s income statement..

In the past, I have had substantial doubts as to whether a classic “value” strategy could be effectively implemented within the developing world – “value” seemed destined to become a “value trap.”  … In order to realize the value embedded in a cheap balance sheet, a minority investor must often invest patiently for an extended period, awaiting the catalyst that will ultimately unlock the value.

The problem with waiting in the developing world is that most countries lack sufficient legal, financial, accounting and regulatory standards to protect minority investors from abuse by “control parties.” A control party is the dominant owner of a given company. Without appropriate safeguards, minorities have little hope of avoiding exploitation while they wait; nor do they have sufficient legal clout to exert pressure on the control party to accelerate the realization of value. Thus in the past, a prospective “value” investment was more likely to be a “trap” than a source of long-term return.

Andrew’s letter outlines a series of legal and structural changes which seem to be changing that parlous state and he talks about the implications for his portfolio and, by extension, for yours. You should go read the letter.

Seafarer Growth & Income (SFGIX) is closing in on its third anniversary (February 15, 2015) with $122 million in assets and a splendid record, both in terms of returns and risk-management. The fund finished 2014 with a tiny loss but a record better than 75% of its peers.  We’re hopeful of speaking with Andrew and his team as they celebrate that third anniversary.

Speaking of third anniversaries, Grandeur Peak funds have just celebrated theirs. Their success has been amazing, at least to the folks who weren’t paying attention to their record in their preceding decade.  Eric Heufner, the firm’s president, shared some of the highlights in a December email:

… our initial Funds have reached the three-year milestone.  Both Funds ranked in the Top 1% of their respective Morningstar peer groups for the 3 years ending 10/31/14, and each delivered an annualized return of more than 20% over the period. The Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund was the #1 fund in the Morningstar World Stock category and the Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund was the #2 fund in the Morningstar Foreign Small/Mid Growth category.  We also added two new strategies over the past year 18 months.  [He shared a performance table which comes down to this: all of the funds are top 10% or better for the available measurement periods.] 

Our original team of 7 has now grown to a team of 30 (16 full-time & 14 part-time).  Our assets under management have grown to $2.4 billion, and all four of our strategies are closed to additional investment—we remain totally committed to keeping our portfolios nimble.  We still plan to launch other Funds, but nothing is imminent.

And, too, their discipline strikes me as entirely admirable: all four of their funds have now been hard-closed in accordance with plans that they announced early and clearly. 2015 should see the launch of their last three funds, each of which was also built-in early to the firm’s planning and capacity calculations.

Finally, Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX) celebrated its third anniversary and first Morningstar rating in December, 2014. The fund received a four-star rating against a “world bond” peer group. For what interest it holds, that rating is mostly meaningless since the fund’s mandate (Asia! Mostly emerging) and portfolio (just 70% bonds plus income-producing equities and convertibles) are utterly distant from what you see in the average world bond fund. The fund has crushed the one or two legitimate competitors in the space, its returns have been strong and its manager, Teresa Kong, comes across a particularly smart and articulate.

Briefly Noted . . .

Investors have, as predicted, chucked rather more than a billion dollars into Bill Gross’s new charge, Janus Unconstrained Bond (JUCAX) fund. Despite holding 75% of that in cash, Gross has managed both to lose money and underperform his peers in these opening months.  Both are silly observations, of course, though not nearly so silly as the desperate desire to rush a billion into Gross’s hands.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Effective January 1, 2015, Perkins Small Cap Value Fund (JDSAX) reopened to new investors. I’m a bit ambivalent here. The fund looks sluggish when measured by the usual trailing periods (it has trailed about 90% of its peers over the past 3 and 5 year periods) but I continue to think that those stats mislead as often as they inform since they capture a fund’s behavior in a very limited set of market conditions. If you look at the fund’s performance over the current market cycle – from October 1 2007 to now – it has returned 78% which handily leads its peers’ 61% gain. Nonetheless the team is making adjustments which include spending down their cash (from 15% to 5%), which is a durned odd for a value discipline focused on high quality firms to do. They’re also dropping the number of names and adding staff. It has been a very fine fund over the long term but this feels just a bit twitchy.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

A couple unusual cases here.

Aegis High Yield Fund (AHYAX/AHYFX) closed to new investors in mid-December and has “assumed a temporary defensive position.” (The imagery is disturbing.) As we note below, this might well signal an end to the fund.

The more striking closure is GL Beyond Income Fund (GLBFX). While the fund is tiny, the mess is huge. It appears that Beyond Income’s manager, Daniel Thibeault (pronounced “tee-bow”), has been inventing non-existent securities then investing in them. Such invented securities might constitute a third of the fund’s portfolio. In addition, he’s been investing in illiquid securities – that is, stuff that might exist but whose value cannot be objectively determined and which cannot be easily sold. In response to the fraud, the manager has been arrested and charged with one count of fraud.  More counts are certainly pending but conviction just on the one original charge could carry a 20-year prison sentence. Since the board has no earthly idea of what the fund’s portfolio is worth, they’ve suspended all redemptions in the fund as well as all purchased. 

GL Beyond Income (it’s certainly sounding awfully ironic right now, isn’t it?) was one of two funds that Mr. Thibeault ran. The first fund, GL Macro Performance Fund (GLMPX), liquidated in July after booking a loss of nearly 50%. Like Beyond Income, it invested in a potpourri of “alternative investments” including private placements and loans to other organizations controlled by the manager.

There have been two pieces of really thoughtful writing on the crime. Investment News dug up a lot of the relevant information and background in a very solid story by Mason Braswell on December 30^th.  Chuck Jaffe approached the story as an illustration of the unrecognized risks that retail investors take as they move toward “liquid alts” funds which combine unusual corporate structures (the GL funds were interval funds, meaning that you could not freely redeem your shares) and opaque investments.

Morningstar, meanwhile, remains thoughtfully silent.  They seem to have reprinted Jaffe’s story but their own coverage of the fraud and its implications has been limited to two one-sentence notes on their Advisor site.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective January 1, 2015, the name of the AIT Global Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund (VTGIX) changed to the Vontobel Global Emerging Markets Equity Institutional Fund.

American Century One Choice 2015 Portfolio has reached the end of its glidepath and is combining with One Choice In Retirement. That’s not really a liquidation, more like a long-planned transition.

Effective January 30, 2015, the name of the Brandes Emerging Markets Fund (BEMAX) will be changed to the Brandes Emerging Markets Value Fund.

At the same time that Brandes gains value, Calamos loses it. Effective March 1, Calamos Opportunistic Value Fund (CVAAX) becomes plain ol’ Calamos Opportunistic Fund and its benchmark will change from Russell 1000 Value to the S&P 500. Given that the fund is consistently inept, one could imagine calling for new managers … except for the fact that the fund is managed by the firm’s founder and The Gary Black.

Columbia Global Equity Fund (IGLGX) becomes Columbia Select Global Equity Fund on or about January 15, 2015. At that point Threadneedle International Advisers LLC takes over and it becomes a focused fund (though no one is saying how focused or focused on what?).

Effective January 1, 2015, Ivy International Growth Fund (IVINX) has changed to Ivy Global Growth Fund. Even before the change, over 20% of the portfolio was invested in the US.

PIMCO EqS^® Dividend Fund (PQDAX) became PIMCO Global Dividend Fund on December 31, 2014.

Effective February 28, 2015, Stone Ridge U.S. Variance Risk Premium Fund (VRLIX) will change its name to Stone Ridge U.S. Large Cap Variance Risk Premium Fund.

Effective December 29, 2014, the T. Rowe Price Retirement Income Fund has changed its name to the T. Rowe Price Retirement Balanced Fund.

The two week old Vertical Capital Innovations MLP Energy Fund (VMLPX) has changed its name to the Vertical Capital MLP & Energy Infrastructure Fund.

Voya Strategic Income Fund has become Voya Strategic Income Opportunities Fund. I’m so glad. I was worried that they were missing opportunities, so this reassures me. Apparently their newest opportunities lie in being just a bit more aggressive than a money market fund, since they’ve adopted the Bank of America Merrill Lynch U.S. Dollar Three-Month LIBOR Constant Maturity Index as their new benchmark. Not to say this is an awfully low threshold, but that index has returned 0.34% annually from inception in 2010 through the end of 2014.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Aberdeen Core Fixed Income Fund (PCDFX) will be liquidated on February 12, 2015.

Aegis High Yield Fund (AHYAX/AHYFX) hard-closed in mid-December. Given the fund’s size ($36 million) and track record, we’re thinking it’s been placed in a hospice though that hasn’t been announced. Here’s the 2014 picture:

AllianzGI Opportunity (POPAX) is getting axed. The plan is to merge the $90 million small cap fund into its $7 million sibling, AllianzGI Small-Cap Blend Fund (AZBAX). AZBAX has a short track record, mostly of hugging its index, but that’s a lot better than hauling around the one-star rating and dismal 10 year record that the larger fund’s managers inherited in 2013. They also didn’t improve upon the record. The closing date of the Reorganization is expected to be on or about March 9, 2015, although the Reorganization may be delayed.

Alpine Global Consumer Growth Fund (AWCAX) has closed and will, pending shareholder approval, be terminated in early 2015. Given that the vast majority of the fund’s shares (70% of the retail and 95% of the institutional shares) are owned by the family of Alpine’s founder, Sam Leiber, I’ve got a feeling that the shareholder vote is a done deal.

The dizzingly bad Birmiwal Oasis Fund (BIRMX) is being put out of manager Kailash Birmiwal’s misery. From 2003 – 07, the fund turned $10,000 into $67,000 and from 2007 – present it turned that $67,000 back into $21,000. All the while turning the portfolio at 2000% a year. Out of curiosity, I went back and reviewed the board of trustee’s decision to renew Mr. Birmiwal’s management contract in light of the fund’s performance. The trustees soberly noted that the fund had underperformed its benchmark and peers for the past 1-, 5-, 10-year and since inception periods but that “performance compared to its benchmark was competitive since the Fund’s inception which was reflective of the quality of the advisory services, including research, trade execution, portfolio management and compliance, provided by the Adviser.” I’m not even sure what that sentence means. In the end, they shrugged and noted that since Mr. B. owned more than 75% of the fund’s shares, he was probably managing it “to the best of his ability.”

I’m mentioning that not to pick on the decedent fund. Rather, I wanted to offer an example of the mental gymnastics that “independent” trustees frequently go through in order to reach a preordained conclusion.

The $75 million Columbia International Bond fund (CNBAX) has closed and will disappear at the being of February, 2015.

DSM Small-Mid Cap Growth Fund (DSMQZ/DSMMX) was liquidated and terminated on short notice at the beginning of December, 2014.

EP Strategic US Equity (EPUSX) and EuroPac Hard Asset (EPHAX) are two more lost lambs subject to “termination, liquidation and dissolution,” both on January 8^th, 2015.

Fidelity trustees unanimously approved the merge of Fidelity Fifty (FFTYX) into Fidelity Focused Stock (FTGQX). Not to point out the obvious but they have the same manager and near-identical 53 stock portfolios already. Shareholders will vote in spring and after baaa-ing appropriately, the reorganization will take place on June 5, 2015.

The Frost Small Cap Equity Fund was liquidated on December 15, 2014.

It is anticipated that the $500,000 HAGIN Keystone Market Neutral Fund (HKMNX) will liquidate on or about December 30, 2014 based on the Adviser’s “inability to market the Fund and that it does not desire to continue to support the Fund.”

Goldman Sachs World Bond Fund (GWRAX) will be liquidated on January 16, 2014. No reason was given. One wonders if word of the potential execution might have leaked out and reached the managers, say around June?

The $300 million INTECH U.S. Managed Volatility Fund II (JDRAX) is merging into the $100 million INTECH U.S. Managed Volatility Fund (JRSAX, formerly named INTECH U.S. Value Fund). Want to guess which of them had more Morningstar stars at the time of the merger? Janus will “streamline” (their word) their fund lineup on April 10, 2015.

ISI Strategy Fund (STRTX), a four star fund with $100 million in assets, will soon merge into Centre American Select Equity Fund (DHAMX). Both are oriented toward large caps and both substantially trail the S&P 500.

Market Vectors Colombia ETF, Latin America Small-Cap Index ETF, Germany Small-Cap ETF and Market Vectors Bank and Brokerage ETF disappeared, on quite short notice, just before Christmas.

New Path Tactical Allocation Fund (GTAAX), an $8 million fund which charges a 5% sales load and charges 1.64% in expenses – while investing in two ETFs at a time, though with a 600% turnover we can’t know for how long – has closed and will be vaporized on January 23, 2015.

The $2 million Perimeter Small Cap Opportunities Fund (PSCVX) will undergo “termination, liquidation and dissolution” on or about January 9, 2015.

ProShares is closing dozens of ETFs on January 9^th and liquidating them on January 22^nd. The roster includes:

SSgA IAM Shares Fund (SIAMX) has been closed in preparation for liquidation cover January 23, 2015. That’s just a mystifying decision: four-star rating, low expenses, quarter billion in assets … Odder still is the fund’s investment mandate: to invest in the equity securities of firms that have entered into collective bargaining agreements with the International Association of Machinists (that’s the “IAM” in the name) or related unions.

UBS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (EMFAX) will experience “certain actions to liquidate and dissolve the Fund” on or about February 24, 2015. The Board’s rationale was that “low asset levels and limited future prospects for growth” made the fund unviable. They were oddly silent on the question of the fund’s investment performance, which might somehow be implicated in the other two factors:

In Closing . . .

Jeez, so many interesting things are happening. There’s so much to share with you. Stuff on our to-do list:

• Active share is a powerful tool for weeding dead wood out of your portfolio. Lots and lots of fund firms have published articles extolling it. Morningstar declares you need to “get active or get out.” And yet neither Morningstar nor most of the “have our cake and eat it, too” crowd release the data. We’ll wave in the direction of the hypocrites and give you a heads up as the folks at Alpha Architect release the calculations for everyone.
• Talking about the role of independent trustees in the survival of the fund industry. We’ve just completed our analysis of the responsibilities, compensation and fund investments made by the independent trustees in 100 randomly-selected funds (excluding only muni bond funds). Frankly, our first reactions are (1) a few firms get it very right and (2) most of them have rigged the system in a way that screws themselves. You can afford to line your board with a collection of bobble-head dolls when times are good but, when times are tough, it reads like a recipe for failure.
• Not to call the ETF industry “scammy, self-congratulatory and venal” but there is some research pointing in that direction. We’re hopeful of getting you to think about it.
• Conference calls with amazing managers, maybe even tricking Andrew Foster into a reprise of his earlier visits with us.
• We’ve been talking with the folks at Third Avenue funds about the dramatic changes that this iconic firm has undergone. I think we understand them but we still need to confirm things (I hate making errors of fact) before we share. We’re hopeful that’s February.
• There are a couple new services that seem intent on challenging the way the fund industry operates. One is Motif Investing, which allows you to be your own fund manager. There are some drawbacks to the service but it would allow all of the folks who think they’re smarter than the professionals to test that hypothesis. The service that, if successful, will make a powerful social contribution is Liftoff. It’s being championed by Josh Brown, a/k/a The Reformed Broker, and the folks at Ritholtz Wealth Management. We mentioned the importance of automatic investing plans in December and Josh followed with a note about the role of Liftoff in extending such plans: “We created a solution for this segment of the public – the young, the underinvested and the people who’ve never been taught anything about how it all works. It’s called Liftoff … We custom-built portfolios that correspond to a matrix of answers the clients give us online. This helps them build a plan and automatically selects the right fund mix. The bank account link ensures continual allocation over time.” This whole “young and underinvested” thing does worry me. We’ll try to learn more.
• And we haven’t forgotten the study of mutual funds’ attempts to use YouTube to reach that same young ‘n’ muddled demographic. It’s coming!

Finally, thanks to you all. A quarter million readers came by in 2014, something on the order of 25,000 unique visitors each month.  The vast majority of you have returned month after month, which makes us a bit proud and a lot humbled.  Hundreds of you have used our Amazon link (if you haven’t bookmarked it, please do) and dozens have made direct contributions (regards especially to the good folks at Emerald Asset Management and to David Force, who are repeat offenders in the ‘help out MFO’ category, and to our ever-faithful subscribers). We’ll try to keep being worth the time you spend with us.

We’ll look for you closer to Valentine’s Day!

Dear friends,

They’re baaaaack!

The summer silence has been shattered. My students have returned in endlessly boisterous, hormonally-imbalanced, self-absorbed droves. They’re glued to their phones and to their preconceptions, one about as maddening as the other.

The steady rhythm of the off-season (deal with something else falling off the house, talk to a manager, mow, think, read, write, kvetch) has been replaced by getting up at 5:30 and bolting through days, leaving a blur behind.

Somewhere in the background, Putin threatens war, the market threatens a swoon, horrible diseases spread, politicians debate who among them is the most dysfunctional and someone finds time to think Deep Thoughts about the leaked nekkid pitchers of semi-celebrities.

On whole, it’s good to be back.

Seven things that matter, two that don’t … and one that might

I spoke on August 20^th to about 200 folks at the Cohen Fund client conference in Milwaukee. Interesting gathering, surprisingly attractive city, consistently good food (thanks guys!) and decent coffee. My argument was straightforward and, I hope, worth repeating here: if you don’t start thinking and acting differently, you’re doomed. A version of that text follows.

Your apparent options: dead, dying or living dead

From the perspective of most journalists, many advisors and a clear majority of investors, this gathering of mutual fund managers and of the professionals who make their work possible looks to be little more than a casting call for the Zombie Apocalypse. You are seen, dear friends, as “the walking dead,” a group whose success is predicated upon their ability to do … what? Eat their neighbors’ brains which are, of course, tasty but, and this is more important, once freed of their brains these folks are more likely to invest in your funds.

CBS News declared you “a losing bet.” TheStreet.com declared that you’re dead.  Joseph Duran asked, curiously, “are you a dinosaur?” Schwab declared that “a great question!” Ric Edelman, a major financial advisor, both widely quoted and widely respected, declares, “The retail mutual fund industry is a dinosaur and won’t exist in 10 or 15 more years, as investors are realizing the incredible opportunity to lower their cost, lower their risks and improve their disclosure through low-cost passive products.” When asked what their parents do for a living, your kids desperately wish they could say “my dad writes apps and mom’s a paid assassin.” Instead they mumble “stuff.” In short, you are no longer welcome at the cool kids’ table.

Serious data underlies those declarations. The estimable John Rekenthaler reports that only one-third of new investment money flows to active funds, one third to ETFs and one third to index funds. Drop target-date funds out of the equation and the amount of net inflows to funds is reduced by a quarter. The number of Google searches for the term “mutual funds” is down 80% over the past decade.

Funds liquidate or merge at the rate of 400-500  per year. Of the funds that existed 15 years ago, Vanguard found that 46% have been liquidated or merged. The most painful stroke might have been delivered by Morningstar, a firm whose fortunes were built on covering the mutual fund industry. Two weeks ago John Rekenthaler, vice president and resident curmudgeon, asked the question “do have funds have a future?”  He answered his own question with “to cut to the chase: apparently not much.”

Friends, I feel your pain. Not that zombies actually feel pain. You know if Mr. Cook accidentally rips Mr. Bynum’s arm off and bludgeons him with it, “it’s all good.” But if you did feel pain, I’d be right there with you since in a Zombies Anonymous sort of way I’m obliged to say “Hello. My name is Dave and I’m a liberal arts professor.”

The parallel experience of the liberal arts college

I teach at Augustana College – as school known only to those of you blessed with a Scandinavian Lutheran heritage or to fans of the history of college football.

We operate in an industry much like yours – higher education is in crisis, buffeted by changing demographics – a relentless decline in the number of 17 year old high school graduates everywhere except in a band of increasingly sunbaked states – changing societal demands and bizarre new competitors whose low cost models have caught the attention of regulators, journalists and parents.

You might think, “yeah, but if you’re good – if you’re individually excellent – you’ll do fine.”  “Emerson was wrong, wrong, wrong: being excellent does not imply you’ll be noticed, much less be successful.” 

Remember that “build a better mousetrap and people will beat a path to your door” promise. Nope.  Not true, even for mousetraps. There have been over 4400 patents for mousetraps (including a bunch labeled “better mousetrap”) issued since 1839. There are dozens of different subclasses, including “Electrocuting and Explosive,” “Swinging Striker,” “Choking or Squeezing,” and 36 others. One device, patented in 1897, controls 60% of the market and a modification of it patented in 1903 controls another 15-20%. About 0.6% of patented mousetraps were able to attract a manufacturer.

The whole “succeed in the market because you’re demonstrably better” thing is certainly not true for small colleges. Let me try an argument out with you: Augustana is the best college you’ve never heard of. The best. What’s the evidence?

• We’re #6 among all colleges in the number of Academic All-Americans we’ve produced, #2 behind only MIT as a Division 3 school.
• We were in the top 50 schools in the 20^th century for the number of our graduates who went on to earn doctorates.
• National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Wabash National Study both singled us out for the magnitude of gains that our students made over their four years.
• The Teagle Foundation identified use as one of the 12 colleges that define the “Gold Standard” in American higher education based on our ability to vastly outperform given the assets available to us.

And yet, we’re not confident of our future. We’re competing brilliantly, but we’re competing to maintain our share of a steadily shrinking pie. Fewer students each year are willing to even consider a small school as families focus more on price rather than value or on “name” rather than education. Most workers expect to enjoy their peak earnings in their late 40s and 50s.  For college professors entering the profession today, peak lifetimes earnings might well occur in Year One.  After that, they face a long series of pay freezes or raises that come in just below the CPI.  Bain & Company estimate that one third of all US colleges and universities are financially unsustainable; they spend more than the take in and collect debt faster than they build equity. While some colleges will surely fold, the threat for most is less closure than permanent stagnation and increasing irrelevance.

Curious problem: by all but one measures (name recognition), we’re better for students than the household names but no one believes us and few will even consider attending. We’re losing to upstart competitors with inferior products and lumbering behemoths. 

And you are too.

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

Half of that is our own fault. We tend to be generic and focused on ourselves, without material understanding of the bigger picture. And half of your problem is your fault: 80% of mutual funds could disappear without any noticeable loss of investors. They don’t matter. There are 500 domestic large core funds. I’d be amazed if anyone could make a compelling case for keeping 90% of them open. More correctly, those don’t matter to anyone but the advisor who needs them for business development purposes.

Here’s the test: would anyone pay good money to buy the fund from you? Get serious: half of all funds can’t draw even a penny’s investment from their own managers (Sarah Max, Fund managers who invest elsewhere). The level of fund trustee investment in the funds they oversee on behalf of the rest of us is so low, especially in the series trusts common among smaller funds, as to represent an embarrassment.

The question is: can you do anything? Will anything you do matter? In order to answer that question, it would help to understand what matters, what doesn’t … and what might.

Herewith: seven things that matter, two that don’t … and one that might.

Seven things that matter.

1. Independence matters. Whether measured by r-squared, tracking error or active share, researchers have generated a huge body of evidence that independent thinking is a prerequisite to outstanding performance. Surprisingly, that’s true on the downside as much as the upside: higher active managers perform better in falling markets than herd-huggers do. But herding behavior is increasing. Where two-thirds of the industry’s assets were once housed in “highly active” funds, that number is now 25% and falling.
2. Size matters. There is no evidence to suggest that “bigger is better” in the mutual fund world, at least once a fund passes the threshold of economic viability. Large funds face two serious constraints. First, their investable universes collapse; that is, if you have $10 billion to invest, there are literally thousands of small companies whose stocks become utterly meaningless to you and your forced to seek a competitive advantage against a few hundred competitors all looking at the same few hundred larger names. Second, larger funds become cash cows generating revenue essential to the adviser’s business. The livelihoods of dozens or hundreds of coworkers depend on having the manager not lose assets, much more than they depend on investment excellence. But money flows to “safe” bloated funds.
3. Alignment of interest matters. Almost all of us know that there’s a lot of research showing that good things happen when fund managers stake their personal fortunes on the success of their funds; in particular, risk-adjusted returns rise. Fewer people know that there appears to be an even stronger effect from substantial ownership by a fund’s trustees: high trustee ownership is linked to lower risk, higher active share and less tolerance of inept management. But, Morningstar reports, something like 500 firms have funds with negligible insider ownership.
4. Risk matters. Investors are far more risk-averse than they know. That’s one of the most frequently observed findings in the behavioral finance literature. No amount of upside offsets a tendency to crash. The sad consequence of misjudged risk is reflected in the Dalbar’s widely quoted calculations showing that investors might pocket as little as one-quarter of their funds’ returns largely because of excess confidence, excess trading and a tendency to run away as the worst possible time.
5. Focus matters. If the goal is to provide better (not necessarily higher, but perhaps steadier, more explicable, less volatile) returns than a broad market index, then you need to look as little like the index as possible. Too many folks become “fund collectors” with sprawling portfolios, just as too many fund managers to commit to marginal ideas.
6. Communication matters. I need to mention this because I’m, well, a professor of communication studies and we know it to be true. In general, communication from mutual funds to their investors (how to put this politely?) sucks. Websites get built for the sake of having a pretty side. Semi-annual reports get written because the SEC says to (but doesn’t say that you actually need to write anything to your investors, and many don’t). Shareholder letters get written to a template and conference calls are managed to assure that there’s no risk of anything interesting or informative breaking out. (If I hear the term “slide deck,” as in “on page 157 of your slide deck,” I’ll scream.) We know that most investors don’t understand why they’re invested or what their funds do. We know that when investors “get it,” they stay (look at Jared Peifer’s “Fund loyalty among socially responsible investors” for a study of folks who really think about their investments before making them). 
7. Relationships matter. Managers mumbling the mousetrap mantra believe that great performance will have the world beating a path to their door. It won’t. A fascinating study by the folks at Gerstein Fisher (“Mutual fund outperformance and growth,” Journal of Investment Management, 2014) offered an entirely maddening conclusion: good performance draws assets if you’re large, but has no effect on assets if you have under a quarter billion in assets. So how do smaller funds prosper? At least from our experience, it is by having a story that makes sense to investors and a nearly evangelical advocate to tell that story, face to face, over and over. Please flag this thought: it’s not whether you’re impressed with your story. It’s not whether it makes sense to you. It’s whether it makes enough sense to investors that, once you’re gone, they can explain it with conviction to other people.

Two things that don’t. 

1. Great returns don’t matter. Beating the market doesn’t matter. Beating your peers doesn’t matter. It’s impossible to do consistently (“peer beating” is, by definition, zero sum), it doesn’t draw assets and it doesn’t necessarily serve your investors’ needs. Consistent returns, consistently explained, might matter.
2. Morningstar doesn’t matter. A few of you might yet win the lottery and get analyst coverage from Morningstar, but you should depend on that about the way you depend on winning the Powerball. Recent feature on “Under the Radar” funds gives you a view of Morningstar’s basement: these seven funds were consistently excellent, averaged $400 million in assets and 12 years of manager tenure – and they were still “under the radar.” In reality, Morningstar doesn’t even know that you exist. More to the point: the genius of independent funds is that they’re not cookie-cutters, but Morningstar is constrained to use a cookie-cutter. The more independent you are, the more likely that Morningstar will give you a silly peer group.

This is not, by the way, a criticism of Morningstar. I like a lot of the folks there and I know they often work like dogs to get it right. It’s simply a reflection on their business model and the complexity of the task before them. In attempting to do the greatest good for the greatest number (and to serve their shareholders), they’re inevitably drawn to the largest, most popular funds.

The one thing that might matter? 

I might say “the Observer” does.  We’ve got 26,000 readers and we’ve had the opportunity to work with dozens of journalists.  We’ve profiled over 125 smaller funds, exceeding the number of Morningstar’s small fund profiles by, well, 120.  We know you’re there and know your travails.  We’re working really hard to help folks think more clearly about small, independent funds in general and by a hundred of so really distinguished smaller funds in particular.

But a better answer is: you might matter.

But do you want to?

It is clear that we can all do our jobs without mattering.  We can attend quarterly meetings, read thick packets, listen thoughtfully to what we’ve been told, ask a trenchant question (just to prove that we’ve been listening) … and still never make six cents worth of difference to anyone. 

There may have been a time, perhaps in the days of “a rising tide,” when firms could afford to have folks more interested in getting along than in making a difference.  Those days are passed.  If you aren’t intent on being A Person Who Matters, you need to go.

How might you matter?

1. Figure out whether you have a reason to exist.  Ask “what’s the story supposed to be?”  Look at the prospect that “your” story is so painfully generic or agonizingly technical than it means nothing to anyone.  And if you’ve got a good story, tell it passionately and well. 
2. Align your walking and your talking.  First, pin your personal fortune on the success of your funds.  Second, get in place a corporate policy that ensures everyone does likewise.  There are several fine examples of such policies that you might borrow from your peers.  Third, let people know what your policy is and why it matters to them.
3. Help people succeed.  Very few of the journalists who might share your message actually know enough to do it well.  And they often know it and they’d like to do better.  Great!  Find the time to help them succeed.  Become a valuable source of honest assessment, suggest story possibilities, notice when they do well.  That ethos is not limited to aiding journalists.   Help other independent funds succeed, too.  Tell people about the best of them.  Tell them what’s worked for you.  They’re not your enemies and they’re not your competitors.  They might, however, become part of a community that can help you survive.
4. Climb out of your silo.  Learn stuff you don’t need to know.  I know compliance is tough. I know those board packets are thick. But that’s not an excuse.  Bill Bernstein earned a PhD in chemistry, then MD in neurology, pursued the active practice of medicine, started writing about asset allocation and the efficient frontier, then advising, then writing books on topics well afield of his specialties. Bill writes:  “As Warren Buffett famously observed, investing is not a game in which the person with an IQ of 160 beats the persons with an IQ of 130.  Rather, it’s a game best played by those with a broad set of skills that are rich not only in quantitative ability but also in deep historical knowledge, all deployed with an Asperger’s-like emotional detachment.”  Those of us in the liberal arts love this stuff.
5. Build relationships, perhaps in odd ways.  Trustees: you were elected to represent the fund’s shareholders so why are you hiding from them?  Put your name and address on the website and let them know that if they have a concern, you’ll listen. Send a handwritten card to every new investor, at least those who invest directly with the fund.  Tell them they matter to you.  Heck, send them an anniversary card a year after they first invest, signed by you all.  When they go, ask “why?”  This is the only industry I’ve ever worked with that has precisely zero interest in customer loyalty.
6. Be prepared to annoy people.  Frankly, you’re going to be richly rewarded, financially and interpersonally, for your willingness to go away.  If you try to change things, you’re going to upset at least some of the people in every room.  You’re going to hear the same refrain, over and over: “But no one does that.”
7. Stop hiring pretty good people. Hire great ones, or no one. The hallmark of dynamic, rising institutions is their insistence on bringing in people who are so good it kind of scares the folks who are already there. That’s been the ethos of my academic department for 20 years. It is reflected in the Artisan Fund’s insistence that they will hire in only “category killers.” They might, they report, interview several dozen management teams a year and still make only one hire every two or three years. Check their record of performance and market success and draw your own conclusion. Achieving this means that you have to be a great place to work. You have to know why it’s a great place, and you have to have a strategy for making outsiders realize it, too.

Which is precisely the point. Independence is not merely a matter of portfolio construction. It’s a matter of innovation, responsibility and stewardship. It requires that you look beyond safety, look beyond asset gathering and short-term profit maximization to answer the larger question: is there any reason for us to exist?

It’s your decision. It is clear to me that business as usual will not work, but neither will hunkering down and hoping that it all goes away. Do you want to matter, or do you want to hold on – hoping that you’ll make it through despite the storm?  Like the faculty near retirement. Like Louis XV who declared, “Après moi, le déluge”. Mr. Rekenthaler concludes that “active funds retreat further into silence.” Do you want to prove him right or wrong?

If you want to make a difference, start today. Start here. Start today. Take the opportunity to listen, to talk, to learn and to decide. To decide to make all the difference you can. Which might be all the difference in the world.

From Charles’s Balcony: Why Am I Rebalancing?

Long-time MFO discussion board member AKAFlack emailed me recently wondering how much investors have underperformed during the current bull market due to the practice of rebalancing their portfolios.

For those that rebalance annually, the answer is…almost 12% in total return from March 2009 through June 2014. Not huge given the healthy gains, but certainly noticeable. The graph below compares performance for a buy & hold and an annually rebalanced portfolio, assuming an initial investment of $10,000 allocated 60% to stocks and 40% to bonds.

So why rebalance?

According to a good study by Vanguard, entitled “Best practices for portfolio rebalancing,” the answer is not to maximize return. “If the sole objective is to maximize return regardless of risk, then the investor should select a 100% equity portfolio.”

The purpose of rebalancing, whether done periodically or by threshold deviation, is to keep a portfolio risk composition consistent with an investor’s tolerance, as defined by their target allocation. Otherwise, investors “can end up with a portfolio that is over-weighted to equities and therefore more vulnerable to equity-market corrections, putting the investors’ portfolios at risk of larger losses compared with their target portfolios.” This situation is evidenced in the allocation shown above for the buy & hold portfolio, which is now at nearly 80/20 stocks/bonds.

In this way, rebalancing is one way to keep loss aversion in check and the attendant consequences of selling and buying at all the wrong times, often chronicled in Morningstar’s notorious “Investor Return” tracking metric.

Balancing makes up ground, however, when equities are temporarily undervalued, like was the case in 2008. The same comparison as above but now across the most current full market cycle, beginning in November 2007, shows that annual balancing actually slighted outperformed the buy & hold portfolio.

In his book “The Ivy Portfolio,” Mebane Faber presents additional data to support that “there is a clear advantage to rebalancing sometime rather than letting the portfolio drift. A simple rebalance can add 0.1 to 0.2 to the Sharpe Ratio.”

If your first investment priority is risk management, occasional rebalancing to your target allocation is one way to help you sleep better at night, even if it means underperforming somewhat during bull markets.

Edward, Ex Cathedra: Money money money money money money

“The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.”

                                                                    Oscar Wilde

This has been an interesting month in the world of mutual funds and fund managers. First we have Charles D. Ellis, CFA with another landmark (and land mine) article in the Financial Analysts Journal entitled “The Rise and Fall of Performance Investing.” For some years now, starting with his magnum opus for institutional investors entitled “Winning the Loser’s Game,” Ellis has been arguing that institutional (and individual) investors would be better served by using passive index funds for their investments, rather than hiring active managers who tend to underperform the index funds. By way of disclosure, Mr. Ellis founded Greenwich Associates and made his fortune selling services to those active managers that he now writes about with the zeal of a convert.

Nonetheless the numbers he presents are fairly compelling, and for that reason difficult to accept. I am reminded of one of my former banking colleagues who was always looking for the pony that he was convinced was hidden underneath the manure in the room. I can see the results of this thinking by scanning some of the discussions on the Mutual Fund Observer bulletin board. Many of those discussions seem more attuned with how smart or lucky one was to invest with a particular manager before his or her fund closed, rather than how the investment has actually performed. And I am not talking about the performance numbers put out by the fund companies, which are artificial results for artificial investors. No, I’m talking about the real results obtained by putting the moneys invested and time periods into one’s HP12C calculator to figure out the returns. Most people really do not want to know those numbers, otherwise they become forced to think about Senator Warren’s argument that “the game is rigged.”

Ellis however makes a point that he has made before and that I have covered before. However I feel it is so important that it is worth noting again. Most mutual fund advertising or descriptions involving fees consist of one word and a number. The fee is “only” 1% (or less for most institutional investors). The problem is that that is a phrase worthy of Don Draper, as the 1% is related to the assets the investor has given to the fund company. Yet the investor already owns the assets. What is being promised then? The answer is returns. And if one accepts the Ibbotson return histories for large cap common stocks in the U.S. as running at 8 – 10% per year over a fifty-year period, we are talking about a fee running from 10 – 12.5% a year based on returns. 

Taking this concept one step further Ellis suggests what you really should be looking at in assessing fees are the “incremental fee as a percentage of incremental returns after adjusting for risk.” And using those criteria, we would see something very different given that most active investment managers are underperforming their benchmark indices, namely that the incremental fees are above 100% Ellis goes on to raise a number of points in his article. I would like to focus on just one of them for the remainder of this commentary. One of Ellis’ central questions is “When will our clients decide that continuing to take all the risks and pay all the costs of striving to beat the market with so little success is no longer a good deal for them?”

My assessment is that we have finally hit the tipping point, and things are moving inexorably in that direction. Two weeks ago roughly, it was announced that Vanguard now has more than $3 trillion worth of assets, much of it in passive products. Jason Zweig recently wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal suggesting that the group of fund and portfolio managers in their 30’s and 40’s should start thinking about alternative careers, possibly as financial planners giving asset allocation advice to clients. The Financial Times suggests in an article detailing the relationship between Bill Gross at PIMCO and the analyst that covered him at Morningstar that they had become too close. The argument there was that Morningstar analysts had become co-opted by the fund industry to write soft criticism in return for continued access to managers. My own observational experience with Morningstar was that their mutual fund analysts had been top shelf when they were interviewing me and both independent and objective. I can’t speak now as to whether the hiring and retention criteria have changed. 

My own anecdotal observations are limited to things I see happening in Chicago. My conclusion is that the senior managers at most of the Chicago money management firms are moving as fast as they can to suck as much money out of their businesses as quickly as possible. In some respects, it has become a variation on musical chairs and that group hears the music slowing. So you will see lots of money in bonus payments. Sustainability of the business will be talked about, especially as a sop to absentee owners, but the businesses will be under-invested in, especially with regard to personnel. What do I base that on? Well, at one firm, what I will call the boys from Winnetka and Lake Forest, I was told every client meeting now starts with questions about fees. Not performance, but fees are what is primary in the client minds. The person who said this indicated he is fighting a constant battle to see that his analyst pool is being paid commensurate with the market notwithstanding an assumption by senior management that the talent is fungible and could easily be replaced at lower prices. At another firm, it is a question of preserving the “collegiality” of the fund group’s trustees when they are adding new board members. As one executive said to me about an election, “Thank God they had two candidates and picked the less problematic one in terms of our business and causing fee issues for us.”

The investment management business, especially the mutual fund business, is a wonderful business with superb returns. But to use Mr. Ellis’ phrase, is it anything more now than a “crass commercial business?” How the industry behaves going forward will offer us a clue. Unfortunately, knowing as many of the players as well as I do leads me to conclude that greed will continue to be the primary motivator. Change will not occur until it is forced upon the industry.

I will leave you with a scene from a wonderful movie, The Freshman (with Marlon Brando and Matthew Broderick) to ponder.

“This is an ugly word, this scam.  This is business, and if you want to be in business, this is what you do.”

                               Carmine Sabatini as played by Marlon Brandon

Categories Morningstar doesn’t recognize: Short-term high-yield income

There are doubtless a million ways to slice and dice the seven or eight thousand extant funds into categories. Morningstar has chosen to create 105 categories in hopes of (a) creating meaningful peer comparisons and (b) avoid mindless proliferation of categories. We’re endlessly sympathetic with their desire to maintain a disciplined, manageable system. That said, the Observer tracks some categories of funds that Morningstar doesn’t recognize, including short-term high yield, emerging markets balanced and absolute value equity.

We think that these funds have two characteristics that might be obscured by Morningstar’s assignment of them to a larger category of fundamentally different funds. First, it causes funds to be misjudged if their risk profiles vary dramatically from the group’s. Short-term high yield, for example, are doomed to one- and two-star ratings. That’s not because they fail. It’s because they succeed in a way that’s fundamentally different from the majority of their peer group. In general, high yield funds have risk profiles similar to stock funds. Short-term high yield funds have dramatically lower volatility and returns closer to a short term bond fund’s than a high yield fund’s.

[High yield/orange, ST high yield blue, ST investment grade green]

Morningstar’s risk-adjusted returns calculation is far less sensitive to risk than the Observer’s is; as a risk, the lower risk is blanketed by the lower returns and the funds end up with an undeservedly wretched rating.

Bottom line: investors who need to earn more than the payout of a money market fund (0.01% ytd) or certificates of deposit (currently 1.1% annually) might take the risk of a conventional short-term bond fund (in the hopes of making 1-2%) or might be lured by the appeal of a complex market neutral derivatives strategy (paying 2% to make 3%). Another path that might reasonably consider are short-term high yield funds that take on greater risk but whose managers generally recognize that fact and have risk-management tools at hand.

The Observer has profiled three such funds: Intrepid Income, RiverPark Short-Term High Yield (now closed to new investors) and Zeo Strategic Income.

Short-term, high Income peer group, as of 9/1/14

Over the next several months we’ll be reviewing the performance of some of these unrecognized peer groups, in hopes of having folks look beyond the stars. 

To the New Castle County executives: I know your intentions were good, but …

Shortly after taking office, the new county executive for New Castle County, Delaware, made a shocking discovery: someone has nefariously invested the taxpayers’ money in two funds that (gasp!) earned one-star from Morningstar and were full of dangerous high yield investments. The executive in question, not pausing to learn anything about what the funds actually do, snapped into action. He rushed “to protect the County reserves from the potential of significant financial loss and undo risk by directing the funds to be placed in an account representing the financial security values associated with taxpayer dollars” by giving the money to UBS (a firm fined $1.5 billion two years ago in a “rogue trading” scandal). And then he, or the county staff, wrote a congratulatory press release (New Castle County Executive Acted Quickly to Protect Taxpayer Reserves).

The funds in question were RiverPark Short-Term High Yield (RPHYX) which is one of the least volatile funds in existence and which has posted the industry’s best Sharpe ratio, and FPA New Income (FPNIX), which Morningstar celebrates as an ultra-conservative choice in the face of deteriorating markets: “thanks to its super-low volatility, its five-year Sharpe ratio, a measure of risk-adjusted returns, bests all it but one of its competitors’ in both groups.”

The press release doesn’t mention how or where UBS will be investing the taxpayer’s dollars but it does sound like UBS has decided to work for free: enviable savings resulted from the fact that New Castle County “does not pay investment management fees to UBS.”

Due diligence requires going beyond a cursory reading. It turns out that The Tale of Two Cities is not a travelogue and that Animal Farm really doesn’t offer much guidance on animal husbandry, titles notwithstanding. And it turns out that the county has sold two exceptionally solid, conservative funds – funds with about the best risk-adjusted returns possible – based on a cursory reading and spurious concerns.

Observer Fund Profiles: AKREX and MAINX

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

Akre Focus (AKREX): the only question about Akre Focus is whether it can be as excellent in the future has it, and its predecessors, have been for the past quarter century. 

Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX): against all the noise in the markets and in the world news, Teresa Kong remains convinced that your most important sources of income in the decades ahead will increasingly be centered in Asia.  She’ll doing an exceptional job of letting you tap that future today.

Elevator Talk: Brent Olsen, Scout Equity Opportunity (SEOFX)

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

Brent Olson is the lead portfolio manager of the Scout Equity Opportunity Fund. He joined the firm in 2013 and has more than 17 years of professional investment experience. Prior to joining Scout, Brent was director of research and a portfolio manager with Three Peaks Capital Management, LLC. From 2010-2013, Brent comanaged Aquila Three Peaks Opportunity Growth (ATGAX) and Aquila Three Peaks High Income (ATPAX) with Sandy Rufenacht. Before that, he served as an equity analyst for Invesco and both a high-yield and equity analyst for Janus.

Scout Equity Opportunity proposes to invest in leveraged companies. Leveraged companies are firms that have accumulated, or are accumulating, a noticeable level of debt on their books. These are firms that are, or were, dependent on borrowing to finance operations. Many equity investors, particularly those interested in “high quality stocks,” look askance at the practice. They’re interested in firms with low debt-to-equity ratios and the ability to finance operations internally.

Nonetheless, leveraged company stock offers the prospect for outsized gains. Tom Soviero of Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock Fund (FLVCX) captured more than 150% of the S&P 500’s upside over the course of a decade (2003-2013). The Credit Suisse Leveraged Equity Index substantially outperformed the S&P500 over the same period. Why so? Three reasons come to mind:

1. Debt adds complexity, which increases the prospects for mispricing. Beyond the simple fact that most equity investors are not comfortable analyzing the other half of a firm’s capital structure, there are also several different kinds of debt, each of which adds its own complexity.
2. Debt can be used wisely, which allows firms to increase their return on equity, especially when the cost of debt is low and the stock market is already rising.
3. Indebtedness increases a firm’s accountability and transparency, since they gain the obligation to report to creditors, and to pay them regularly. They are, as a result, less free to make dumb decisions than managers deploying internally-generated capital.

The downside to leveraged equity investing is, well, the downside to leveraged equity investing.  When the market falls, leveraged company stocks can fall harder and faster than most.  By way of illustration, Fidelity Leverage Company dropped 55% in 2008. That makes it hard for many investors to hold on; indeed, by Morningstar’s calculations, Mr. Soveiro’s invested managed to pocket less than a third of his fund’s excellent returns because they tended to bail when the pain got too great.

Brent Olson knows the tale, having co-managed for three years a fund with a similar discipline.  He recognizes the importance of risk control and thinks that he and the folks at Scout have found a way to manage some of the strategy’s downside.

Here are Brent’s 200 words on what a manager sensitive to high-yield fixed-income metrics brings to equity investing:

We believe superior risk-adjusted relative performance can be achieved through long-term ownership of a diversified portfolio of levered stocks. We recognize debt metrics as a leading indicator for equity performance – our adage is “credit leads, equity follows” – and so we use this as the basis for our disciplined investment process. That perspective allows us to identify companies that we believe are undervalued and thus attractive for investors.

We focus our attention on stable industries with lots of free cash flow.  Within those industries, we’re looking at companies that are either using credit improvement through de-levering their balance sheet, though debt paydown or refinancing, or ones that are reapplying leverage to transform themselves, perhaps through growth or acquisitions. At the moment there are 68 names in the portfolio. There are roughly 50 other names that we’re actively monitoring with about 10 that are getting close.

We’ve thought a lot about risk management. One of the most attractive aspects of working at Scout is the deep analyst bench, and especially the strength of our fixed income team at Reams Asset Management. That gives me access to lots of data and first-rate analysis. We also can move 20% of the portfolio into fixed income in order to dampen volatility, the onset of which might be signaled by wider high-yield spreads. Finally, we can raise the ratings quality of our portfolio names.

Scout Equity Opportunity has a $1000 minimum initial investment which is reduced to a really friendly $100 for IRAs and accounts established with an automatic investing plan. Expenses are capped at 1.25% and the fund has about gathered about $7 million in assets since its March 2014 launch. Here’s the fund’s homepage. Investors intrigued by the characteristics of leveraged equity might benefit from reading Tom Soveiro’s white paper, Opportunities in Leveraged Equity Investing (2014).

Launch Alert: Touchstone Large Cap Fund (TLCYX)

On July 9, Touchstone Investments launched the Touchstone Large Cap Fund, sub-advised by The London Company. The London Company is Virginia-based RIA with over $8.7 billion in assets under management. The firm subadvises several other US-domiciled funds including:

Hennessy Equity and Income (HEIFX), since 2007. HEIFX is a $370 million, five-star LCV fund that The London Company jointly manages with FCI Advisors.

Touchstone Small Cap Core (TSFYX), since 2009. TSFYX is an $830 million, four-star SCB fund.

Touchstone Mid Cap (TMCPX), since 2011. TMCPX is a $460 million, three-star mid-cap blend fund.

American Beacon The London Company Income Equity (ABCYX), since 2012. It’s another LCV fund with about $275 million in assets.

The fund enters the most crowded part of the equity universe: large cap domestic stock.  Depending on how you count, there are 466 large blend funds. The new Touchstone fund proposes to invest in 30-40 US large cap stocks.  In particular they’re looking for financially stable firms that will compound returns over time.  Rather than looking at earnings per share, they “pay strict attention to each company’s sustainability of return on capital and resulting free cash flow and balance sheet to derive its strategic value.”  The argument is that EPS bounces, is subject to gaming and is not predictive.  Return on capital tends to be a stable predictor of strong future performance.  They target buying those firms at a 30-40% discount to intrinsic value and holding them for relatively long periods.

It’s a sound and attractive strategy.  Still, there are hundreds of funds operating in this space and dozens that might lay plausible claim to a comparable discipline. Touchstone’s president, Steve Graziano, allows that this looks like a spectacularly silly move:

If I wasn’t looking under the hood and someone came to me to launch a large cap core fund, I’d say “you must be crazy.”  It’s an overpopulated space, a stronghold of passive investing.

The reason to launch, Mr. Graziano argues, is TLC’s remarkable discipline.  They’ve used this same strategy for over 15 years in its private accounts.  Their large core composite has returned 9.7% annually over the last decade through June 30, 2014. During the same time, the S&P500 returned 7.8%.  They’ve beaten the S&P500 over the past 3, 5, 10 and 15 year periods.  The margin of victory has ranged from 130-210 bps, depending on the time period.

The firm argues that much of the strategy’s strength comes from its downside protection: “[Our] large cap core strategy focuses on investing primarily in conservative, low‐beta, large cap equities with above average downside protection.”  Over the past five years, the strategy captured 62% of the market’s downside and 96% of its upside.  That’s also reflected in the strategy’s low beta (0.77, which is striking for a fully-invested equity strategy) and low standard deviation (12.6, about 300 bps below the market’s).

Of the 500 or so large cap blend funds, only 23 can match the 9.7% annualized10-year returns for The London Company’s Large Core Strategy. Of those, only one (PIMCO StocksPlus Absolute Return PSPTX) can also match its five-year returns of 20.7%.

The minimum initial investment in the retail class is $2500, reduced to $1000 for IRAs. The expenses are capped at 1.49%. Here’s the fund’s homepage.  While it reflects the performance of the separate accounts rather than the mutual fund’s, TLC’s Large Cap Core quarterly report contains a lot of useful information on the strategy’s historic profile.

Pre-launch Alert: PSP Multi-Manager (CEFFX)

In a particularly odd development, the legal husk of the Congressional Effect Fund is being turned to good use.  As you might recall, Congressional Effect (CEFFX) was (along with the Blue Funds) another of a series of political gestures masquerading as investment vehicles. Congressional Effect went to cash whenever (evil, destructive) Congress was in session and invested in stocks otherwise. Right: out of stocks during the high-return months and in stocks over the summer and at holidays. Good.

The fund’s legal structure has been purchased by Pulteney Street Capital Management, LLC and is soon to be relaunched as the PSP Multi-Manager Fund (ticker unknown). The plan is to hire experienced managers who specialize in a set of complementary alternative strategies (long/short equity, event-driven, macro, market neutral, capital structure arbitrage and distressed) and give each of them a slice of the portfolio.  The management teams represent EastBay Asset Management, Ferro Investment Management, Riverpark Advisors, S.W. Mitchell Capital, and Tiburon Capital Management. The good news is that the fund features solid managers and a low minimum initial investment ($1000). The bad news is that the expenses (north of 3%) are near the level charged by T’ree Fingers McGurk, my local loan shark sub-prime lender.

Funds in Registration

Our colleague David Welsch tracked down 17 new no-load, retail funds in registration this month.  In general, these funds will be available for purchase by around Halloween.  (Caveat emptor.) They include new offers from several A-tier families including BBH, Brown Advisory,and Causeway.  Of special interest is the new Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF (GAA), a passive fund tracking an active index.  Charles is working to arrange an interview with the manager, Mebane Faber, during the upcoming Morningstar ETF conference.

Manager Changes

Chip reports a huge spike in the number of announced manager or management team changes this month, with 73 recorded changes, about 30 more than we’ve being seeing over the summer months. A bunch are simple games of musical chairs (Ivy and Waddell & Reed are understandably re-allocating staff) and about as many are additions of co-managers to teams, but there are a handful of senior folks who’ve announced their retirements.

Top Developments in Fund Industry Litigation – August2014

Fundfox is the only intelligence service to focus exclusively on litigation involving U.S.-registered investment companies, their directors and advisers. Publisher David Smith has agreed to share highlights with us. For a complete list of developments last month, and for information and court documents in any case, log in at www.fundfox.com and navigate to Fundfox Insider.

New Lawsuits

• Davis was hit with a new excessive-fee lawsuit regarding its N.Y. Venture Fund (the same fund already involved in another pending fee litigation). (Chill v. Davis Selected Advisers, L.P.)
• Alleging the same fee claim but for a different damages period, plaintiffs filed an “anniversary complaint” in the excessive-fee litigation regarding six Principal LifeTime funds. (Am. Chems. & Equip., Inc. 401(k) Ret. Plan v. Principal Mgmt. Corp.)

Order

• The court partly denied motions to dismiss a shareholder’s lawsuit regarding four Morgan Keegan closed-end funds, allowing misrepresentation claims under the Securities Act to proceed. (Small v. RMK High Income Fund, Inc.)

Certiorari Petition

• Plaintiffs have filed a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in an ERISA class action that challenged Fidelity‘s use of the float income generated by transactions in retirement plan accounts. (Tussey v. ABB, Inc.)

Briefs

• Davis filed a motion to dismiss excessive-fee litigation regarding its N.Y. Venture Fund. (Hebda v. Davis Selected Advisers, L.P.)
• Putnam filed its opening brief in the appeal of a fraud lawsuit regarding its collateral management services to a CDO; and the plaintiff filed a reply. (Fin. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co.)
• Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Vanguard‘s motion to dismiss a lawsuit regarding investments by two funds in offshore online gambling businesses; and Vanguard filed its reply brief. (Hartsel v. Vanguard Group, Inc.)

David Hobbs, president of Cook & Bynum, and I were talking at the Cohen Fund conference about the challenges facing fund trustees.  David mentioned that he encourages his trustees to follow David Smith’s posts here since they represent a valuable overview of new legal activity in the field.  That struck me as a thoughtful initiative and so I thought I’d pass David H’s suggestion along.

A cool resource for folks seeking “liquid alts” funds

The folks at DailyAlts maintain a list of all new hedge fund like mutual funds and ETFs. The list records 52 new funds launched between January and August 2014 and offers a handful of useful data points as well as a link to a cursory overview of the strategy.

I stumbled upon the site in pursuit of something else. It struck me as a cool and useful resource and led me to a fair number of funds that were entirely new to me. Kudos to Editor Brian Haskin and his team for the good work.

Briefly Noted . . .

Arrowpoint Asset Management LLC has increased its stake in Destra Capital Management, adviser to the Destra funds, to the point that it’s now the majority owner and “controlling person” of the firm.

Causeway’s bringing it home: pending shareholder approval, Causeway International Opportunities Fund (CIOVX) will be restructured from a “fund of funds” to “a fund making direct investments in securities.” The underlying funds in question are institutional shares of Causeway’s two other international funds – Emerging Markets (CEMIX) and International Opportunities Value(CIVIX) – so it’s hard to see how much gain investors might expect. The downside: the fund needs to entirely liquidate its portfolio which will trigger “a significantly higher taxable distribution” than investors are used to. In a slightly-stern note, Causeway warns “taxable investors receiving the distributions should be prepared to pay taxes on them.” The effect of the change on the fund’s expense ratio is muddled at the moment. Morningstar’s reported e.r. for the fund, .36%, doesn’t include the expense ratios of the underlying funds. With the new fund’s expense ratio not set, we have no idea about whether the investors are likely to see their expenses rise or fall. 

Morningstar, due to their somewhat confused reporting on the expense ratios of funds-of-funds, derides the 36 basis point fee as “high”, when they should be providing the value of the expense ratio of both the fund and it’s underlying holdings. (Thanks, Ira!)

Effective August 21, FPA Crescent Fund (FPACX) became free to invest more than 50% of its assets overseas.  Direct international exposure was previously capped at 50%.  No word yet as to why.  Or, more pointedly, why now?

Jeffrey Gundlach, DoubleLine’s founder, is apparently in talks about buying the Buffalo Bills. I’m not sure if anyone mentioned to him that E.J. Manuel (“Buffalo head coach Doug Marrone already is lowering the bar of expectation considerably for the team’s 2013 first-round pick”) is all they’ve got for a QB, unless of course The Jeffrey is imagining himself indomitably under center. That’s far from the oddest investment by a mutual fund billionaire. That honor might go to Ned Johnson’s obsessive pursuit of tomato perfection through his ownership of Backyard Farms.

On or about November 3, 2014, the principal investment strategies of the Manning Napier Real Estate and Equity Income will change to permit the writing (selling) of options on securities.

Another tough month for Marsico.  With the departure (or dismissal) of James Gendelman,  Marsico International Opportunities (MIOFX) loses its founding manager and Marsico Global (MGBLX)loses the second of its three founding managers. On the same day they lost their sub-advisory role at Litman Gregory Masters International Fund (MNILX).  Five other first-rate teams remain with the fund, whose generally fine record is marred by substantially losses in 2011.  In April 2012, one of the management teams – from Mastholm Asset Management – was dropped and performance on other sides of 2011 has been solid.

Royce Special Equity Multi-Cap Fund (RSMCX) has declared itself, and its 30 portfolio holdings, “non-diversified.”

T. Rowe Price Spectrum Income (RPSIX) is getting a bit spicy. Effective September 1, 2014, the managers may invest between 0 – 10% of the fund’s assets in T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Fund, Floating Rate Fund, Inflation Focused Bond Fund, Inflation Protected Bond Fund, and U.S. Treasury Intermediate Fund.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Effective immediately, 361 Global Macro Opportunity, Managed Futures Strategy and Global Managed Futures Strategy fund will no longer impose a 2% redemption fee.

That’s a ridiculously small number of wins for our side.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

On September 19, 2014, Eaton Vance Multi-Cap Growth Fund (EVGFX) will be soft-closed.  One-star rating, $162 million in assets, regrettable tendency to capture more downside (108%) than upside (93%), new manager in November 2013 with steadily weakening performance since then.  This might be the equivalent of a move into hospice care.

Effective September 5, 2014, Nationwide International Value Fund (NWVAX) will close to new investors.  One star rating, $22 million in assets, a record the trails 87% of its peers: Hospice!

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective October 1, 2014, Dunham Loss Averse Equity Income Fund (DAAVX/DNAVX) will be renamed Dunham Dynamic Macro Fund.  The revised fund will use “a dynamic macro asset allocation strategy” which might generate long or short exposure to pretty much any publicly-traded security.

Effective October 31, 2014, Eaton Vance Large-Cap Growth Fund (EALCX) gets renamed Eaton Vance Growth Fund.  The change seems to be purely designed to dodge the 80% rule since the principle investment strategies remain unchanged except for the “invests 80% of its assets in large” piece.  The fund comes across as modestly overpriced tapioca pudding: there’s nothing terribly objectionable about it but, really, why bother?  At the same time Eaton Vance Large-Cap Core Research Fund (EAERX) gains a bold new name: Eaton Vance Stock Fund.  With an R-squared that’s consistently over 98 but returns that trailed the S&P in four of the past five calendar years, it might be more accurately renamed Eaton Vance “Wouldn’t You Be Better in a Stock Index Fund?” Fund.

Oh, I know why that would be a bad name.  Because, the prospectus declares “Particular stocks owned will not mirror the S&P 500 Index.” Right, though the portfolio as a whole will.

Eaton Vance Balanced Fund (EVIFX) has become a fund of two Eaton Vance Funds: Growth and Investment Grade Income.  It’s a curious decision since the fund has had substantially above-average returns over the past five years.

Effective on October 1, 2014. Goldman Sachs Core Plus Fixed Income Fund becomes Goldman Sachs Bond Fund

On or around October 21, 2014, JPMorgan Multi-Sector Income Fund (the “Fund”) becomes the JPMorgan Unconstrained Debt Fund. Its principal investment strategy is to invest in (get ready!) “debt.” The list of allowable investments offers a hint, in listing two sorts of bank loans first and bonds fifth.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

If you’ve ever wondered how big the dustbin of history is, here’s a quick snapshot of it from the Investment Company Institute’s latest Factbook. In broad terms, 500 funds disappear and 600 materialize in the average year. The industry generally sees healthy shakeouts in the year following a market crash.

Ron Rowland, founder of Invest With an Edge and editor of AllStarInvestor.com, maintains the suitably macabre ETF Deathwatch which each month highlights those ETFs likeliest to be described as zombies: funds with both low assets and low trading volumes.  The August Deathwatch lists over 300 ETFs that soon might, and perhaps ought to, become nothing more than vague memories.

This month’s entrants to the dustbin include AMF Intermediate Mortgage Fund (ASCPX)and AMF Ultra Short Fund (AULTX), both slated to liquidate on September 26, 2014.

AllianceBernstein International Discovery Equity (ADEAX) and AllianceBernstein Market Neutral Strategy — Global (AANNX)will be liquidated and dissolved (how are those different?) on October 10, 2014.

Around December 19^th, Clearbridge Equity Fund (LMQAX) merges into ClearBridge Large Cap Growth Fund (SBLGX).  LMQAX has had the same manager since 1995.

On Aug. 20, 2014, the Board of Trustees of Voyageur Mutual Funds unanimously voted and approved a proposal to liquidate and dissolve Delaware Large Cap Core Fund (DDCAX), Delaware Core Bond Fund (DPFIX) and Delaware Macquarie Global Infrastructure Fund (DMGAX). The euthanasia will occur by late October but they did not specify a date.

Direxion Indexed CVT Strategy Bear Fund (DXCVX) and Direxion Long/Short Global Currency Fund (DXAFX)are both slated to close on September 8^th and liquidate on September 22^nd.  Knowing that you were being eaten alive by curiosity, I checked: DXCVX seeks to replicate the inverse of the daily returns of the QES Synthetic Convertible Index. At base, it shorts convertible bonds.  Morningstar designates the fund as Direxion Indxd Synth Convert Strat Bear, for reasons not clear, but does give a clue as to its demise: it has $30,000 in AUM and has fallen a sprightly 15% since inception in February.

Horizons West Multi-Strategy Hedged Income Fund (HWCVX) will liquidate on October 6, 2014, just six months after launch.  In the interim, Brenda A. Smith has replaced Steven M. MacNamara as the fund’s president and principal executive officer.

The $100 million JPMorgan Strategic Preservation Fund (JSPAX) is slated for liquidation on September 29^th.  The manager may have suffered from excessive dedication to the goal of preservation: throughout its life the fund never had more than a third of its assets in stocks.  That gave it a minimal beta (about 0.20) but also minimal appeal in generally rising markets.

Oddly, the fund’s prospectus warns that “The Fund’s total allocation to equity securities and convertible bonds will not exceed 60% of the Fund’s total assets except for temporary defensive positions.”  They never explain when moving out of cash and into stocks qualifies as a defensive move.

Parametric Market Neutral Fund (EPRAX) ceases to exist on September 19, 2014.

PIMCO, the world’s biggest bond fund shop and happiest employer, is trimming out its ETF roster: Australia Bond, Build America Bond, Canada Bond and Germany Bond disappear on or about October 1, 2014.  “This date,” PIMCO gently reminds us, “may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.”  At the same time iShares, the biggest issuer of ETFs, plans to close 18 small funds with a combined asset base of a half billion dollars.  That includes 10 target-date funds plus several EM and real estate niche funds.

Prudential International Value Fund (PISAX), run by LSV, will be merged into Prudential International Equity Fund (PJRAX).  Both funds are overpriced and neither has a consistent record of adding much value, though PJRAX is slightly less overpriced and has strung through a decent run lately.

PTA Comprehensive Alternatives Fund (BPFAX) liquidates on September 15, 2014. I didn’t even know the PTA had funds, though around here they certainly have fund-raisers.

In Closing . . .

Thanks, as always, to all of you who’ve supported the Observer either by using our Amazon link (which costs you nothing but earns us 6-7% of the value of whatever you buy using it) or making a direct contribution by check or through PayPal (which costs you … well, something admittedly).  Nuts.  I really owe Philip A. a short note of thanks.  Uhhh … sorry, big guy!  The card is in the mail (nearly).

For the first time ever, the four of us who handle the bulk of the Observer’s writing and administrative work – Charles, Chip, Ed and me – are settling down to a face-to-face planning session at the end of the upcoming Morningstar ETF Conference. Which also means that we’ll be wandering around the conference. If you’re there and would like to chat with any of us, drop me a note and we’ll get it set up.

Talk to you soon, think of you sooner!

Dear friends,

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

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

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

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

Is it time to loathe the emerging markets? Again?

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

With our preeminent journalists contributing:

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

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

We’d like to make three points.

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

Emerging markets securities are deeply undervalued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those securities certainly could become much more deeply undervalued.

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

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

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

It’s not the time to be running away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our take on those funds follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Snowball’s portfolio

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

I guess my portfolio construction is driven by three dictums:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sterling Capital hits Ctrl+Alt+Delete

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

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

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

The benchmark changes, to the Russell 1000 Value

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

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

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

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

Warren Buffett thinks you’ve come to the right place

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

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

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

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

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

Warren Buffett Katharine Graham Letter

And now for something completely different …

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

As a writer and thinker, he minced no words.

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

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

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

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

“Skin in the Game, Part One”

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

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

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

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

Edward A. Studzinski

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

Introducing Charles’ Balcony

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

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

Observer fund profiles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Vannelli, Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Knowledge Leaders Strategy employs an active strategy that offers equity-like returns with bond-like risk. Superior risk-adjusted returns with low correlation to market indices make the GaveKal Knowledge Leaders Strategy a good vehicle for investors who seek to maximize their risk and return objectives.

The genesis of the strategy has its origin in the 2005 book, Our Brave New World, by GaveKal Research, which highlights knowledge as a scare asset.

As a validation of our intellectual foundation, in July, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis began to capitalize R&D to measure the contribution of innovation spending on growth of the US economy.

The minimum initial investment on the fund’s retail shares is $2,500. There are also institutional shares (GAVIX) with a $100,000 minimum (though they do let financial advisors aggregate accounts in order to reach that threshold). The fund’s website is clean and easily navigated. It would make a fair amount of sense for you to visit to “Fund Documents” page, which hosts the fund’s factsheet and a thoughtful presentation on intangible capital. 

Our earlier Elevator Talks were:

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

Upcoming conference call: A discussion of the reopening of RiverNorth Strategy Income (RNDLX)

The folks at RiverNorth will host a conference call between the fund’s two lead managers, Patrick Galley of RiverNorth and Jeffrey Gundlach of DoubleLine, to discuss their decision to reopen the fund to new investors at the end of August and what they see going forward (the phrase “fear and loathing” keeps coming up). 

The call will be: Wednesday, September 18, 3:15pm – 4:15pm CDT

To register, go to www.rivernorthfunds.com/events/

The webcast will feature a Q&A with Messrs. Galley and Gundlach.

RNDLX (RNSIX for the institutional class), which the Observer profiled shortly after launch, has been a very solid fund with a distinctive strategy. Mr. Gundlach manages part of his sleeve of the portfolio in a manner akin to DoubleLine Core Fixed Income (DLFNX) and part with a more opportunistic income strategy. Mr. Galley pursues a tactical fixed-income allocation and an utterly unique closed-end fund arbitrage strategy in his slice. The lack of attractive opportunities in the CEF universe prompted the fund’s initial closure. Emily Deter of RiverNorth reports that the opening “is primarily driven by the current market opportunity in the closed-end fund space. Fixed-income closed-end funds are trading at attractive discounts to their NAVs, which is an opportunity we have not seen in years.” Investment News reported that fixed-income CEFs moved quickly from selling at a 2% premium to selling at a 7% discount. 

That’s led Mr. Galley’s move from CEFs from occupying 17% of the portfolio a year ago to 30% today and, it seems, he believes he could pursue more opportunities if he had more cash on hand.

Given RiverNorth’s ongoing success and clear commitment to closing funds well before they become unmanageable, it’s apt to be a good use of your time.

The Observer’s own series of conference calls with managers who’ve proven to be interesting, sharp, occasionally wry and successful, will resume in October. We’ll share details in our October issue.

Funds in Registration

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

Every day David Welsch, an exceedingly diligent research assistant at the Observer, scours new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves. David tracked down nearly 100 new funds and ETFs. Many of the proposed funds offer nothing new, distinctive or interesting. Some were downright mystifying. (Puerto Rico Shares? Colombia Capped ETF? The Target Duration 2-month ETF?) There were 26 no-load funds or actively-managed ETFs in registration with the SEC this month. 

Funds in registration this month won’t be available for sale until, typically, the end of October or early November 2013.

There are probably more interesting products in registration this month than at any time in the seven years we’ve been tracking them. Among the standouts:

Brown Advisory Strategic European Equity Fund which will be managed by Dirk Enderlein of Wellington Management. Wellington is indisputably an “A-team” shop (they’ve got about three-quarters of a trillion in assets under management). Mr. Enderlein joined them in 2010 after serving as a manager for RCM – Allianz Global Investors in Frankfurt, Germany (1999-2009). Media reports described him as “one of Europe’s most highly regarded European growth managers.”

DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced CAPE will attempt to beat an index, Shiller Barclays CAPE® US Sector TR USD Index, which was designed based on decades of research by the renowned Robert Shiller. The fund will be managed by Jeffrey Gundlach and Jeffrey Sherman.

Driehaus Micro Cap Growth Fund, a converted 15 year old hedge fund

Harbor Emerging Markets Equity Fund, which will be sub-advised by the emerging markets team at Oaktree Capital Management. Oaktree’s a first-tier institutional manager with a very limited number of advisory relationships (primarily with Vanguard and RiverNorth) in the mutual fund world. 

Meridian Small Cap Growth, which will be the star vehicle for Chad Meade and Brian Schaub, who Meridian’s new owner hired away from Janus. Morningstar’s Greg Carlson described them as “superb managers” who were “consistently successful during their nearly seven years at the helm” of Janus Triton.

Plus some innovative offerings from Northern, PIMCO and T. Rowe Price. Details and the list of all of the funds in registration are available at the Observer’s Funds in Registration page or by clicking “Funds” on the menu atop each page.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down a record 85 fund manager changes. Investors should take particular note of Eric Ende and Stephen Geist’s exit from FPA Paramount after a 13 year run. The change is big enough that we’ve got a profile of Paramount as one of the month’s Most Intriguing New Funds.

Updates

Bretton Fund (BRTNX) is now available through Vanguard. Manager Stephen Dodson writes that after our conference call, several listeners asked about the fund’s availability and Stephen encouraged them to speak directly with Vanguard. Mirabile dictu, the Big V was receptive to the idea.

Stephen recently posted his most recent letter to his shareholders. He does a nice job of walking folks through the core of his investing discipline with some current illustrations. The short version is that he’s looking for firms with durable competitive advantages in healthy industries whose stocks are selling at a substantial discount. He writes:

There are a number of relevant and defensible companies out there that are easily identifiable; the hard part is finding the rare ones that are undervalued. The sweet spot for us continues to be relevant, defensible businesses at low prices (“cheap compounders”). I continue to spend my waking hours looking for them.

Q2 2013 presented slim pickin’s for absolute value investors (Bretton “neither initiated nor eliminated any investments during the quarter”). For all of the market’s disconcerting gyrations this summer, Morningstar calculates that valuations for its Wide Moat and Low Business Uncertainty groups (surrogates for “high quality stocks”) remains just about where they were in June: undervalued by about 4% while junkier stocks remain modestly overvalued.

Patience is hard.

Briefly Noted . . .

Calamos loses another president

James Boyne is resigning as president and chief operating officer of Calamos Investments effective Sept. 30, just eight months after being promoted to president. The firm has decided that they need neither a president nor a chief operating officer. Those responsibilities will be assumed “by other senior leaders” at the firm (see: Black, Gary, below). The preceding president, Nick P. Calamos, decided to “step back” from his responsibilities in August 2012 when, by coincidence, Calamos hired former Janus CEO Gary Black. To describe Black as controversial is a bit like described Rush Limbaugh as opinionated.

They’re not dead yet!

Back in July, the Board of Caritas All-Cap Growth (CTSAX): “our fund is tiny, expensive, bad, and pursues a flawed investment strategy (long stocks, short ETFs).” Thereupon they reached a sensible conclusion: euthanasia. Shortly after the fund had liquidated all of its securities, “the Board was presented with and reviewed possible alternatives to the liquidation of the Fund that had arisen since the meeting on July 25, 2013.”

The alternative? Hire Brenda A. Smith, founder of CV Investment Advisors, LLC, to manage the fund. A quick scan of SEC ADV filings shows that Ms. Smith is the principal in a two person firm with 10 or fewer clients and $5,000 in regulated AUM. 

(I don’t know more about the firm because they have a one page website.)

At almost the same moment, the same Board gave Ms. Smith charge of the failing Presidio Multi-Strategy Fund (PMSFX), an overpriced long/short fund that executes its strategy through ETFs. 

I wish Ms. Smith and her new investors all the luck in the world, but it’s hard to see how a Board of Trustees could, with a straight face, decide to hand over one fund and resuscitate another with huge structural impediments on the promise of handing it off to a rookie manager and declare that both moves are in the best interests of long-suffering shareholders.

Diamond Hill goes overseas, a bit

Effective September 1, 2013, Diamond Hill Research Opportunities Fund (DHROX) gains the flexibility to invest internationally (the new prospectus allows that it “may also invest in non-U.S. equity securities, including equity securities in emerging market countries”) and the SEC filing avers that they “will commence investing in foreign securities.” The fund has 15 managers; I’m guessing they got bored. As a hedge fund (2009-2011), it had a reasonably mediocre record which might have spurred the conversion to a ’40 fund. Which has also had a reasonably mediocre lesson, so points to the management for consistency!

Janus gets more bad news

Janus investors pulled $2.2 billion from the firm’s funds in July, the worst outflows in more than three years. A single investor accounted for $1.3 billion of the leakage. The star managers of Triton and Venture left in May. And now this: they’re losing business to Legg Mason.

The Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust has approved a change of subadviser for the Janus Forty Portfolio from Janus Capital Management to ClearBridge Investments to be effective November 1, 2013 . . . Effective November 1, 2013, the name of the Portfolio will change to ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio II.

Matthews chucks Taiwan

Matthews Asia China (MCHFX), China Dividend (MCDFX) and Matthews and China Small Companies (MCSMX) have changed their Principal Investment Strategy to delete Taiwan. The text for China Dividend shows the template:

Under normal market conditions, the Matthews China Dividend Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its net assets, which include borrowings for investment purposes, in dividend-paying equity securities of companies located in China and Taiwan.

To:

Under normal market conditions, the Matthews China Dividend Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its nets assets, which include borrowings for investment purposes, in dividend-paying equity securities of companies located in China.

A reader in the financial services industry, Anonymous Dude, checked with Matthews about the decision. AD reports

T. Rowe tweaks

Long ago, as a college administrator, I was worried about whether the text in a proposed policy statement might one day get us in trouble. I still remember college counsel shaking his head confidently, smiling and saying “Not to worry. We’re going to fuzz it up real good.” One wonders if he works for T. Rowe Price now? Up until now, many of Price’s funds have had relatively detailed and descriptive investment objectives. No more! At least five of Price’s funds propose new language that reduces the statement of investment objectives to an indistinct mumble. T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund (PRGFX) goes from

The fund seeks to provide long-term capital growth and, secondarily, increasing dividend income through investments in the common stocks of well-established growth companies.

To

The fund seeks long-term capital growth through investments in stocks.

Similar blandifications are proposed for Dividend Growth, Equity Income, Growth & Income and International Growth & Income.

Wasatch redefines “small cap”

A series of Wasatch funds, Small Growth, Small Value and Emerging Markets Small Cap are upping the size of stocks in their universe from $2.5 billion or less to $3.0 billion or less. The change is effective in November.

Can you say whoa!? Or WOA?

The Board of Trustees of an admittedly obscure little institutional fund, WOA All Asset (WOAIX), has decided that the best way to solve what ails the yearling fund is to get it more aggressive.

The Board approved certain changes to the Fund’s principal investment strategies. The changes will be effective on or about September 3, 2013. . . the changes in the Fund’s strategy will alter the Fund’s risk level from balanced strategy with a moderate risk level to an aggressive risk level.

Here’s the chart of the fund’s performance since inception against conservative and moderate benchmarks. While that might show that the managers just need to fire up the risk machine, I’d also imagine that addressing the ridiculously high expenses (1.75% for an institutional balanced fund) and consistent ability to lag in both up and down months (11 of 16 and counting) might actually be a better move. 

WOA’s Trustees, by the way, are charged with overseeing 24 funds. No Trustee has a dollar invested in any of those funds.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

The Board of Trustees of the Direxion Funds and Rafferty Asset Management have decided to make it cheaper for you to own a bunch of funds that you really shouldn’t own. They’re removed the 25 bps Shareholder Servicing Fee from

• Direxion Monthly S&P 500® Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly S&P 500® Bear 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly NASDAQ-100® Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly Small Cap Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly Small Cap Bear 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly Emerging Markets Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly Latin America Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly China Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly Commodity Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly 7-10 Year Treasury Bull 2X Fund
• Direxion Monthly 7-10 Year Treasury Bear 2X Fund
• Dynamic HY Bond Fund and
• U.S. Government Money Market Fund.

Because Eaton Vance loves you, they’ve decided to create the opportunity for investors to buy high expense “C” class shares of Eaton Vance Bond (EVBCX). The new shares will add a 1.00% back load for sales held less than a year and a 1.70% expense ratio (compared to 0.7 and 0.95 for Institutional and A, respectively). 

The Fairholme Fund (FAIRX) reopened to new investors on August 19, 2013. The other Fairholme family funds, not so much.

The Advisor Class shares of Forward Select Income Fund (FSIMX) reopened to new investors at the end of August.

The Board of Directors of the Leuthold Global Industries Fund (LGINX) has agreed to reduce the Fund’s expense cap from 1.85% to 1.60%.

JacksonPark Capital reduced the minimum initial investment on Oakseed Opportunity Institutional shares (SEDEX) from $1 million to $10,000. Given the 18% lower fees on the institutional class (capped at 1.15% versus 1.40% for retail shares), reasonably affluent retail investors ought to seriously consider pursuing the institutional share class. That said, Oakseed’s minimum investment for the retail shares, as low as $100 for accounts set up with an AIP, are awfully reasonable.

RiverNorth DoubleLine Strategic Income (RNDLX/RNSIX) reopened to new investors at the end of August. Check the “upcoming conference calls” feature, above, for more details.

Westcore Blue Chip Dividend Fund (WTMVX ) lowered the expense ratio on its no-load retail shares from 1.15% to 0.99%, effective September 1. They also changed from paying distributions annually to paying them quarterly. It’s a perfectly agreeable, mild-mannered little fund: stable management, global diversified, reasonable expenses and very consistently muted volatility. You do give up a fair amount of upside for the opportunity to sleep a bit more quietly at night.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

American Beacon Stephens Small Cap Growth Fund (STSGX) will close to new investors, effective as of September 16, 2013. The no-class share class has returned 11.8% while its peers made 9.3% and it did so with lower volatility. The fund is closing at a still small $500 million.

Neither high fees nor mediocre performance can dim the appeal of AQR Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund (ASANX/ASAIX). The fund has drawn $1.5 billion and has advertised the opportunity for rich investors (the minimum runs between $1 million and $5 million) to rush in before the doors swing shut at the end of September. It’s almost always a bad sign that a fund feels the need to close and the need to put up a flashing neon sign six weeks ahead.

Morgan Stanley Institutional Global Franchise (MSFAX) will close to new investors on Nov. 29, 2013. The current management team came on board four years ago (June 2009) and have posted very good risk-adjusted returns since then. Investors might wonder why a large cap global fund with a small asset base needs to close. The answer is that the mutual fund represents just the tip of the iceberg; this team actually manages almost $17 billion in this strategy, so the size of the separate accounts is what’s driving the decision.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

At the end of September Ariel International Equity Fund (AINTX) becomes Ariel International Fund and will no longer be required to invest at least 80% of its assets in equities. At the same time, Ariel Global Equity Fund (AGLOX) becomes Ariel Global Fund. The advisor avers that it’s not planning on changing the funds’ investment strategies, just that it would be nice to have the option to move into other asset classes if conditions dictate.

Effective October 30, Guggenheim U.S. Long Short Momentum Fund (RYAMX) will become plain ol’ Guggenheim Long-Short Fund. In one of those “why bother” changes, the prospectus adds a new first sentence to the Strategy section (“invest, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its assets in long and short equity or equity-like securities”) but maintains the old “momentum” language in the second and third sentences. They’ll still “respond to the dynamically changing economy by moving its investments among different industries and styles” and “allocates investments to industries and styles according to several measures of momentum. “ Over the past five years, the fund has been modestly more volatile and less profitable than its peers. As a result, they’ve attracted few assets and might have decided, as a marketing matter, that highlighting a momentum approach isn’t winning them friends.

As of October 28, the SCA Absolute Return Fund (SCARX) will become the Granite Harbor Alternative Fund and it will no longer aim to provide “positive absolute returns with less volatility than traditional equity markets.” Instead, it’s going for the wimpier “long-term capital appreciation and income with low correlation” to the markets. SCA Directional Fund (SCADX) will become Granite Harbor Tactical Fund but will no longer seek “returns similar to equities with less volatility.” Instead, it will aspire to “long term capital appreciation with moderate correlation to traditional equity markets.” 

Have you ever heard someone say, “You know, what I’m really looking for is a change for a moderate correlation to the equity markets”? No, me neither.

Thomas Rowe Price, Jr. (the man, 1898-1983) has been called “the father of growth investing.” It’s perhaps then fitting that T. Rowe Price (the company) has decided to graft the word “Growth” into the names of many of its funds effective November 1.

T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Equity Fund becomes T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Focused Growth Equity Fund. Institutional Global Large-Cap Equity Fund will change its name to the T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Growth Equity Fund. T. Rowe Price Global Large-Cap Stock Fund will change its name to the T. Rowe Price Global Growth Stock Fund.

Effective October 28, 2013, USB International Equity Fund (BNIEX) gets a new name (UBS Global Sustainable Equity Fund), new mandate (invest globally in firms that pass a series of ESG screens) and new managers (Bruno Bertocci and Shari Gilfillan). The fund’s been a bit better under the five years of Nick Irish’s leadership than its two-star rating suggests, but not by a lot.

Off to the dustbin of history

There were an exceptionally large number of funds giving up the ghost this month. We’ve tracked 26, the same as the number of new no-load funds in registration and well below the hundred or so new portfolios of all sorts being launched. I’m deeply grateful to The Shadow, one of the longest-tenured members of our discussion board, for helping me to keep ahead of the flood.

American Independence Dynamic Conservative Plus Fund (TBBIX, AABBX) will liquidate on or about September 27, 2012.

Dynamic Canadian Equity Income Fund (DWGIX) and Dynamic Gold & Precious Metals Fund (DWGOX), both series of the DundeeWealth Funds, are slated for liquidation on September 23, 2013. Dundee bumped off Dynamic Contrarian Advantage Fund (DWGVX) and announced that it was divesting itself of three other funds (JOHCM Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund JOEIX, JOHCM International Select Fund JOHIX and JOHCM Global Equity Fund JOGEX), which are being transferred to new owners.

Equinox Commodity Strategy Fund (EQCAX) closed to new investors in mid-August and will liquidate on September 27^th.

The Evolution Funds face extinction! Oh, the cruel irony of it.

Evolution Managed Bond (PEMVX) Evolution All-Cap Equity (PEVEX), Evolution Market Leaders (PEVSX) and Evolution Alternative Investment (PETRX) have closed to all new investment and were scheduled to liquidate by the end of September. Given their disappearance from Morningstar, one suspects the end came more quickly than we knew.

Frontegra HEXAM Emerging Markets Fund (FHEMX) liquidates at the end of September.

The Northern Lights Board of Trustees has concluded that “based on, among other factors, the current and projected level of assets in the Fund and the belief that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders to discontinue the Hundredfold Select Global Fund (SFGPX).”

Perhaps the “other factors” would be the fact that Hundredfold trailed 100% of its peers over the past three- and five-year periods? The manager was unpaid and quite possibly the fund’s largest shareholder ($50-100k in a $2M fund). His Hundredfold Select Equity (SFEOX) is almost as woeful as the decedent, but Hundredfold Select Alternative (SFHYX) is in the top 1% of its peer group for the same period that the others are bottom 1%. That raises the spectre that luck, rather than skill, might be involved.

JPMorgan is cleaning house: JPMorgan Credit Opportunities Fund (JOCAX), JPMorgan Global Opportunities Fund (JGFAX) and JPMorgan Russia Fund (JRUAX) are all gone as of October 4.

John Hancock intends to merge John Hancock High Income (JHAQX) into John Hancock High Yield (JHHBX). I’m guessing at the fund tickers because the names in the SEC filing don’t quite line up with the Morningstar ones.

Legg Mason Esemplia Emerging Markets Long-Short Fund (SMKAX) will be terminated on October 1, 2013. Let’s see: hard-to-manage strategy, high risk, high expenses, high front load, no assets . . . sounds like Legg.

Leuthold Asset Allocation Fund (LAALX) is merging into Leuthold Core Investment Fund (LCORX). The Board of Directors approved a proposal for the Leuthold Asset Allocation to be acquired by the Leuthold Core, sometime in October 2013. Curious. LAALX, with a quarter billion in assets, modestly lags LCORX which has about $600 million. Both lag more mild-mannered funds such as Northern Global Tactical Asset Allocation (BBALX) and Vanguard STAR (VGSTX) over the course of LAALX’s lifetime. This might be less a story about LAALX than about the once-legendary Leuthold Core. Leuthold’s funds are all quant-driven, based on an unparalleled dataset. For years Core seemed unstoppable: between 2003 and 2008, it finished in the top 5% of its peer group four times. But for 2009 to now, it has trailed its peers every year and has bled $1 billion in assets. In merging the two, LAALX investors get a modestly less expensive fund with modestly better performance. Leuthold gets a simpler administrative structure. 

I halfway admire the willingness of Leuthold to close products that can’t distinguish themselves in the market. Clean Tech, Hedged Equity, Undervalued & Unloved, Select Equities and now Asset Allocation have been liquidated.

MassMutual Premier Capital Appreciation Fund (MCALX) will be liquidated, but not until January 24, 2014. Why? 

New Frontiers KC India Fund (NFIFX) has closed and began the process of liquidating their portfolio on August 26^th. They point to “difficult market conditions in India.” The fund’s returns were comparable to its India-focused peers, which is to say it lost about 30% in 18 months.

Nomura Partners India Fund (NPIAX), Greater China Fund (NPCAX) and International Equity Fund (NPQAX) will all be liquidated by month’s end.

Nuveen Quantitative Enhanced Core Equity (FQCAX) is slated, pending inevitable shareholder approval, to disappear into Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity Fund (NOPAX, formerly Nuveen Symphony Optimized Alpha Fund)

Oracle Mutual Fund (ORGAX) has “due to the relatively small size of the fund” underwent the process of “orderly dissolution.” Due to the relatively small size? How about, “due to losing 49.5% of our investors’ money over the past 30 months, despite an ongoing bull market in our investment universe”? To his credit, the advisor’s president and portfolio manager went down with the ship: he had something between $500,000 – $1,000,000 left in the fund as of the last SAI.

Quantitative Managed Futures Strategy Fund (QMFAX) will “in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders” redeem all outstanding shares on September 15^th.

The directors of the United Association S&P 500 Index Fund (UASPX/UAIIX) have determined that it’s in their shareholders’ best interest to liquidate. Uhhh … I don’t know why. $140 million in assets, low expenses, four-star rating …

Okay, so the Oracle Fund didn’t seem particularly oracular but what about the Steadfast Fund? Let’s see: “steadfast: firmly loyal or constant, unswerving, not subject to change.” VFM Steadfast Fund (VFMSX) launched less than one year ago and gone before its first birthday.

In Closing . . .

Interesting stuff’s afoot. We’ve spoken with the folks behind the surprising Oberweis International Opportunities Fund (OBIOX), which was much different and much more interesting that we’d anticipated. Thanks to “Investor” for poking us about a profile. In October we’ll have one. RiverPark Strategic Income is set to launch at the end of the month, which is exciting both because of the success of the other fund (the now-closed RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund RPHYX) managed by David Sherman and Cohanzick Asset Management and because Sherman comes across as such a consistently sharp and engaging guy. With luck, I’ll lure him into an extended interview with me and a co-conspirator (the gruff but lovable Ed Studzinski, cast in the role of a gruff but lovable curmudgeon who formerly managed a really first-rate mutual fund, which he did).

MFO returns to Morningstar! Morningstar is hosting their annual ETF Invest Conference in Chicago, from October 2 – 4. While, on whole, we’d rather drop by their November conference in Milan, Italy it was a bit pricey and I couldn’t get a dinner reservation at D’O before early February 2014 so we decided to pass it up. While the ETF industry seems to be home to more loony ideas and regrettable business practices than most, it’s clear that the industry’s maturing and a number of ETF products offer low cost access to sensible strategies, some in areas where there are no tested active managers. The slow emergence of active ETFs blurs the distinction with funds and Morningstar does seem do have arranged both interesting panels (skeptical though I am, I’ll go listen to some gold-talk on your behalf) and flashy speakers (Austan Goolsbee among them). With luck, I’ll be able to arrange a couple of face-to-face meetings with Chicago-based fund management teams while I’m in town. If you’re going to be at the conference, feel free to wave. If you’d like to chat, let me know.

If you shop Amazon, please do remember to click on the Observer’s link and use it. If you click on it right now, you can bookmark it or set it as a homepage and then you won’t forget. The partnership with Amazon generates about $20/day which, while modest, allows us to reliably cover all of our “hard” expenses and underwrites the occasional conference coverage. If you’d prefer to consider other support options, that’s great. Just click on “support us” on the top menu bar. But the Amazon thing is utterly painless for you.

The Sufi poet Attar records the fable of a powerful king who asks assembled wise men to create a ring that will make him happy when he is sad, and vice versa. After deliberation the sages hand him a simple ring with the words “This too will pass.” That’s also true of whatever happens to the market and your portfolio in September and October.

Be brave and we’ll be with you in a month!

Dear friends,

I know that for lots of you, this is the season of Big Questions:

• Is the Fed’s insistence on destroying the incentive to save (my credit union savings account is paying 0.05%) creating a disastrous incentive to move “safe” resources into risky asset classes?
• Has the recent passion for high quality, dividend-paying stocks already consumed most of their likely gains for the next decade?
• Should you Sell in May and Go Away?
• Perhaps, Stay for June and Endure the Swoon?

My set of questions is a bit different:

• Why haven’t those danged green beans sprouted yet?  It’s been a week.
• How should we handle the pitching rotation on my son’s Little League team?  We’ve got four games in the span of five days (two had been rained out and one was hailed out) and just three boys – Will included! – who can find the plate.
• If I put off returning my Propaganda students’ papers one more day, what’s the prospect that I’ll end up strung up like Mussolini?

Which is to say, summer is creeping upon us.  Enjoy the season and life while you can!

Of Acorns and Oaks

It’s human nature to make sense out of things.  Whether it’s imposing patterns on the stars in the sky (Hey look!  It’s a crab!) or generating rules of thumb for predicting stock market performances (It’s all about the first five days of the day), we’re relentless in insisting that there’s pattern and predictability to our world.

One of the patterns that I’ve either discerning or invented is this: the alumni of Oakmark International seem to have startlingly consistent success as portfolio managers.  The Oakmark International team is led by David Herro, Oakmark’s CIO for international equities and manager of Oakmark International (OAKIX) since 1992.  Among the folks whose Oakmark ties are most visible:

The Oakmark alumni certainly extend far beyond this list and far back in time.  Ralph Wanger, the brilliant and eccentric Imperial Squirrel who launched the Acorn Fund (ACRNX) and Wanger Asset Management started at Harris Associates.  So, too, did Morningstar founder Joe Mansueto.  Wanger frequently joked that if he’d only hired Mansueto when he had the chance, he would not have been haunted by questions for “stylebox purity” over the rest of his career.  The original manager of Oakmark Fund (OAKMX) was Robert Sanborn, who got seriously out of step with the market for a bit and left to help found Sanborn Kilcollin Partners.  He spent some fair amount of time thereafter comparing how Oakmark would have done if Bill Nygren had simply held Sanborn’s final portfolio, rather than replacing it.

In recent times, the attention centers on alumni of the international side of Oakmark’s operation, which is almost entirely divorced from its domestic investment operation.  It’s “not just on a different floor, but almost on a different world,” one alumnus suggested.  And so I set out to answer the questions: are they really that consistently excellent? And, if so, why?

The answers are satisfyingly unclear.  Are they really consistently excellent?  Maybe.  Pierre Py made a couple interesting notes.  One is that there’s a fair amount of turnover in Herro’s analyst team and we only notice the alumni who go on to bigger and better things.  The other note is that when you’ve been recognized as the International Fund Manager of the Decade and you can offer your analysts essentially unlimited resources and access, it’s remarkably easy to attract some of the brightest and most ambitious young minds in the business.

What, other than native brilliance, might explain their subsequent success?  Dan O’Keefe argues that Herro has been successful in creating a powerful culture that teaches people to think like investors and not just like analysts.  Analysts worry about finding the best opportunities within their assigned industry; investors need to examine the universe of all of the opportunities available, then decide how much money – if any – to commit to any of them.  “If you’re an auto industry analyst, there’s always a car company that you think deserves attention,” one said.  Herro’s team is comprised of generalists rather than industry specialists, so that they’re forced to look more broadly.  Mr. Py compared it to the mindset of a consultant: they learn to ask the big, broad questions about industry-wide practices and challenges, rising and declining competitors, and alternatives.  But Herro’s special genius, Pierre suggested, was in teaching young colleagues how to interview a management team; that is, how to get inside their heads, understand the quality of their thinking and anticipate their strengths and mistakes.   “There’s an art to it that can make your investment process much better.”  (As a guy with a doctorate in communication studies and a quarter century in competitive debate, I concur.)

The question for me is, if it works, why is it rare?  Why is it that other teams don’t replicate Herro’s method?  Or, for that matter, why don’t they replicate Artisan Partner’s structure – which is designed to be (and has been) attractive to the brightest managers and to guard (as it has) against creeping corporatism and groupthink?  It’s a question that goes far beyond the organization of mutual funds and might even creep toward the question, why are so many of us so anxious to be safely mediocre?

Three Messages from Rob Arnott

Robert D. Arnott manages PIMCO’s All Asset (PAAIX) and leveraged All Asset All Authority (PAUIX) funds. Morningstar gives each fund five stars for performance relative to moderate and world allocation peers, in addition to gold and silver analyst ratings, respectively, for process, performance, people, parent and price. On PAAIX’s performance during the 2008 financial crises, Mr. Arnott explains: “I was horrified when we ended the year down 15%.” Then, he learned his funds were among the very top performers for the calendar year, where average allocation funds lost nearly twice that amount. PAUIX, which uses modest leverage and short strategies making it a bit more market neutral, lost only 6%.

Of 30 or so lead portfolio managers responsible for 110 open-end funds and ETFs at PIMCO, only William H. Gross has a longer current tenure than Mr. Arnott. The All Asset Fund was launched in 2002, the same year Mr. Arnott founded Research Affiliates, LLC (RA), a firm that specializes in innovative indexing and asset allocation strategies. Today, RA estimates $142B is managed worldwide using its strategies, and RA is the only sub-advisor that PIMCO, which manages over $2T, credits on its website.

On April 15^th, CFA Society of Los Angeles hosted Mr. Arnott at the Montecito Country Club for a lunch-time talk, entitled “Real Return Investing.” About 40 people attended comprising advisors, academics, and PIMCO staff. The setting was elegant but casual, inside a California mission-style building with dark wooden floors, white stucco walls, and panoramic views of Santa Barbara’s coast. The speaker wore one of his signature purple-print ties. After his very frank and open talk, which he prefaced by stating that the research he would be presenting is “just facts…so don’t shoot the messenger,” he graciously answered every question asked.

Three takeaways: 1) fundamental indexing beats cap-weighed indexing, 2) investors should include vehicles other than core equities and bonds to help achieve attractive returns, and 3) US economy is headed for a 3-D hurricane of deficit, debt, and demographics. Here’s a closer look at each message:

Fundamental Indexation is the title of Mr. Arnott’s 2005 paper with Jason Hsu and Philip Moore. It argues that capital allocated to stocks based on weights of price-insensitive fundamentals, such as book value, dividends, cash flow, and sales, outperforms cap-weighted SP500 by an average of 2% a year with similar volatilities. The following chart compares Power Shares FTSE RAFI US 1000 ETF (symbol: PRF), which is based on RA Fundamental Index (RAFI) of the Russell 1000 companies, with ETFs IWB and IVE:

And here are the attendant risk-adjusted numbers, all over same time period:

RAFI wins, delivering higher absolute and risk-adjusted returns. Are the higher returns a consequence of holding higher risk? That debate continues. “We remain agnostic as to the true driver of the Fundamental indexes’ excess return over the cap-weighted indexes; we simply recognize that they outperformed significantly and with some consistency across diverse market and economic environments.” A series of RAFIs exist today for many markets and they consistently beat their cap-weighed analogs.

All Assets include commodity futures, emerging market local currency bonds, bank loans, TIPS, high yield bonds, and REITs, which typically enjoy minimal representation in conventional portfolios. “A cult of equities,” Mr. Arnott challenges, “no matter what the price?” He then presents research showing that while the last decade may have been lost on core equities and bonds, an equally weighted, more broadly diversified, 16-asset class portfolio yielded 7.3% annualized for the 12 years ending December 2012 versus 3.8% per year for the traditional 60/40 strategy. The non-traditional classes, which RA coins “the third pillar,” help investors “diversify away some of the mainstream stock and bond concentration risk, introduce a source of real returns in event of prospective inflation from monetizing debt, and seek higher yields and/or rates of growth in other markets.”

Mr. Arnott believes that “chasing past returns is likely the biggest mistake investors make.” He illustrates with periodic returns such as those depicted below, where best performing asset classes (blue) often flip in the next period, becoming worst performers (red)…and rarely if ever repeat.

Better instead to be allocated across all assets, but tactically adjust weightings based on a contrarian value-oriented process, assessing current valuation against opportunity for future growth…seeking assets out of favor, priced for better returns. PAAIX and PAUIX (each a fund of funds utilizing the PIMCO family) employ this approach. Here are their performance numbers, along with comparison against some competitors, all over same period:

The All Asset funds have performed very well against many notable allocation funds, like OAKBX and VWENX, protecting against drawdowns while delivering healthy returns, as evidenced by high Martin ratios. But static asset allocator PRPFX has actually delivered higher absolute and risk-adjusted returns. This outperformance is likely attributed its gold holding, which has detracted very recently. On gold, Mr. Arnott states: “When you need gold, you need gold…not GLD.” Newer competitors also employing all-asset strategies are ABRYX and AQRIX. Both have returned handsomely, but neither has yet weathered a 2008-like drawdown environment.

The 3-D Hurricane Force Headwind is caused by waves of deficit spending, which artificially props-up GDP, higher than published debt, and aging demographics. RA has published data showing debt-to-GDP is closer to 500% or even higher rather than 100% value oft-cited, after including state and local debt, Government Sponsored Enterprises (e.g., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac), and unfunded entitlements. It warns that deficit spending may feel good now, but payback time will be difficult.

“Last year, the retired population grew faster than the population of working age adults, yet there was no mention in the press.” Mr. Arnott predicts this transition will manifest in a smaller labor force and lower productivity. It’s inevitable that Americans will need to “save more, spend less, and retire later.” By 2020, the baby boomers will be outnumbered 2:1 by votes, implying any “solemn vows” regarding future entitlements will be at risk. Many developed countries have similar challenges.

Expectations going forward? Instead of 7.6% return for the 60/40 portfolio, expect 4.5%, as evidenced by low bond and dividend yields. To do better, Mr. Arnott advises investing away from the 3-D hurricane toward emerging economies that have stable political systems, younger populations, and lower debt…where fastest GDP growth occurs. Plus, add in RAFI and all asset exposure.

Are they at least greasy high-yield bonds?

One of the things I most dislike about ETFs – in addition to the fact that 95% of them are wildly inappropriate for the portfolio of any investor who has a time horizon beyond this afternoon – is the callous willingness of their boards to transmute the funds.  The story is this: some marketing visionary decides that the time is right for a fund targeting, oh, corporations involved in private space flight ventures and launches an ETF on the (invented) sector.  Eight months later they notice that no one’s interested so, rather than being patient, tweaking, liquidating or merging the fund, they simply hijack the existing vehicle and create a new, entirely-unrelated fund.

Here’s news for the five or six people who actually invested in the Sustainable North American Oil Sands ETF (SNDS): you’re about to become shareholders in the YieldShares High Income ETF.  The deal goes through on June 21.  Do you have any say in the matter?  Nope.  Why not?  Because for the Sustainable North American Oil Sands fund, investing in oil sands companies was legally a non-fundamental policy so there was no need to check with shareholders before changing it. 

The change is a cost-saving shortcut for the fund sponsors.  An even better shortcut would be to avoid launching the sort of micro-focused funds (did you really think there was going to be huge investor interest in livestock or sugar – both the object of two separate exchange-traded products?) that end up festooning Ron Rowland’s ETF Deathwatch list.

Introducing the Owl

Over the past month chip and I have been working with a remarkably talented graphic designer and friend, Barb Bradac, to upgrade our visual identity.  Barb’s first task was to create our first-ever logo, and it debuts this month.

Cool, eh?

We started by thinking about the Observer’s mission and ethos, and how best to capture that visually.  The apparent dignity, quiet watchfulness and unexpected ferocity of the Great Horned Owl – they’re sometimes called “tigers with wings” and are quite willing to strike prey three times their own size – was immediately appealing.  Barb’s genius is in identifying the essence of an image, and stripping away everything else.  She admits, “I don’t know what to say about the wise old owl, except he lends himself soooo well to minimalist geometric treatment just naturally, doesn’t he? I wanted to trim off everything not essential, and he still looks like an owl.”

At first, we’ll use our owl in our print materials (business cards, thank-you notes, that sort of thing) and in the article reprints that funds occasionally commission.  For those interested, the folks at Cook and Bynum asked for a reprint of Charles’s excellent “Inoculated by Value”  essay and our new graphic identity debuted there.  With time we’ll work with Barb and Anya to incorporate the owl – who really needs a name – into our online presence as well.

The Observer resources that you’ve likely missed!

Each time we add a new resource, we try to highlight it for folks.  Since our readership has grown so dramatically in the past year – about 11,000 folks drop by each month – a lot of folks weren’t here for those announcements.  As a public service, I’d like to highlight three resources worth your time.

The Navigator is a custom-built mutual fund research tool, accessible under the Resources tab.  If you know the name of a fund, or part of the name or its ticker, enter it into The Navigator.  It will auto-complete the fund’s name, identify its ticker symbols and  immediately links you to reports or stories on that fund or ETF on 20 other sites (Yahoo Finance, MaxFunds, Morningstar).  If you’re sensibly using the Observer’s resources as a starting point for your own due diligence research, The Navigator gives you quick access to a host of free, public resources to allow you to pursue that goal.

Featured Funds is an outgrowth of our series of monthly conference calls.  We set up calls – free and accessible to all – with managers who strike us as being really interesting and successful.  This is not a “buy list” or anything like it.  It’s a collection of funds whose managers have convinced me that they’re a lot more interesting and thoughtful than their peers.  Our plan with these calls is to give every interested reader to chance to hear what I hear and to ask their own questions.  After we talk with a manager, the inestimably talented Chip creates a Featured Fund page that draws together all of the resources we can offer you on the fund.  That includes an mp3 of the conference call and my take on the call’s highlights, an updated profile of the fund and also a thousand word audio profile of the fund (presented by a very talented British friend, Emma Presley), direct links to the fund’s own resources and a shortcut to The Navigator’s output on the funds.

There are, so far, seven Featured Funds:

• ASTON/RiverRoad Long/Short (ARLSX)
• Cook and Bynum (COBYX)
• Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX)
• RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity (RLSFX)
• RiverPark Short-Term High Yield (RPHYX)
• RiverPark/Wedgewood (RWGFX)
• Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income (SFGIX)

Manager Change Search Engine is a feature created by Accipiter, our lead programmer, primarily for use by our discussion board members.  Each month Chip and I scan hundreds of Form 497 filings at the SEC and other online reports to track down as many manager changes as we can.  Those are posted each month (they’re under the “Funds” tab) and arranged alphabetically by fund name.  Accipiter’s search engine allows you to enter the name of a fund company (Fidelity) and see all of the manager changes we have on record for them.  To access the search engine, you need to go to the discussion board and click on the MGR tab at top.  (I know it’s a little inconvenient, but the program was written as a plug-in for the Vanilla software that underlies the discussion board.  It will be a while before Accipiter is available to rewrite the program for us, so you’ll just have to be brave for a bit.)

Valley Forge Fund staggers about

For most folks, Valley Forge Fund (VAFGX) is understandably invisible.  It was iconic mostly because it so adamantly rejected the trappings of a normal fund.  It was run since the Nixon Administration by Bernard Klawans, a retired aerospace engineer.  He tended to own just a handful of stocks and cash.  For about 20 years he beat the market then for the next 20 he trailed it.  In the aftermath of the late 90s mania, he went back to modestly beating the market.  He didn’t waste money on marketing or even an 800-number and when someone talked him into having a website, it remained pretty much one page long.

Mr. Klawans passed away on December 22, 2011, at the age of 90.  Craig T. Aronhalt who had co-managed the fund since the beginning of 2009 died on November 3, 2012 of cancer.  Morningstar seems not to have noticed his death: six months after passing away, they continue listing him as manager. It’s not at all clear who is actually running the thing though, frankly, for a fund that’s 25% in cash it’s having an entirely respectable year with a gain of nearly 10% through the end of April.

The more-curious development is the Board’s notice, entitled “Important information about the Fund’s Lack of Investment Adviser”

For the period beginning April 1, 2013 through the date the Fund’s shareholders approve a new investment advisory agreement (estimated to be achieved by May 17, 2013), the Fund will not be managed by an investment adviser or a portfolio manager (the “Interim Period”).  During the Interim Period, the Fund’s portfolio is expected to remain largely unchanged, subject to the ability of the Board of Directors of the Fund to, as it deems appropriate under the circumstances, make such portfolio changes as are consistent with the Fund’s prospectus.  During the Interim Period, the Fund will not be subject to any advisory fees.

Because none of the members of Fund’s Board of Directors has any experience as portfolio managers, management risk will be heightened during the Interim Period, and you may lose money.

How does that work?  The manager died at the beginning of November but the board doesn’t notice until April 1?  If someone was running the portfolio since November, the law requires disclosure of that fact.  I know that Mr. Buffett has threatened to run Berkshire Hathaway for six months after his death, so perhaps … ? 

If that is the explanation, it could be a real cost-savings strategy since health care and retirement benefits for the deceased should be pretty minimal.

Observer Fund Profiles:

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of between two and four funds.  Our “Most Intriguing New Funds” are funds launched within the past couple years that most frequently feature experienced managers leading innovative newer funds. 

FPA International Value (FPIVX): It’s not surprising that manager Pierre Py is an absolute return investor.  That is, after all, the bedrock of FPA’s investment culture.  What is surprising is that it has also be an excellent relative return vehicle: despite a substantial cash reserve and aversion to the market’s high valuations, it has also substantially outperformed its fully-invested peers since inception.

Oakseed Opportunity Fund (SEEDX): Finally!  Good news for all those investors disheartened by the fact that the asset-gatherers have taken over the fund industry.  Jackson Park has your back.

“Stars in the Shadows” are older funds that have attracted far less attention than they deserve. 

Artisan Global Value Fund (ARTGX): I keep looking for sensible caveats to share with you about this fund.  Messrs. Samra and O’Keefe keep making my concerns look silly, so I think I might give up and admit that they’re remarkable.

Payden Global Low Duration Fund (PYGSX): Short-term bond funds make a lot of sense as a conservative slice of your portfolio, most especially during the long bull market in US bonds.  The question is: what happens when the bull market here stalls out?  One good answer is: look for a fund that’s equally adept at investing “there” as well as “here.”  Over 17 years of operation, PYGSX has made a good case that they are that fund.

Elevator Talk #4: Jim Hillary, LS Opportunity Fund (LSOFX)

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

Mr. Hillary manages Independence Capital Asset Partners (ICAP), a long/short equity hedge fund he launched on November 1, 2004 that serves as the sub-advisor to the LS Opportunity Fund (LSOFX), which in turn launched on September 29, 2010. Prior to embarking on a hedge fund career, Mr. Hillary was a co-founder and director of research for Marsico Capital Management where he managed the Marsico 21^st Century Fund (MXXIX) until February 2003 and co-managed all large cap products with Tom Marsico. In addition to his US hedge fund and LSOFX in the mutual fund space, ICAP runs a UCITS for European investors. Jim offers these 200 words on why his mutual fund could be right for you:

In 2004, I believed that after 20 years of above average equity returns we would experience a period of below average returns. Since 2004, the equity market has been characterized by lower returns and heightened volatility, and given the structural imbalances in the world and the generationally low interest rates I expect this to continue.  Within such an environment, a long/short strategy provides exposure to the equity market with a degree of protection not provided by “long-only” funds.

In 2010, we agreed to offer investors the ICAP investment process in a mutual fund format through LSOFX. Our process aims to identify investment opportunities not limited to style or market capitalization. The quality of research on Wall Street continues to decline and investors are becoming increasingly concerned about short-term performance. Our in-depth research and long-term orientation in our high conviction ideas provide us with a considerable advantage. It is often during times of stress that ICAP uncovers unusual investment opportunities. A contrarian approach with a longer-term view is our method of generating value-added returns. If an investor is searching for a vehicle to diversify away from long-only, balanced or fixed income products, a hedge fund strategy like ours might be helpful.

The fund has a single share class with no load and no 12b-1 fees. The minimum initial investment is $5,000 and net expenses are capped at 1.95%. More information about the Advisor and Sub-Advisor can be found on the fund’s website, www.longshortadvisors.com. Jim’s most recent commentary can be found in the fund’s November 2012 Semi-Annual Report.

RiverPark/Wedgewood Fund: Conference Call Highlights

I had a chance to speak with David Rolfe of Wedgewood Partners and Morty Schaja, president of RiverPark Funds. A couple dozen listeners joined us, though most remained shy and quiet. Morty opened the call by noting the distinctiveness of RWGFX’s performance profile: even given a couple quarters of low relative returns, it substantially leads its peers since inception. Most folks would expect a very concentrated fund to lead in up markets. It does, beating peers by about 10%. Few would expect it to lead in down markets, but it does: it’s about 15% better in down markets than are its peers. Mr. Schaja is invested in the fund and planned on adding to his holdings in the week following the call.

The strategy: Rolfe invests in 20 or so high-quality, high-growth firms. He has another 15-20 on his watchlist, a combination of great mid-caps that are a bit too small to invest in and great large caps a bit too pricey to invest in. It’s a fairly low turnover strategy and his predilection is to let his winners run. He’s deeply skeptical of the condition of the market as a whole – he sees badly stretched valuations and a sort of mania for high-dividend stocks – but he neither invests in the market as a whole nor are his investment decisions driven by the state of the market. He’s sensitive to the state of individual stocks in the portfolio; he’s sold down four or five holdings in the last several months nut has only added four or five in the past two years. Rather than putting the proceeds of the sales into cash, he’s sort of rebalancing the portfolio by adding to the best-valued stocks he already owns.

His argument for Apple: For what interest it holds, that’s Apple. He argues that analysts are assigning irrationally low values to Apple, somewhere between those appropriate to a firm that will never see real topline growth again and one that which see a permanent decline in its sales. He argues that Apple has been able to construct a customer ecosystem that makes it likely that the purchase of one iProduct to lead to the purchase of others. Once you’ve got an iPod, you get an iTunes account and an iTunes library which makes it unlikely that you’ll switch to another brand of mp3 player and which increases the chance that you’ll pick up an iPhone or iPad which seamlessly integrates the experiences you’ve already built up. As of the call, Apple was selling at $400. Their sum-of-the-parts valuation is somewhere in the $600-650 range.

On the question of expenses: Finally, the strategy capacity is north of $10 billion and he’s currently managing about $4 billion in this strategy (between the fund and private accounts). With a 20 stock portfolio, that implies a $500 million in each stock when he’s at full capacity. The expense ratio is 1.25% and is not likely to decrease much, according to Mr. Schaja. He says that the fund’s operations were subsidized until about six months ago and are just in the black now. He suggested that there might be, at most, 20 or so basis points of flexibility in the expenses. I’m not sure where to come down on the expense issue. No other managed, concentrated retail fund is substantially cheaper – Baron Partners and Edgewood Growth are 15-20 basis points more, Oakmark Select and CGM Focus are 15-20 basis points less while a bunch of BlackRock funds charge almost the same.

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

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

The RWGFX Conference Call

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

Conference Call Upcoming: Bretton Fund (BRTNX), May 28, 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern

Manager Steve Dodson, former president of the Parnassus Funds, is an experienced investment professional, pursuing a simple discipline.  He wants to buy deeply discounted stocks, but not a lot of them.  Where some funds tout a “best ideas” focus and then own dozens of the same large cap stocks, Mr. Dodson seems to mean it when he says “just my best.”

As of 12/30/12, the fund held just 16 stocks.  Nearly as much is invested in microcaps as in megacaps. In addition to being agnostic about size, the fund is also unconstrained by style or sector.  Half of the fund’s holdings are characterized as “growth” stocks, half are not.   The fund offers no exposure at all in seven of Morningstar’s 11 industry sectors, but is over weighted by 4:1 in financials. 

In another of those “don’t judge it against the performance of groups to which it doesn’t belong” admonitions, it has been assigned to Morningstar’s midcap blend peer group though it owns only one midcap stock.

Our conference call will be Tuesday, May 28, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern.

How can you join in?  Just click

Members of our standing Conference Call Notification List will receive a reminder, notes from the manager and a registration link around the 20^th of May.  If you’d like to join about 150 of your peers in receiving a monthly notice (registration and the call are both free), feel free to drop me a note.

Launch Alert: ASTON/LMCG Emerging Markets (ALEMX)

This is Aston’s latest attempt to give the public – or at least “the mass affluent” – access to managers who normally employ distinctive strategies on behalf of high net worth individuals and institutions.  LMCG is the Lee Munder Capital Group (no, not the Munder of Munder NetNet and Munder Nothing-but-Net fame – that’s Munder Capital Management, a different group).  Over the five years ended December 30, 2012, the composite performance of LMCG’s emerging markets separate accounts was 2.8% while their average peer lost 0.9%.  In 2012, a good year for emerging markets overall, LMCG made 24% – about 50% better than their average peer.  The fund’s three managers, Gordon Johnson, Shannon Ericson and Vikram Srimurthy, all joined LMCG in 2006 after a stint at Evergreen Asset Management.  The minimum initial investment in the retail share class is $2500, reduced to $500 for IRAs.  The opening expense ratio will be 1.65% (with Aston absorbing an additional 4.7% of expenses).  The fund’s homepage is cleanly organized and contains links to a few supporting documents.

Launch Alert II: Matthews Asia Focus and Matthews Emerging Asia

On May 1, Matthews Asia launched two new funds. Matthews Asia Focus Fund (MAFSX and MIFSX) will invest in 25 to 35 mid- to large-cap stocks. By way of contrast, their Asian Growth and Income fund has 50 stocks and Asia Growth has 55. The manager wants to invest in high-quality companies and believes that they are emerging in Asia. “Asia now [offers] a growing pool of established companies with good corporate governance, strong management teams, medium to long operating histories and that are recognized as global or regional leaders in their industry.” The fund is managed by Kenneth Lowe, who has been co-managing Matthews Asian Growth and Income (MACSX) since 2011. The opening expense ratio, after waivers, is 1.91%. The minimum initial investment is $2500, reduced to $500 for an IRA.

Matthews Emerging Asia Fund (MEASX and MIASX) invests primarily in companies located in the emerging and frontier Asia equity markets, such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. It will be an all-cap portfolio with 60 to 100 names. The fund will be managed by Taizo Ishida, who also manages managing the Asia Growth (MPACX) and Japan (MJFOX) funds. The opening expense ratio, after waivers, is 2.16%. The minimum initial investment is $2500, reduced to $500 for an IRA.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details. Every day we scour new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves. Many of the proposed funds offer nothing new, distinctive or interesting. Some are downright horrors of Dilbertesque babble (see “Synthetic Reverse Convertibles,” below).

Funds in registration this month won’t be available for sale until, typically, the beginning of July 2013. We found fifteen no-load, retail funds (and Gary Black) in the pipeline, notably:

AQR Long-Short Equity Fund will seek capital appreciation through a global long/short portfolio, focusing on the developed world.  “The Fund seeks to provide investors with three different sources of return: 1) the potential gains from its long-short equity positions, 2) overall exposure to equity markets, and 3) the tactical variation of its net exposure to equity markets.”  They’re targeting a beta of 0.5.  The fund will be managed by Jacques A. Friedman, Lars Nielsen and Andrea Frazzini (Ph.D!), who all co-manage other AQR funds.  Expenses are not yet set.  The minimum initial investment for “N” Class shares is $1,000,000 but several AQR funds have been available through fund supermarkets for a $2500 investment.  AQR deserves thoughtful attention, but their record across all of their funds is more mixed than you might realize.  Risk Parity has been a fine fund while others range from pretty average to surprisingly weak.

RiverPark Structural Alpha Fund will seek long-term capital appreciation while exposing investors to less risk than broad stock market indices.  Because they believe that “options on market indices are generally overpriced,” their strategy will center on “selling index equity options [which] will structurally generate superior returns . . . [with] less volatility, more stable returns, and reduce[d] downside risk.”  This portfolio was a hedge fund run by Wavecrest Asset Management.  That fund launched on September 29, 2008 and will continue to operate under it transforms into the mutual fund, on June 30, 2013.  The fund made a profit in 2008 and returned an average of 10.7% annually through the end of 2012.  Over that same period, the S&P500 returned 6.2% with substantially greater volatility.  The Wavecrest management team, Justin Frankel and Jeremy Berman, has now joined RiverPark – which has done a really nice job of finding talent – and will continue to manage the fund.   The opening expense ratio with be 2.0% after waivers and the minimum initial investment is $1000.

Curiously, over half of the funds filed for registration on the same day.  Details on these funds and the list of all of the funds in registration are available at the Observer’s Funds in Registration page or by clicking “Funds” on the menu atop each page.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 37 fund manager changes. Those include Oakmark’s belated realization that they needed at least three guys to replace the inimitable Ed Studzinski on Oakmark Equity and Income (OAKBX), and a cascade of changes triggered by the departure of one of the many guys named Perkins at Perkins Investment Management.

Briefly Noted . . .

Seafarer visits Paris: Seafarer has been selected to manage a SICAV, Essor Asie (ESSRASI).  A SICAV (“sea cav” for the monolingual among us, Société d’Investissement À Capital Variable for the polyglot) is the European equivalent of an open-end mutual fund. Michele Foster reports that “It is sponsored by Martin Maurel Gestion, the fund advisory division of a French bank, Banque Martin Maurel.  Essor translates to roughly arising or emerging, and Asie is Asia.”  The fund, which launched in 1997, invests in Asia ex-Japan and can invest in both debt and equity.  Given both Mr. Foster’s skill and his schooling at INSEAD, it seems like a natural fit.

Out of exuberance over our new graphic design, we’ve poured our Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income (SFGIX) profile into our new reprint design template.  Please do let us know how we could tweak it to make it more visually effective and functional.

Nile spans the globe: Effective May 1, 2013, Nile Africa Fixed Income Fund became Nile Africa and Frontier Bond Fund.  The change allows the fund to add bonds from any frontier-market on the planet to its portfolio.

Nationwide is absorbing 17 HighMark Mutual Funds: The changeover will take place some time in the third quarter of 2013.  This includes most of the Highmark family and the plan is for the current sub-advisers to be retained.  Two HighMark funds, Tactical Growth & Income Allocation and Tactical Capital Growth, didn’t make the cut and are scheduled for liquidation.

USAA is planning to launch active ETFs: USAA has submitted paperwork with the SEC seeking permission to create 14 actively managed exchange-traded funds, mostly mimicking already-existing USAA mutual funds. 

Small Wins for Investors

On or before June 30, 2013, Artio International Equity, International Equity II and Select Opportunities funds will be given over to Aberdeen’s Global Equity team, which is based in Edinburgh, Scotland.  The decline of the Artio operation has been absolutely stunning and it was more than time for a change.  Artio Total Return Bond Fund and Artio Global High Income Fund will continue to be managed by their current portfolio teams.

ATAC Inflation Rotation Fund (ATACX) has reduced the minimum initial investment for its Investor Class Shares from $25,000 to $2,500 for regular accounts and from $10,000 to $2,500 for IRA accounts.

Longleaf Partners Global Fund (LLGLX) reopened to new investment on April 16, 2013.  I was baffled by its closing – it discovered, three weeks after launch, that there was nothing worth buying – and am a bit baffled by its opening, which occurred after the unattractive market had risen by another 3%.

Vanguard announced on April 3 that it is reopening the $9 billion Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund (VHCOX) to individual investors and removing the $25,000 annual limit on additional purchases.  The fund has seen substantial outflows over the past three years.  In response, the board decided to make it available to individual investors while leaving it closed to all financial advisory and institutional clients, other than those who invest through a Vanguard brokerage account.  This is a pretty striking opportunity.  The fund is run by PRIMECAP Management, which has done a remarkable job over time.

Closings

DuPont Capital Emerging Markets Fund (DCMEX) initiated a “soft close” on April 30, 2013.

Effective June 30, 2013, the FMI Large Cap (FMIHX) Fund will be closed to new investors.

Eighteen months after launching the Grandeur Peak Funds, Grandeur Peak Global Advisors announced that it will soft close both the Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund (GPGOX) and the Grandeur Peak International Opportunities (GPIOX) Fund on May 1, 2013.

After May 17, 2013 the SouthernSun Small Cap Fund (SSSFX) will be closed to new investors.  The fund has pretty consistently generated returns 50% greater than those of its peers.  The same manager, Michael Cook, also runs the smaller, newer, midcap-focused SouthernSun US Equity Fund (SSEFX).  The latter fund’s average market cap is low enough to suggest that it holds recent alumni of the small cap fund.  I’ll note that we profiled all four of those soon-to-be-closed funds when they were small, excellent and unknown.

Touchstone Merger Arbitrage Fund (TMGAX) closed to new accounts on April 8, 2013.   The fund raised a half billion in under two years and substantially outperformed its peers, so the closing is somewhere between “no surprise” and “reassuring.”

Old Wine, New Bottles

In one of those “what the huh?” announcements, the Board of Trustees of the Catalyst Large Cap Value Fund (LVXAX) voted “to change in the name of the Fund to the Catalyst Insider Buying Fund.” Uhh … there already is a Catalyst Insider Buying Fund (INSAX). 

Lazard U.S. High Yield Portfolio (LZHOX) is on its way to becoming Lazard U.S. Corporate Income Portfolio, effective June 28, 2013.  It will invest in bonds issued by corporations “and non-governmental issuers similar to corporations.”  They hope to focus on “better quality” (their term) junk bonds. 

Off to the Dustbin of History

Dreyfus Small Cap Equity Fund (DSEAX) will transfer all of its assets in a tax-free reorganization to Dreyfus/The Boston Company Small Cap Value Fund (STSVX).

Around June 21, 2013, Fidelity Large Cap Growth Fund (FSLGX) will disappear into Fidelity Stock Selector All Cap Fund (FDSSX). This is an enormously annoying move and an illustration of why one might avoid Fidelity.  FSLGX’s great flaw is that it has attracted only $170 million; FDSSX’s great virtue is that it has attracted over $3 billion.  FDSSX is an analyst-run fund with over 1100 stocks, 11 named managers and a track record inferior to FSLGX (which has one manager and 134 stocks).

Legg Mason Capital Management All Cap Fund (SPAAX) will be absorbed by ClearBridge Large Cap Value Fund (SINAX).  The Clearbridge fund is cheaper and better, so that’s a win of sorts.

In Closing …

If you haven’t already done so, please do consider bookmarking our Amazon link.  It generates a pretty consistent $500/month for us but I have to admit to a certain degree of trepidation over the imminent (and entirely sensible) change in law which will require online retailers with over a $1 million in sales to collect state sales tax.  I don’t know if the change will decrease Amazon’s attractiveness or if it might cause Amazon to limit compensation to the Associates program, but it could.

As always, the Amazon and PayPal links are just … uhh, over there —>

That’s all for now, folks!

Dear friends,

As most of you know, my day job is as a professor at Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois. We have a really lovely campus (one prospective student once joked that we’re the only college he’d visited that actually looked like its postcards) and, as the weather has warmed, I’ve returned to taking my daily walk over the lunch hour.

We have three major construction projects underway, a lot for a school our size. We’re renovating Old Main, which was built in 1884, originally lit gas lanterns and warmed by stoves in the classrooms. After a century of fiddling with it, we finally resolved to strip out a bunch of “improvements” from days gone by, restore some of its original grandeur and make it capable of supporting 21^st century classes.

We’re also building Charles D. Lindberg Stadium, where our football team will finally get to have a locker room and seating for 1800. It’s emblematic that our football stadium is actually named for a national debate champion; we’re kind of into the whole scholar-athlete ethos. (We have the sixth greatest number of Academic All-Americans of any school in the country, just behind Stanford and well ahead of Texas.)

And we’re creating a Center for Student Life, which is “fused” to the 4^th floor of our library. The Center will combine dining, study, academic support and student activities. It’s stuff we do now but that’s scattered all over creation.

Two things occurred to me on my latest walk. One is that these buildings really are investments in our future. They represent acts of faith that, even in turbulent times, we need to plan and act prudently now to create the future we imagine. And the other is that they represent a remarkable balance: between curricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular, between mind, body and spirit, between strengthening what we’ve always had and building something new.

On one level, that’s just about one college and one set of hopes. But, at another, it strikes me as surprisingly useful guidance for a lot more than that: plan, balance, act, dare.

Oh! So that’s what a Stupid Pill looks like!

In a widely misinterpreted March 25^th column, Chuck Jaffe raises the question of whether it’s time to buy a bear market fund.  Most folks, he argues, are addicted to performance-chasing.  What better time to buy stocks than after they’ve doubled in price?  What better time to hedge your portfolio than after they’re been halved?  That, of course, is the behavior of the foolish herd.  We canny contrarians are working now to hedge our gains with select bets against the market, right?  

Talk to money managers and the guys behind bear-market funds, however, and they will tell you their products are designed mostly to be a hedge, diversifying risks and protecting against declines. They say the proper use of their offerings involves a small-but-permanent allocation to the dark side, rather than something to jump into when everything else you own looks to be in the tank.

They also say — and the flows of money into and out of bear-market issues shows — that investors don’t act that way.

At base, he’s not arguing for the purchase of a bear-market fund or a gold fund. He’s using those as tools for getting folks to think about their own short time horizons and herding instincts.

He generously quotes me as making a more-modest observation: that managers, no matter the length or strength of their track records, are quickly dismissed (or ignored) if they lag their peers for more than a quarter. Our reaction tends to be clear: the manager has taken stupid pills and we’re leaving.  Jeff Vinik at Magellan: Manager of the Year in 1993, Stupid Pill swallower in ’95, gone in ’96.  (Started a hedge fund, making a mint.) Bill Nygren at Oakmark Select: intravenous stupid drip around 2007.  (Top 1% since then on both his funds.)  Bruce Berkowitz at Fairholme: Manager of the Decade, slipped off to Walgreen’s in 2011 for stupid pills, got trashed and saw withdrawals of a quarter billion dollars a week. (Top 1% in 2012, closed his funds to new investments, launching a hedge fund now). 

By way of example, one of the most distinguished small cap managers around is Eric Cinnamond who has exercised the same rigorous absolute-return discipline at three small cap funds: Evergreen, Intrepid and now Aston/River Road.  His discipline is really simple: don’t buy or hold anything unless it offers a compelling, absolute value.  Over the period of years, that has proven to be a tremendously rewarding strategy for his investors. 

When I spoke to Eric late in March, he offered a blunt judgment: “small caps overall appear wildly expensive as people extrapolate valuations from peak profits.” That is, current valuations make sense only if you believe that firms experiencing their highest profits won’t ever see them drop back to normal levels.  And so he’s selling stuff as it becomes fully valued, nibbling at a few things (“hard asset companies – natural gas, precious metals – are getting treated as if they’re in a permanent depression but their fundamentals are strong and improving”), accumulating cash and trailing the market.  By a mile.  Over the twelve months ending March 29, 2013, ARIVX returned 7.5% – which trailed 99% of his small value peers. 

The top SCV fund over that period?  Scott Barbee’s microcap Aegis Value (AVALX) fund with a 32% return and absolutely no cash on the books.  As I noted in a FundAlarm profile, it’s perennially a one- or two-star fund with more going for it than you’d imagine.

Mr. Cinnamond seemed acquainted with the sorts of comments made about his fund on our discussion board: “I bailed on ARIVX back in early September,” “I am probably going to bail soon,” and “in 2012 to the present the funds has ranked, in various time periods, in the 97%-100% rank of SCV… I’d look at other SCV Funds.”  Eric nods: “there are investors better suited to other funds.  If you lose assets, so be it but I’d rather lose assets than lose my shareholders’ capital.”  John Deysher, long-time manager of Pinnacle Value (PVFIX), another SCV fund that insists on an absolute rather than relative value discipline, agrees, “it’s tough holding lots of cash in a sizzling market like we’ve seen . . . [cash] isn’t earning much, it’s dry powder available for future opportunities which of course aren’t ‘visible’ now.”

One telling benchmark is GMO Benchmark-Free Allocation IV (GBMBX). GMO’s chairman, Jeremy Grantham, has long argued that long-term returns are hampered by managers’ fear of trailing their benchmarks and losing business (as GMO so famously did before the 2000 crash).  Cinnamond concurs, “a lot of managers ‘get it’ when you read their letters but then you see what they’re doing with their portfolios and wonder what’s happening to them.” In a bold move, GMO launched a benchmark-free allocation fund whose mandate was simple: follow the evidence, not the crowd.  It’s designed to invest in whatever offers the best risk-adjusted rewards, benchmarks be damned.  The fund has offered low risks and above-average returns since launch.  What’s it holding now?  European equities (35%), cash (28%) and Japanese stocks (17%).  US stocks?  Not so much: just under 5% net long.

For those interested in other managers who’ve followed Mr. Cinnamond’s prescription, I sorted through Morningstar’s database for a list of equity and hybrid managers who’ve chosen to hold substantial cash stakes now.  There’s a remarkable collection of first-rate folks, both long-time mutual fund managers and former hedge fund guys, who seem to have concluded that cash is their best option.

This list focuses on no-load, retail equity and hybrid funds, excluding those that hold cash as a primary investment strategy (some futures funds, for example, or hard currency funds).  These folks all hold over 25% cash as of their last portfolio report.  I’ve starred the funds for which there are Observer profiles.

(We’re not endorsing all of those funds.  While I tried to weed out the most obvious nit-wits, like the guy who was 96% cash and 4% penny stocks, the level of talent shown by these managers is highly variable.)

Mr. Deysher gets to the point this way: “As Buffett says, Rule 1 is ‘Don’t lose capital.’   Rule 2 is ‘Don’t forget Rule 1.’”  Steve Romick, long-time manager of FPA Crescent (FPACX), offered both the logic behind FPA’s corporate caution and a really good closing line in a recent shareholder letter:

At FPA, we aspire to protect capital, before seeking a return on it. We change our mind, not casually, but when presented with convincing evidence. Despite our best efforts, we are sometimes wrong. We take our mea culpa and move on, hopefully learning from our mistakes. We question our conclusions constantly. We do this with the approximately $20 billion of client capital entrusted to us to manage, and we simply ask the same of our elected and appointed officials whom we have entrusted with trillions of dollars more.

Nobody has all the answers. Genius fails. Experts goof.  Rather than blind faith, we need our leaders to admit failure, learn from it, recalibrate, and move forward with something better. Although we cannot impose our will on this Administration as to Mr. Bernanke’s continued role at the Fed, we would at least like to make our case for a Fed chairman more aware (at least publicly) of the unintended consequences of ultra-easy monetary policy, and one with less hubris. As the author Malcolm Gladwell so eloquently said, “Incompetence is the disease of idiots. Overconfidence is the mistake of experts…. Incompetence irritates me. Overconfidence terrifies me.”

It’s clear that over-confidence can infest pessimists as well as optimists, which was demonstrated in a March Business Insider piece entitled “The Idiot-Maker Rally: Check Out All Of The Gurus Made To Look Like Fools By This Market.”  The article is really amusing and really misleading.  On the one hand, it does prick the balloons of a number of pompous prognosticators.  On the other, it completely fails to ask what happened to invalidate – for now, anyway – the worried conclusions of some serious, first-rate strategists?

Triumph of the optimists: Financial “journalists” and you

It’s no secret that professional journalism seems to be circling a black hole: people want more information, but they want it now, free and simple. That’s not really a recipe for thoughtful, much less profitable, reporting. The universe of personal finance journals is down to two (the painfully thin Money and Kiplinger’s), CNBC’s core audience viewership is down 40% from 2008, the PBS show “Nightly Business Report” has been sold to CNBC in a bid to find viewers, and collectively newspapers have cut something like 40% of their total staff in a decade.

One response has been to look for cheap help: networks and websites look to publish content that’s provided for cheap or for free. Often that means dressing up individuals with a distinct vested interest as if they were journalists.

Case in point: Mellody Hobson, CBS Financial Analyst

I was astounded to see the amiable talking heads on the CBS Morning News turn to “CBS News Financial Analyst Mellody Hobson” for insight on how investors should be behaving (Bullish, not a bubble, 03/18/2013). Ms. Hobson, charismatic, energetic, confident and poised, received a steady stream of softball pitches (“Do you see that there’s a bubble in the stock market?” “I know people are saying we’re entering bubble territory. I don’t agree. We’re far from it. It’s a bull market!”) while offering objective, expert advice on how investors should behave: “The stock market is not overvalued. Valuations are really pretty good. This is the perfect environment for a strong stock market. I’m always a proponent of being in the market.” Nods all around.

The problem isn’t what CBS does tell you about Ms. Hobson; it’s what they don’t tell you. Hobson is the president of a mutual fund company, Ariel Investments, whose only product is stock mutual funds. Here’s a snippet from Ariel’s own website:

Should CBS mention this to you? The Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists kinda hints at it:

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.

Journalists should:

• Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
• Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
• Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
• Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

CBS’s own 2012 Business Conduct Statement exults “our commitment to the highest standards of appropriate and ethical business behavior” and warns of circumstances where “there is a significant risk that the situation presented is likely to affect your business judgment.” My argument is neither that Ms. Hobson was wrong (that’s a separate matter) nor that she acted improperly; it’s that CBS should not be presenting representatives of an industry as disinterested experts on that industry. They need to disclose the conflict. They failed to do so on the air and don’t even offer a biography page for Hobson where an interested party might get a clue.

MarketWatch likewise puts parties with conflicts of interest center-stage in their Trading Deck feature which lives in the center column of their homepage, but at least they warn people that something might be amiss:

That disclaimer doesn’t appear on the homepage with the teasers, but it does appear on the first page of stories written by people who . . . well, probably shouldn’t be taken at face value.

The problem is complicated when a publisher such as MarketWatch mixes journalists and advocates in the same feature, as they do at The Trading Deck, and then headline writers condense a story into eight or ten catchy, misleading words. 

The headline says “This popular mutual fund type is losing you money.”  The story says global stock funds could boost their returns by up to 2% per year through portfolio optimization, which is a very different claim.

The author bio says “Roberto Rigobon is the Society of Sloan Fellows Professor of Applied Economics at MIT’s Sloan School of Management.”  He is a first-class scholar.  The bio doesn’t say “and a member of State Street Associates, which provides consulting on, among other things, portfolio optimization.”

The other response by those publications still struggling to hold on is adamant optimism.

In the April 2013 issue of Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, editor Knight Kiplinger (pictured laughing at his desk) takes on Helaine Olen’s Pound Foolish: Exposing the Dark Side of the Personal Finance Industry (2012). She’s a former LA Times personal finance columnist with a lot of data and a fair grasp of her industry. She argues “most of the financial advice published and dished out by the truckload is useless” – its sources are compromised, its diagnosis misses the point and its solutions are self-serving. To which Mr. Kiplinger responds, “I know quite a few longtime Kiplinger readers who might disagree with that.” That’s it. Other than for pointing to Obamacare as a solution, he just notes that . . . well, she’s just not right.

Skipping the stories on “How to Learn to Love (Stocks) Again” and “The 7 Best ETFs to Buy Now,” we come to Jane Bennett Clark’s piece entitled “The Sky Isn’t Falling.” The good news about retirement: a study by the Investment Company Institute says that investment companies are doing a great job and that the good ol’ days of pensions were an illusion. (No mention, yet again, of any conflict of interest that the ICI might have in selecting either the arguments or the data they present.) The title claim comes from a statement of Richard Johnson of the Employee Retirement Benefit Institute, whose argument appears to be that we need to work as long as we can. The oddest statement in the article just sort of glides by: “43% of boomers … and Gen Xers … are at risk of not having enough to cover basic retirement expenses and uninsured health costs.” Which, for 43% of the population, might look rather like their sky is falling.

April’s Money magazine offered the same sort of optimistic take: bond funds will be okay even if interest rates rise, Japan’s coming back, transportation stocks are signaling “full steam ahead for the market,” housing’s back and “fixed income never gets scary.”

Optimism sells. It doesn’t necessarily encourage clear thinking, but it does sell.

Folks interested in examples of really powerful journalism might turn to The Economist, which routinely runs long and well-documented pieces that are entirely worth your time, or the radio duo of American Public Media (APM) and National Public Radio (NPR). Both have really first rate financial coverage daily, serious and humorous. The most striking example of great long-form work is “Unfit for Work: The startling rise of disability in America,” the NPR piece on the rising tide of Americans who apply for and receive permanent disability status. 14 million Americans – adults and children – are now “disabled,” out of the workforce (hence out of the jobless statistics) and unlikely ever to hold a job again. That number has doubled in a generation. The argument is that disability is a last resort for older, less-educated workers who get laid off from a blue collar job and face the prospect of never being able to find a job again. The piece stirred up a storm of responses, some of which are arguable (telling the story of hard-hit Hale County makes people think all counties are like that) and others seem merely to reinforce the story’s claim (the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities says most disabled workers are uneducated and over 50 – which seems consistent with the story’s claim).

Who says mutual funds can’t make you rich?

Forbes magazine published their annual list of “The Richest People on the Planet” (03/04/2013), tracking down almost 1500 billionaires in the process. (None, oddly, teachers by profession.)

MFWire scoured the list for “The Richest Fundsters in the Game” (03/06/2013). They ended up naming nine while missing a handful of others. Here’s their list with my additions in blue:

• Charles Brandes, Brandes funds, #1342, $1.0 billion
• Thomas Bailey, Janus founder, #1342, $1.0 billion
• Mario Gabelli, Gamco #1175, $1.2 billion
• Michael Price, former Mutual Series mgr, #1107, $1.3 billion
• Fayez Sarofim, Dreyfus Appreciation mgr, #1031, $1.4 billion
• Ron Baron, Baron Funds #931, $1.6 billion
• Howard Marks, TCW then Oaktree Capital, #922, $1.65 billion
• Joe Mansueto, Morningstar #793, $1.9 billion
• Ken Fisher, investment guru and source of pop-up ads, #792, $1.9 billion
• Bill Gross, PIMCO, #641, $2.3 billion
• Charles Schwab (the person), Charles Schwab (the company) #299, $4.3 billion
• Paul Desmarais, whose Power Financial backs Putnam #276, $4.5 billion
• Rupert Johnson, Franklin Templeton #215, $5.6 billion
• Charles Johnson, Franklin Templeton #211, $5.7 billion
• Ned Johnson, Fidelity #166, worth $7 billion
• Abby Johnson, Fidelity #74, $12.7 billion

For the curious, here’s the list of billionaire U.S. investors, which mysteriously doesn’t include Bill Gross. He’s listed under “finance.”

The thing that strikes me is how much of these folks I’d entrust my money to, if only because so many became so rich on wealth transfer (in the form of fees paid by their shareholders) rather than wealth creation.

Two new and noteworthy resources: InvestingNerd and Fundfox

I had a chance to speak this week with the folks behind two new (one brand-new, one pretty durn new) sites that might be useful to some of you folks.

InvestingNerd (a little slice of NerdWallet)

NerdWallet launched in 2010 as a tool to find the best credit card offers.  It claimed to be able to locate and sort five times as many offers as its major competitors.  With time they added other services to help consumers save money. For example the TravelNerd app to help travelers compare costs related to their travel plans, like finding the cheapest transportation to the airport or comparing airport parking prices, the NerdScholar has a tool for assessing law schools based on their placement rates. NerdWallet makes its money from finder’s fees: if you like one of the credit card offers they find for you and sign up for that card, the site receives a bit of compensation. That’s a fairly common arrangement used, for example, by folks like BankRate.com.

On March 27, NerdWallet launched a new site for its investing vertical, InvestingNerd. It brings together advice (TurboTax vs H&R Block: Tax Prep Cost Comparison), analysis (Bank Stress Test Results: How Stressful Were They?) and screening tools.

I asked Neda Jafarzadeh, a public relations representative over at InvestingNerd, what she’d recommend as most distinctive about the site.  She offered up three features that she thought would be most intriguing for investors in particular: 

• InvestingNerd recently rolled out a new tool – the Mutual Fund Screener. This tool allows investors to find, search and compare over 15,000 funds. In addition, it allows investors to filter through funds based on variables like the fund’s size, minimum required investment, and the fund’s expense ratio. Also, investors can screen funds using key performance metrics such as the fund’s risk-adjusted return rate, annual volatility, market exposure and market outperformance.
• In addition, InvestingNerd has a Brokerage Comparison Tool which provides an unbiased comparison of 69 of the most popular online brokerage accounts. The tool can provide an exact monthly cost for the investor based on their individual trading behavior.
• InvestingNerd also has a blog where we cover news on financial markets and the economy, release studies and analyses related to investing, in addition to publishing helpful articles on various other investment and tax related topics.

Their fund screener is . . . interesting.  It’s very simple and updates a results list immediately.  Want an equity fund with a manager who’s been around more than 10 years?  No problem.  Make it a small cap?  Sure.  Click.  You get a list and clickable profiles.  There are a couple problems, though.  First, they have incomplete or missing explanations of what their screening categories (“outperformance”) means.  Second, their results list is inexplicably incomplete: the same search in Morningstar turns up noticeably more funds.   Finally, they offer a fund rating (“five stars”) with no evidence of what went into it or what it might tell us about the fund’s future.  When I ask with the folks there, it seemed that the rating was driven by risk-adjusted return (alpha adjusted for standard deviation) and InvestingNerd makes no claim that their ratings have predictive validity.

It’s worth looking at and playing with.  Their screener, like any, is best thought of as a tool for generating a due diligence list: a way to identify some funds worth digging into.  Their articles cover an interesting array of topics (considering a gray divorce?  Shopping tips for folks who support gay rights?) and you might well use one of their tools to find the free checking account you’ve always dreamed of.

Fundfox

Fundfox is a site for those folks who wake in the morning and ask themselves, “I wonder who’s been suing the mutual fund industry this week?” or “I wonder what the most popular grounds for suing a fund company this year is?”

Which is to say fund company attorneys, compliance folks, guys at the SEC and me.

It was started by David Smith, who used to work for the largest liability insurance provider to the fund industry, as a simpler, cleaner, more specialized alternative to services such as WestLaw or Lexis. It covers lawsuits filed against mutual funds, period. That really reduces the clutter. The site does include a series of dashboards (what fund types are most frequently the object of suits?) and some commentary.

You can register for free and get a lot of information a la Morningstar or sign up for a premium membership and access serious quantities of filings and findings. There’s a two week trial for the premium service and I really respect David’s decision to offer a trial without requiring a credit card. Legal professionals might well find the combination of tight focus, easy navigation and frequent updates useful.

Introducing: The Elevator Talk

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

Elevator Talk #3: Bayard Closser, Vertical Capital Income Fund (VCAPX)

Mr. Closser is president of the Vertical Capital Markets Group and one of the guys behind Vertical Capital Income Fund (VCAPX), which launched on December 30, 2011. VCAPX is structured as an interval fund, a class of funds rare enough that Morningstar doesn’t even track them. An interval fund allows you access to your investment only at specified intervals and only to the extent that the management can supply redemptions without disrupting the portfolio. The logic is that certain sorts of investments are impossible to pursue if management has to be able to accommodate the demands of investors to get their money now. Hedge funds, using lock-up periods, pursue the exact same logic. Given the managers’ experience in structuring hedge funds, that seems like a logical outcome. They do allow for the possibility that the fund might, with time, transition over to a conventional CEF structure:

Vertical chose an interval fund structure because we determined that it is the best delivery mechanism for alternative assets. It helps protect shareholders by giving them limited liquidity, but also provides the advantages of an open-end fund, including daily pricing and valuation. In addition, it is easy to convert an interval fund to a closed-end fund as the fund grows and we no longer want to acquire assets.

Here’s what Bayard has to say (in a Spartan 172 words) about VCAPX:

A closed-end interval fund, VCAPX invests in whole mortgage loans and first deeds of trust. We purchase the loans from lenders at a deep discount and service them ourselves through our sister company Vertical Recovery Management, which can even restructure loans for committed homeowners to help them keep current on monthly payments.

Increasingly, even small investors are seeking alternative investments to increase diversification. VCAPX can play that role, as its assets have no correlation or a slight negative correlation with the stock market.

While lenders are still divesting mortgages at a deep discount, the housing market is improving, creating a “Goldilocks” effect that may be “just right” for the fund.

VCAPX easily outperformed its benchmark in its first year of operation (Dec. 30, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2012), with a return of 12.95% at net asset value, compared with 2.59% for the Barclays U.S. Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) Index.

At the fund’s maximum 4.50% sales charge, the return was 7.91%. The fund also declared a 4.01% annualized dividend (3.54% after the sales charge).

The fund’s minimum initial investment is $5,000 for retail shares, reduced to $1,000 for IRAs. There’s a front sales load of 4.5% but the fund is available no-load at both Schwab and TDAmeritrade. They offer a fair amount of background, risk and performance information on the fund’s website. You might check under the “Resource Center” tab for copies of their quarterly newsletter.

The Cook and Bynum Fund, Conference Call Highlights

Recently published research laments the fact that actively-managed funds have become steadily less active and more index-like over time.

The changing imperatives of the fund industry have led many managers to become mediocre by design. Their response is driven by the anxious desire for so-called “sticky” assets. The strategy is simple: design a product to minimize the risk that it will ever spectacularly trail its peer group. If you make your fund very much like its benchmark, you will never be a singular disaster and so investors (retirement plan investors, particularly) will never be motivated to find something better. The fact that you never excel is irrelevant. The result is a legion of large, expensive, undistinguished funds who seek safety in the herd.

The Cook and Bynum Fund (COBYX) strikes me as the antithesis of those. Carefully constructed, tightly focused, and intentionally distinct. On Tuesday, March 5, we spoke with Richard Cook and Dowe Bynum in the first of three conversations with distinguished managers who defy that trend through their commitment to a singular discipline: buy only the best. For Richard and Dowe, that translates to a portfolio with only seven holdings and a 34% cash stake. Since inception (through early March, 2013), they managed to capture 83% of the market’s gains with only 50% of its volatility; in the past twelve months, Morningstar estimates that they captured just 7% of the market’s downside.

Among the highlights of the call for me:

1. The guys are willing to look stupid. There are times, as now, when they can’t find stocks that meet their quality and valuation standards. The rule for such situations is simply: “When compelling opportunities do not exist, it is our obligation not to put capital at risk.” They happily admit that other funds might well reap short-term gains by running with the pack, but you “have to be willing to look stupid.” Their current cash stake is about 34%, “the highest cash level ever in the fund.” That’s not driven by a market call; it’s a simple residue of their inability to find great opportunities.
2. The guys are not willing to be stupid. Richard and Dowe grew up together and are comfortable challenging each other. Richard knows the limits of Dowe’s knowledge (and vice versa), “so we’re less likely to hold hands and go off the cliff together.” In order to avoid that outcome, they spend a lot of time figuring out how not to be stupid. They relegate some intriguing possibilities to the “too hard pile,” those businesses that might have a great story but whose business model or financials are simply too hard to forecast with sufficient confidence. They think about common errors (commitment bias, our ability to rationalize why we’re not going to stop doing something once we’ve started, chief among them) and have generated a set of really interesting tools to help contain them. They maintain, for example, a list all of the reasons why they don’t like their current holdings. In advance of any purchase, they list all of the conditions under which they’d quickly sell (“if their star CEO leaves, we do too”) and keep that on top of their pile of papers concerning the stock.
3. They’re doing what they love. Before starting Cook & Bynum (the company), both of the guys had high-visibility, highly-compensated positions in financial centers. Richard worked for Tudor Investments in Stamford, CT, while Dowe was with Goldman Sachs in New York. The guys believe in a fundamental, value- and research-driven, stock-by-stock process. What they were being paid to do (with Tudor’s macro event-driven hedge fund strategies for Richard) was about as far from what they most wanted as they could get. And so they quit, moved back to Alabama and set up their own shop to manage their own money and the investments of high net-worth individuals. They created Cook & Bynum (the fund) in response to an investor’s request for a product accessible to family and friends.  The $250 million invested with them (about $100 million in the fund) includes 100% of their own liquid net worth, with their investment split between the fund and the partnerships. Since both sets of vehicles use the same fees and structure, there’s no conflict between the two.
4. They do prodigious research without succumbing to the “gotta buy something” impulse. While they spend the majority of their time in their offices, they’re also comfortable with spending two or three weeks at a time on the road. Their argument is that they’ve got to understand the entire ecosystem in which a firm operates – from the quality of its distribution network to the feelings of its customers – which they can only do first-hand. Nonetheless, they’ve been pretty good at resisting “deal momentum.”  They spent, for example, some three weeks traveling around Estonia, Poland and Hungary. Found nothing compelling. Traveled Greece and Turkey and learned a lot, including how deeply dysfunctional the Greek economy is, but bought nothing.
5. They’re willing to do what you won’t. Most of us profess a buy low / buy the unloved / break from the herd / embrace our inner contrarian ethos. And most of us are deluded. Cook and Bynum seem rather less so: they’re holding cash now while others buy stocks after the market has doubled and profits margins hit records but in the depth of the 2008 meltdown they were buyers. (They report having skipped Christmas presents in 2008 in order to have extra capital to invest.) As the market bottomed in March 2009, the fund was down to 2% cash.

Bottom Line: the guys seem to be looking for two elusive commodities. One is investments worth pursuing. The other is investing partners who share their passion for compelling investments and their willingness to let other investors charge off in a herd. Neither is as common as you might hope.

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

The COBYX conference call

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

We periodically invite our colleague, Charles Boccadoro, to share his perspectives on funds which were the focus of our conference calls. Charles’ ability to apprehend and assess tons of data is, we think, a nice complement to my strengths which might lie in the direction of answering the questions (1) does this strategy make any sense? And (2) what’s the prospect that they can pull it off? Without further ado, here’s Charles on Cook and Bynum

Inoculated By Value

To describe Richard P. Cook and J. Dowe Bynum (C&B) as value investors would be accurate, but certainly not adequate. Their website is rich with references to value investment principles championed by Benjamin Graham, John Burr Williams, Charlie Munger, and Warren Buffet. “The value investing inoculation took immediately,” C&B explain, after reading Mr. Buffett’s biography in high school. They have been investing together literally since childhood and at age 23 they actually tried to start their own mutual fund. That did not happen, but years later in 2001 they established Cook & Bynum Capital Management and in mid-2009 they launched their namesake The Cook & Bynum Fund COBYX, which turned out to be perfect timing.

Like many experienced investors on MFO, C&B do not view volatility as risk, but as opportunity. That said, the lack of volatility in 43 months of COBYX performance through February 2013 is very alluring and likely helped propel the fund’s popularity, now with $102M AUM. Its consistent growth rate resembles more a steady bond fund, say PONDX, than an equity fund. The fund received a 5-Star Morningstar Rating for the 3-year period ending mid-2012.

Other than strictly adhering to the three most important words of value investing (“Margin of Safety”) when assessing stock price against inherent value, C&B do not impose explicit drawdown control or practice dynamic allocation, like risk-parity AQRNX or long-short ARLSX. They try instead to buy wonderful businesses at discounted prices. To quote Mr. Buffett: “If you’re right about what, you don’t have to worry about when very much.”

Fortunately, history is on their side. The chart below depicts drawdowns for the last 50 years, comparing value versus growth large cap fund averages. Value funds indeed generally suffer smaller and shorter drawdowns. But not always. The term “value trap” became ubiquitous during the financial collapse of 2008, when many highly respected, long established, and top performing value funds (prime example DODGX) were simply hammered. And, when the forest is burning, all the trees go with it.

While Mr. Cook and Mr. Bynum must have managed their private accounts through such turbulent times, COBYX has enjoyed bull market conditions since its inception. (Perhaps a reluctant bull, but nonetheless…) Still, when the market dipped 7% in May 2012, COBYX did not drop at all. In September 2011, SP500 dropped 16%, COBYX dipped only 5%. Its biggest drawdown was June 2010 at 9% versus 13% for the market. The tame behavior is due partly to C&B’s propensity to hold cash. Not as a strategy, they explain, but as residual to value opportunities available. They unloaded Kraft, for example, shortly after the company split its international and domestic businesses. Here is an excerpt from COBYX’s 2012 annual report explaining their move:

Despite neither of the companies’ fundamental business prospects changing one iota, the market reacted to the news by trading both of the stocks higher. We used this opportunity to liquidate our stake in both companies. It is popular, even within our value discipline, for investors to advocate various financial engineering strategies in an attempt to drive near-term stock price appreciation rather than to focus on a company’s long-term cash flows – where real value resides.

C&B take pride in not being “closet indexers” to their benchmarks SP500 and MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI). So far they have tended to hold consumer defensive stocks, like Wal-Mart, Procter & Gamble, and Coca-Cola. Although more recently, they own Microsoft, which accounts for 16% of the portfolio. COBYX’s lifetime correlation to SP500 is 66% and its beta is only 0.47.

The strategy has delivered handsomely. Just how good is it? Below compares COBYX with several other Morningstar 5 star funds, including Charles Akre’s AKREX, Steven Romick’s FPA Crescent Fund, Donald Yacktman’s YAFFX, Sequoia Fund (perhaps the greatest fund ever), plus landmark Berkshire Hathaway.

Since COBYX inception, it has produced the highest risk adjusted returns, based on both Sharpe and Sortino Ratios, with the lowest standard and downside volatilities. It has delivered more than 90% of SP500 total return with less than 60% of its volatility. Interestingly, all of these top-performing mutual funds have low beta against SP500, like COBYX, but again for the record, C&B reject metrics like beta: “Risk is not volatility.”

COBYX is also highly concentrated. As of December 2012, it held only seven equities. C&B’s strategy is to focus only on companies whose businesses they can understand – depth of insight is the edge they seek. They employ Kelly Criterion to size positions in their portfolio, which represents an implicit form of risk management. John Kelly developed it in 1950s at AT&T’s Bell Labs to optimize transmission rate through long distance phone lines. Edward Thorpe then famously employed the technique to “Beat the Dealer” and later to help optimize his hedge fund investments at Princeton/Newport Partners. In C&B’s implementation, Kelly is edge over odds, or expected returns over range of outcomes. What is currently their biggest position? Cash at 34%.

Bottom-line: Hard not to love this young fund, performance to date, and philosophy employed by its managers. High ER, recently dropped from 1.88 to 1.49, has been its one detractor. Hopefully, ER reduction continues with AUM growth, since world-stock fund median is already a hefty 1.20 drag.

(Thank you, sir! David)

Conference Call Upcoming: RiverPark Wedgewood Growth, April 17

Large-cap funds, and especially large large-cap funds, suffer from the same tendency toward timidity and bloat that I discussed above. On average, actively-managed large growth funds hold 70 stocks and turn over 100% per year. The ten largest such funds hold 311 stocks on average and turn over 38% per year.

The well-read folks at Wedgewood see the path to success differently. Manager David Rolfe endorses Charles Ellis’s classic essay, “The Losers Game” (Financial Analysts Journal, July 1975). Reasoning from war and sports to investing, Ellis argues that losers games are those where, as in amateur tennis:

The amateur duffer seldom beats his opponent, but he beats himself all the time. The victor in this game of tennis gets a higher score than the opponent, but he gets that higher score because his opponent is losing even more points.

Ellis argues that professional investors, in the main, play a losers game by becoming distracted, unfocused and undistinguished. Mr. Rolfe and his associates are determined not to play that game. They position themselves as “contrarian growth investors.” In practical terms, that means:

1. They force themselves to own fewer stocks than they really want to. After filtering a universe of 500-600 large growth companies, Wedgewood holds only “the top 20 of the 40 stocks we really want to own.” Currently, 55% of the fund’s assets are in its top ten picks.
2. They buy when other growth managers are selling. Most growth managers are momentum investors, they buy when a stock’s price is rising. Wedgewood would rather buy during panic than during euphoria.
3. They hold far longer once they buy. The historical average for Wedgewood’s separate accounts which use this exact discipline is 15-20% turnover and the fund is around 25%.
4. And then they spend a lot of time watching those stocks. “Thinking and acting like business owners reduces our interest to those few businesses which are superior,” Rolfe writes, and he maintains a thoughtful vigil over those businesses.

David is articulate, thoughtful and successful. His reflections on “out-thinking the index makers” strike me as rare and valuable, as does his ability to manage risk while remaining fully invested.

Our conference call will be Wednesday, April 17, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern.

How can you join in?

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

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

Observer Fund Profiles

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

The Cook and Bynum Fund (COBYX): an updated profile of this concentrated value fund.

Whitebox Long Short Equity (WBLSX): the former hedge fund has a reasonably distinctive, complicated strategy and I haven’t had much luck in communicating with fund representatives over the last month or so about the strategy. Given a continued high level of reader interest in the fund, it seemed prudent to offer, with this caveat, a preliminary take on what they do and how you might think about it.

Launch Alert: BBH Global Core Select (BBGRX)

There are two things particularly worth knowing about BBH (for Brown Brothers Harriman) Core Select (BBTRX): (1) it’s splendid and (2) it’s closed. It’s posted a very consistent pattern of high returns and low risk, which eventually drew $5 billion to the fund and triggered its soft close in November. At the moment that BBH closed Core Select, they announced the launch of Global Core Select. That fund went live on March 28, 2013.

Global Core Select will be co-managed by Regina Lombardi and Tim Hartch, two members of the BBH Core Select investment team. Hartch is one of Core Select’s two managers; Lombardi is one of 11 analysts. The Fund is the successor to the BBH private investment partnership, BBH Global Funds, LLC – Global Core Select, which launched on April 2, 2012. Because the hedge fund had less than a one year of operation, there’s no performance record for them reported. The minimum initial investment in the retail class is $5,000. The expense ratio is capped at 1.50% (which represents a generous one basis-point sacrifice on the adviser’s part).

The strategy snapshot is this: they’ll invest in 30-40 mid- to large-cap companies in both developed and developing markets. They’ll place at least 40% outside the US. The strategy seems identical to Core Select’s: established, cash generative businesses that are leading providers of essential products and services with strong management teams and loyal customers, and are priced at a discount to estimated intrinsic value. They profess a “buy and own” approach.

What are the differences: well, Global Core Select is open and Core Select isn’t. Global will double Core’s international stake. And Global will have a slightly-lower target range: its investable universe starts at $3 billion, Core’s starts at $5 billion.

I’ll suggest three reasons to hesitate before you rush in:

1. There’s no public explanation of why closing Core and opening Global isn’t just a shell game. Core is not constrained in the amount of foreign stock it owns (currently under 20% of assets). If Core closed because the strategy couldn’t handle the additional cash, I’m not sure why opening a fund with a nearly-identical strategy is warranted.
2. Expenses are likely to remain high – even with $5 billion in a largely domestic, low turnover portfolio, BBH charges 1.25%.
3. Others are going to rush in. Core’s record and unavailability is going to make Global the object of a lot of hot money which will be rolling in just as the market reaches its seasonal (and possibly cyclical) peak.

That said, this strategy has worked elsewhere. The closed Oakmark Select (OAKLX) begat Oakmark Global Select (OAKWX) and closed Leuthold Core (LCORX) led to Leuthold Global (GLBLX). In both cases, the young fund handily outperformed its progenitor. Here’s the nearly empty BBH Global Core Select homepage.

Launch Alert: DoubleLine Equities Small Cap Growth Fund (DLESX)

DoubleLine continues to pillage TCW, the former home of its founder and seemingly of most of its employees. DoubleLine, which manages more than $53 billion in mostly fixed income assets, has created a DoubleLine Equity LP division. The unit’s first launch, DoubleLine Equities Small Cap Growth Fund, occurs April 1, 2013. Growth Fund (DLEGX) and Technology Fund (DLETX) are close behind in the pipeline.

Husam Nazer, who oversaw $4-5 billion in assets in TCW’s Small and Mid-Cap Growth Equities Group, will manage the new fund. DoubleLine hired Nazer’s former TCW investing partner, Brendt Stallings, four stock analysts and a stock trader. Four of the new hires previously worked for Nazer and Stallings at TCW.

The fund will invest mainly in stocks comparable in size to those in the Russell US Growth index (which tops out at around $4 billion). They’ll invest mostly in smaller U.S. companies and in foreign small caps which trade on American exchanges through ADRs. The manager professes a “bottom up” approach to identify investment. He’s looking for a set of reasonable and unremarkable characteristics: consistent and growing earnings, strong balance sheet, good competitive position, good management and so on. The minimum initial investment in the retail class is $2,000, reduced to $500 for IRAs. The expense ratio is capped at 1.40%.

I’ll suggest one decent reason to hesitate before you bet that DoubleLine’s success in bonds will be matched by its success in stocks:

Mr. Nazer’s last fund wasn’t really all that good. His longest and most-comparable charge is TCW Small Cap Growth (TGSNX). Morningstar rates it as a two-star fund. In his eight years at the fund, Mr. Nazer had a slow start (2005 was weak) followed by four very strong years (2006-2009) and three really bad ones (2010-2012). The fund’s three-year record trails 97% of its peers. It has offered consistently above-average to high volatility, paired with average to way below-average returns. Morningstar’s generally-optimistic reviews of the fund ended in July 2011. Lipper likewise rates it as a two-star fund over the past five years.

The fund might well perform brilliantly, assuming that Mr. Gundlach believed he had good reason to import this team. That said, the record is not unambiguously positive.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public. The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details. Every day we scour new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves. Many of the proposed funds offer nothing new, distinctive or interesting. Some are downright horrors of Dilbertesque babble (see “Synthetic Reverse Convertibles,” below).

Funds in registration this month won’t be available for sale until, typically, the beginning of June 2013. We found a handful of no-load, retail funds in the pipeline, notably:

Robeco Boston Partners Global Long/Short Fund will offer a global take on Boston Partner’s highly-successful long/short strategy. They expect at least 40% international exposure, compared to 10% in their flagship Long/Short Equity Fund (BPLEX) and 15% in the new Long/Short Research Fund (BPRRX). There are very few constraints in the prospectus on their investing universe. The fund will be managed by Jay Feeney, an original Boston Partner, co-CEO and CIO-Equities, and Christopher K. Hart, Equity Portfolio Manage. The minimum initial investment in the retail class is $2,500. The expense ratio will be 3.77% after waivers. Let me just say: “Yikes.” At the risk of repeating myself, “Yikes!” With a management fee of 1.75%, this is likely to remain a challenging case.

T. Rowe Price Global Allocation Fund will invest in stocks, bonds, cash and hedge funds. Yikes! T. Rowe is getting you into hedge funds. They’ll active manage their asset allocation. The baseline is 30% US stocks, 30% international stocks, 20% US bonds, 10% international bonds and 10% alternative investments. A series of macro judgments will allow them to tweak those allocations. The fund will be managed by Charles Shriver, lead manager for their Balanced, Personal Strategy and Spectrum funds. The minimum initial purchase is $2500, reduced to $1000 for IRAs. Expense ratio will be 1.05%.

Details on these funds and the list of all of the funds in registration are available at the Observer’s Funds in Registration page or by clicking “Funds” on the menu atop each page.

Manager Changes: Two giants begin to step back

On a related note, we also tracked down 71 fund manager changes. Those include decisions by two fund company founders to begin lightening their loads. Nicholas Kaiser, president of Saturna Investments which advises the Sextant and Amana funds, no longer co-manages Sextant Growth (SSGFX) and John Kornitzer, founder of Kornitzer Capital which advises the Buffalo funds, stepped back from Buffalo Dividend Focus (BUFDX) four months after launch.

Snowball on the transformative power of standing around, doing little

I’m occasionally asked to contribute 500 words to Amazon’s Money & Markets blog. Amazon circulates a question (in this case, “how should investors react to sequestration?”) and invites responses. I knew they won’t publish “oh, get real,” so I wrote something just slightly longer.

Don’t Just Do Something. Stand There.

When exactly did the old midshipman’s rule, “When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout,” get enshrined as investing advice?

There are just three things we don’t know about sequestration: (1) what will happen, (2) how long it will last and (3) what will follow. Collectively, they tell you that the most useful thing a stock investor might do in reaction to the sequestration is, nothing. Whatever happens will certainly roil the markets but stock markets are forever being roiled. This one is no different than all of the others. Go check your portfolio and ask four things:

1. Do I have an adequate reserve in a cash-management account to cover my basic expenses – that is, to maintain a normal standard of living – if I need six months to find a new job?
2. Do I have very limited stock exposure (say, under 20%) in the portion of the portfolio that I might reasonably need to tap in the next three or five years?
3. Do I have a globally diversified portfolio in the portion that I need to grow over a period of 10 years or more?
4. Am I acting responsibly in adding regularly to each?

If yes, the sequestration is important, but not to your portfolio. If no, you’ve got problems to address that are far more significant than the waves caused by this latest episode of our collective inability to manage otherwise manageable problems. Address those, as promptly and thoughtfully as you can.

The temptation is clear: do something! And the research is equally clear: investors who reactively do something lose. Those who have constructed sensible portfolios and leave them be, win.

Be a winner: stand there.

Happily, the other respondents were at least as sensible. There’s the complete collection.

Briefly Noted ….

Vanguard is shifting

Perhaps you should, as well? Vanguard announced three shifts in the composition of income sleeve of their Target Retirement Funds.

• They are shifting their bond exposure from domestic to international. Twenty percent of each fund’s fixed income exposure will be reallocated to foreign bonds through investment in Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund.
• Near term funds are maintaining their exposure to TIPS but are shifting all of their allocation to the Short-Term Inflation-Protected Securities Index Fund rather than Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund.
• The Retirement Income and Retirement 2010 funds are eliminating their exposure to cash. The proceeds will be used to buy foreign bonds.

PIMCO retargets

As of March 8, 2013 the PIMCO Global Multi-Asset Fund changed its objective from “The Fund seeks total return which exceeds that of a blend of 60% MSCI World Index/40% Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index” to “The Fund seeks maximum long-term absolute return, consistent with prudent management of portfolio volatility.” At the same time, the Fund’s secondary index is the 1 Month USD LIBOR Index +5% which should give you a good idea of what they expect the fund to be able to return over time.

PIMCO did not announce any change in investment policies but did explain that the new, more conservative index “is more closely aligned with the Fund’s investment philosophy and investment objective” than a simple global stock/bond blend would be.

Capital Group / American Funds is bleeding

Our recent series on new fund launches over the past decade pointed out that, of the five major fund groups, the American Funds had – by far – the worst record. They managed to combine almost no innovation with increasingly bloated funds whose managers were pleading for help. A new report in Pensions & Investments (Capital Group seeking to rebuild, 03/18/2013) suggests that the costs of a decade spent on cruise control were high: the firm’s assets under management have dropped by almost a half-trillion dollars in six years with the worst losses coming from the institutional investment side.

Matthews and the power of those three little words.

Several readers have noticed that Matthews recently issued a supplement to the Strategic Income Fund (MAINX) portfolio. The extent of the change is this: the advisor dropped the words “and debt-related” from a proviso that at least 50% of the fund’s portfolio would be invested in “debt and debt-related securities” which were rated as investment-grade.

In talking with folks affiliated with Matthews, it turns out that the phrase “and debt-related” put them in an untenable bind. “Debt-related securities” includes all manner of derivatives, including the currency futures contracts which allow them to hedge currency exposure. Such derivatives do not receive ratings from debt-rating firms such as Fitch meaning that it automatically appeared as if the manager was buying “junk” when no such thing was happening. That became more complicated by the challenge of assigning a value to a futures contract: if, hypothetically, you buy $1 million in insurance (which you might not need) for a $100 premium, do you report the value of $100 or $1 million?

In order to keep attention focused on the actual intent of the proviso – that at least 50% of the debt securities will be investment grade – they struck the complicating language.

Good news and bad for AllianzGI Opportunity Fund shareholders

Good news, guys: you’re getting a whole new fund! Bad news: it’s gonna cost ya.

AllianzGI Opportunity Fund (POPAX) is a pretty poor fund. During the first five years of its lead manager’s ten year tenure, it wasn’t awful: two years with well above average returns, two years below average and one year was a draw. The last five have been far weaker: four years way below average, with 2013 on course for another. Regardless of returns, the fund’s volatility has been consistently high.

The clean-up began March 8 2013 with the departure of co-manager Eric Sartorius. On April 8 2013, manager Mike Corelli departs and the fund’s investment strategy gets a substantial rewrite. The current strategy “focuses on bottom-up, fundamental analysis” of firms with market caps under $2 billion. Ironically, despite the “GI” designation in the name (code for Growth & Income, just as TR is Total Return and AR is Absolute Return), the prospectus assures us that “no consideration is given to income.” The new strategy will “utilize a quantitative process to focus on stocks of companies that exhibit positive change, sustainability, and timely market recognition” and the allowable market cap will rise to $5.3 billion.

Two bits of bad news. First, it’s likely to be a tax headache. Allianz warns that “the Fund will liquidate a substantial majority of its existing holdings” which will almost certainly trigger a substantial 2013 capital gains bill. Second, the new managers (Mark Roemer and Jeff Parker) aren’t very good. I’m sure they’re nice people and Mr. Parker is CIO for the firm’s U.S. equity strategies but none of the funds they’ve been associated with (Mr. Roemer is a “managed volatility” specialist, Mr. Parker focuses on growth) have been very good and several seem not to exist anymore.

Direxion splits

A bunch of Direxion leveraged index and reverse index products split either 2:1 or 3:1 at the close of business on March 28, 2013. They were

Small Wins for Investors

Effective April 1, 2013, Advisory Research International Small Cap Value Fund’s (ADVIX) expense ratio is capped at 1.25%, down from its current 1.35%. Morningstar will likely not reflect this change for a while

Aftershock Strategies Fund (SHKNX) has lowered its expense cap, from 1.80 to 1.70%. Their aim is to “preserve capital in a challenging investment environment.” Apparently the absence of a challenging investment environment inspired them to lose capital: the fund is down 1.5% YTD, through March 29, 2013.

Good news: effective March 15, 2013, Clearwater Management increased its voluntary management fee waiver for three of its Clearwater Funds (Core, Small Companies, Tax-Exempt Bond). Bad news, I can’t confirm that the funds actually exist. There’s no website and none of the major the major tracking services now recognizes the funds’ ticker symbols. Nothing posts at the SEC suggests cessation, so I don’t know what’s up.

Fidelity is offering to waive the sales loads on an ever-wider array of traditionally load-only funds through its supermarket. I learned of the move, as I learn of so many things, from the folks at MFO’s discussion board. The list of load-waived funds is detailed in msf’s thread, entitled Fidelity waives loads. A separate thread, started by Scott, with similar good news announces that T. Rowe Price funds are available without a transaction fee at Ameritrade.

Vanguard is dropping expenses on two more funds including the $69 billion Wellington (VWELX) fund. Wellington’s expenses have been reduced in three consecutive years.

Closings

American Century Equity Income (TWEAX) closed to new investors on March 29, 2013. The fund recently passed $10 billion in assets, a hefty weight to haul. The fund, which has always been a bit streaky, has trailed its large-value peers in five of the past six quarters which might have contributed to the decision to close the door.

The billion-dollar BNY Mellon Municipal Opportunities Fund (MOTIX) closed to new investors on March 28, 2013.

Effective April 30, 2013 Cambiar Small Cap Fund (CAMSX) will close to new investors. It’s been a very strong performer and has drawn $1.4 billion in assets.

Prudential Jennison Mid Cap Growth (PEEAX) will close to new investors on April 8, 2013. The fund’s assets have grown substantially over the past three years from under $2 billion at the beginning of 2010 to over $8 billion as of February 2013. While some in the media describe this as “a shareholder-friendly decision,” there’s some question about whether Prudential friended its shareholders a bit too late. The fund’s 10 year performance is top 5%, 5-year declines to top 20%, 3 year to top 40% and one year to mediocre.

Effective April 12, 2013, Oppenheimer Developing Markets Fund (ODMAX) closed to both new and existing shareholders. In the business jargon, that’s a “hard close.”

Touchstone Sands Capital Select Growth (PTSGX) and Touchstone Sands Institutional Growth (CISGX), both endorsed by Morningstar’s analysts, will close to new investors effective April 8, 2013. Sands is good and also subadvises from for GuideStone and MassMutual.

Touchstone has also announced that Touchstone Merger Arbitrage (TMGAX), subadvised by Longfellow Investment Management, will close to new investors effective April 8. The two-year old fund has about a half billion in assets and management wants to close it to maintain performance.

Effective April 29, 2013, Westcore International Small-Cap Fund (WTIFX) will close to all purchase activity with the exception of dividend reinvestment. That will turn the current soft-close into a hard-close.

Old Wine in New Bottles

On or about May 31, 2013. Alger Large Cap Growth Fund (ALGAX) will become Alger International Growth Fund, but its investment objective to seek long-term capital appreciation will not change. The Fund will be managed by Pedro V. Marcal. At the same time, Alger China-U.S. Growth Fund (CHUSX) will become Alger Global Growth Fund, but its investment objective to seek long-term capital appreciation will not change. The Fund will continue to be managed by Dan Chung and Deborah Vélez Medenica, with the addition of Pedro V. Marcal. These are both fundamentally sorrowful funds. About the only leads I have on Mr. Marcal is that he’s either a former Olympic fencer for Portugal (1960) or the author of a study on market timing and technical analysis. I’m not sure which set of skills would contribute more here.

Effective April 19, BlackRock S&P 500 Index (MASRX) will merge into BlackRock S&P 500 Stock (WFSPX). Uhhh … they’re both S&P500 index funds. The reorganization will give shareholders a tiny break in expenses (a drop from 13 bps to 11) but will slightly goof with their tax bill.

Buffalo Micro Cap Fund (BUFOX) will become Buffalo Emerging Opportunities Fund, around June 3, 2013. That’s a slight delay in the scheduled renaming, which should have already taken place under the original plan. The renamed beast will invest in “domestic common stocks, preferred stocks, convertible securities, warrants and rights of companies that, at the time of purchase by the Fund, have market capitalizations of $1 billion or less.

Catalyst Large Cap Value Fund (LVXAX) will, on May 27 2013, become Catalyst Insider Buying Fund. The fund will no longer be constrained to invest in large cap value stocks.

Effective April 1, 2013, Intrepid All Cap Fund (ICMCX) changed its name to Intrepid Disciplined Value Fund. There was a corresponding change to the investment policies of the fund to allow it to invest in common stocks and “preferred stocks, convertible preferred stocks, warrants and foreign securities, which include American Depositary Receipts (ADRs).”

PIMCO Worldwide Fundamental Advantage TR Strategy (PWWIX) will change its name to PIMCO Worldwide Fundamental Advantage AR Strategy. Also, the fund will change from a “total return” strategy to an “absolute return” strategy, which has more flexibility with sector exposures, non-U.S. exposures, and credit quality.

Value Line changed the names of Value Line Emerging Opportunities Fund to the Value Line Small Cap Opportunities Fund (VLEOX) and the Value Line Aggressive Income Trust to the Value Line Core Bond Fund (VAGIX).

Off to the Dustbin of History

AllianzGI Focused Opportunity Fund (AFOAX) will be liquidated and dissolved on or about April 19, 2013.

Armstrong Associates (ARMSX) is merging into LKCM Equity Fund (LKEQX) effective on or about May 10, 2013. C.K. Lawson has been managing ARMSX for modestly longer – 45 years – than many of his peers have been alive.

Artio Emerging Markets Local Debt (AEFAX) will liquidate on April 19, 2013.

You thought you invested in what? The details of db X-trackers MSCI Canada Hedged Equity Fund will, effective May 31 2013, be tweaked just a bit. The essence of the tweak is that it will become db X-trackers MSCI Germany Hedged Equity Fund (DBGR).

The Forward Focus and Forward Strategic Alternatives funds will be liquidated pursuant to a Board-approved Plan of Liquidation on or around April 30, 2013.

The Guardian Fund (LGFAX) guards no more. It is, as of March 28, 2013, a former fund.

ING International Value Choice Fund (IVCAX) will merge with ING International Value Equity Fund (NIVAX, formerly ING Global Value Choice Fund), though the date is not yet set.

Janus Global Research Fund merged into Janus Worldwide Fund (JAWWX) effective on March 15, 2013.

In a minor indignity, Dreman has been ousted as the manager of MIST Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio, an insurance product distributed by MET Investment Series Trust (hence “MIST”) and replaced by J.P. Morgan Investment Management. Effective April 29, 2013, the fund becomes JPMorgan Small Cap Value Portfolio. No-load investors can still access Mr. Dreman’s services through Dreman Contrarian Small Cap Value (DRSVX). Folks with the attention spans of gnats and a tendency to think that glancing at the stars is the same as due diligence, will pass quickly by. This small fund has a long record of outperformance, marred by 2010 (strong absolute returns, weak relative ones) and 2011 (weak relative and absolute returns). 2012 was so-so and 2013, through March, has been solid.

Munder Large-Cap Value Fund was liquidated on March 25, 2013.

JPMorgan is planning a leisurely merger JPMorgan Value Opportunities (JVOIX) into JPMorgan Large Cap Value (HLQVX), which won’t be effective until Oct. 31, 2014. The funds share the same manager and strategy and . . . . well, portfolio. Hmmm. Makes you wonder about the delay.

Lord Abbett Stock Appreciation Fund merged into Lord Abbett Growth Leaders Fund (LGLAX) on March 22, 2013.

Pioneer Independence Fund is merging into Pioneer Disciplined Growth Fund (SERSX) which is expected to occur on or about May 17, 2013. The Disciplined Growth management team, fees and record survives while Independence’s vanishes.

Effective March 31, 2013 Salient Alternative Strategies Fund, a hedge fund, merged into the Salient Alternative Strategies I Fund (SABSX) because, the board suddenly discovered, both funds “have the same investment objectives, policies and strategies.”

Sentinel Mid Cap II Fund (SYVAX) has merged into the Sentinel Mid Cap Fund (SNTNX).

Target Growth Allocation Fund would like to merge into Prudential Jennison Equity Income Fund (SPQAX). Shareholders consider the question on April 19, 2013 and approval is pretty routine but if they don’t agree to merge the fund away, the Board has at least resolved to firm Marsico as one of the fund’s excessive number of sub-advisers (10, currently).

600,000 visits later . . .

609,000, actually. 143,000 visitors since launch. About 10,000 readers a month nowadays. That’s up by 25% from the same period a year ago. Because of your support, either direct contributions (thanks Leah and Dan!) or use of our Amazon link (it’s over there, on the right), we remain financially stable. And a widening circle of folks are sharing tips and leads with us, which gives us a chance to serve you better. And so, thanks for all of that.

The Observer celebrates its second anniversary with this issue. We are delighted and honored by your continuing readership and interest. You make it all worthwhile. (And you make writing at 1:54 a.m. a lot more manageable.) We’re in the midst of sprucing the place up a bit for you. Will, my son, clicked through hundreds of links to identify deadsters which Chip then corrected. We’ve tweaked the navigation bar a bit by renaming “podcasts” as “featured” to better reflect the content there, and cleaned out some dead profiles. Chip is working to track down and address a technical problem that’s caused us to go offline for between two and 20 minutes once or twice a week. Anya is looking at freshening our appearance a bit, Junior is updating our Best of the Web profiles in advance of adding some new, and a good friend is looking at creating an actual logo for us.

Four quick closing notes for the months ahead:

1. We are still not spam! Some folks continue to report not receiving our monthly reminders or conference call updates. Please check your spam folder. If you see us there, just click on the “not spam” icon and things will improve.
2. Morningstar is coming. Not the zombie horde, the annual conference. The Morningstar Investor Conference is June 12-14, in Chicago. I’ll be attending the conference on behalf of the Observer. I had the opportunity to spend time with a dozen people there last year: fund managers, media relations folks, Observer readers and others. If you’re going to be there, perhaps we might find time to talk.
3. We’re getting a bit backed-up on fund profiles, in several cases because we’ve had trouble getting fund reps to answer their mail. Our plan for the next few months will be to shorten the cover essay by a bit in order to spend more time posting new profiles. If you have folks who strike you as particularly meritorious but unnoticed, drop me a note!
4. Please do use the Amazon link, if you don’t already. We’re deeply grateful for direct contributions but they tend to be a bit unpredictable (many months end up in the $50 range while one saw many hundreds) while the Amazon relationship tends to produce a pretty predictable stream (which makes planning a lot easier). It costs you nothing and takes no more effort than clicking and hitting the “bookmark this page” button in your browser. After that, it’s automatic and invisible.

Take great care!

Yep, January’s been good.  Scary-good.  There are several dozen funds that clocked double-digit gains, including several scary-bad ones (Birmiwal Oasis?  Legg Mason Capital Management Opportunity C?) but no great funds.  So if your portfolio is up six or seven or eight percent so far in 2013, smile and then listen to Han Solo’s call: “Great, kid. Don’t get cocky.”  If, like mine, yours is up just two or three percent so far in 2013, smile anyway and say, “you know, Bill, Dan, Jeremy and I were discussing that very issue over coffee last week.  I mentioned your portfolio and two of the three just turned pale.  The other one snickered and texted something to his trading desk.”

American Funds: The Past Ten Years

In October we launched “The Last Ten,” a monthly series, running between then and February, looking at the strategies and funds launched by the Big Five fund companies (Fido, Vanguard, T Rowe, American and PIMCO) in the last decade.

Here are our findings so far:

Fidelity, once fabled for the predictable success of its new fund launches, has created no compelling new investment option in a decade.  

T. Rowe Price continues to deliver on its promises.  Investing with Price is the equivalent of putting a strong singles-hitter on a baseball team; it’s a bet that you’ll win with consistency and effort, rather than the occasional spectacular play.

PIMCO has utterly crushed the competition, both in the thoughtfulness of their portfolios and in their performance.

Vanguard’s launches in the past decade are mostly undistinguished, in the sense that they incorporate neither unusual combinations of assets (no “emerging markets balanced” or “global infrastructure” here) nor innovative responses to changing market conditions (as with “real return” or “inflation-tuned” ones).  Nonetheless, nearly two-thirds of Vanguard’s new funds earned four or five star ratings from Morningstar, reflecting the compounding advantage of Vanguard’s commitment to low costs and low turnover.

We’ve saved the most curious, and most disappointing, for last. American Funds has always been a sort of benevolent behemoth. They’re old (1931) and massive. They manage more than $900 billion in investments and over 50 million shareholder accounts, with $300 billion in non-U.S. assets. 

It’s hard to know quite what to make of American. On the one hand, they’re an asset-sucking machine.  They have 34 funds over $1 billion in assets, 19 funds with over $10 billion each in assets, and two over $100 billion.  In order to maximize their take, each fund is sold in 16 – 18 separate packages. 

By way of example, American Funds American Balanced is sold in 18 packages and has 18 ticker symbols: six flavors of 529-plan funds, six flavors of retirement plan accounts, the F-1 and F-2 accounts, the garden-variety A, B and C and a load-waived possibility.  Which plan you qualify for makes a huge difference. The five-year record for American Balanced R5 places it in the top 10% of its peer group but American Balanced 529B only makes it into the top 40%. 

On the other hand, they’re very conservative and generally quite successful. Every American fund is also a fund-of-funds; it has multiple managers … uhh, “portfolio counselors,” each of whom manages just one sleeve of the total portfolio.  In general, costs are below average to low, risk scores are below average to low and their Morningstar ratings are way above average.

In the past decade, the firm has launched almost no new funds and has made no evident innovations in strategy or product.

It’s The Firm that Time Forgot 

Over those 10 years, American Funds launched 31 funds.  Sort of.  In reality, they repackaged existing American Funds into 10 new target-date funds.  Then they repackaged existing American Funds into 16 new funds for college savings plans.  After that, they repackaged existing American Funds into new tax-advantaged bond funds.  In the final analysis, their new fund launches are three niche bond funds: two muni and one short-term. 

A huge firm. Ten tumultuous years.  And they manage to image three pedestrian bond funds, none of which they execute with any particular panache. 

Not to sound dire, but phrases like “rearranging the deck chairs” and “The Titanic was huge and famous, too” come unbidden to mind.

Morningstar, Part One: Rating the Rater

Morningstar’s “analyst ratings” have come in for a fair amount of criticism lately.  Chuck Jaffe notes that, like the stock analysts of yore, Morningstar seems never to have met a fund that it doesn’t like. “The problem,” Jaffe writes, “is the firm’s analysts like nearly two-thirds of the funds they review, while just 5% of the rated funds get negative marks.  That’s less fund watchdog, and more fund lap dog” (“The Fund Industry’s Worst Offenders of 2012,” 12/17/12). Morningstar, he observes, “howls at that criticism.” 

The gist of Morningstar’s response is this: “we only rate the funds that matter, and thousands of these flea specks will receive neither our attention nor the average investor’s.”  Laura Lallos, a senior mutual-fund analyst for Morningstar, puts it rather more eloquently. “We focus on large funds and interesting funds. That is, we cover large funds whether they are ‘interesting’ or not, because there is a wide audience of investors who want to know about them. We also cover smaller funds that we find interesting and well-managed, because we believe they are worth bringing to our subscribers’ attention.”

More recently Javier Espinoza of The Wall Street Journal noted that the different firms’ rating methods create dramatically different thresholds for being recognized as excellent  (“The Ratings Game,”  01/04/13). Like Mr. Jaffe, he notes the relative lack of negative judgments by Morningstar: only 235 of 4299 ratings – about 5.5% – are negative.

Since the Observer’s universe centers on funds too small or too new to be worthy of Morningstar’s attention, we were pleased at Morningstar’s avowed intent to cover “smaller funds that we find interesting and well-managed.”  A quick check of Morningstar’s database shows:

2390 funds with under $100 million in assets.

41 funds that qualify as “worthy of our subscribers’ attention.”  It could be read as good news that Morningstar thinks 1.7% of small funds are worth looking at.  One small problem.  Of the 41 funds they rate, 34 are target-date or retirement income funds and many of those target-date offerings are actually funds-of-funds.  Which leaves …

7 actual funds that qualify for attention.  That would be one-quarter of one percent of small funds.  One quarter of one percent.  Uh-huh.

But that also means that the funds which survive Morningstar’s intense scrutiny and institutional skepticism of small funds must be SPLENDID!  And so, here they are:

Ariel Discovery Investor (ARDFX), rated Bronze.  This is a small cap value fund that we considered profiling shortly after launch, but where we couldn’t discern any compelling argument for it.  On whole, Morningstar rather likes the Ariel funds despite the fact that they don’t perform very well.  Five of the six Ariel funds have trailed their peers since inception and the sixth, the flagship Ariel Fund (ARGFX) has trailed the pack in six of the past 10 years.  That said, they have an otherwise-attractive long-term, low-turnover value orientation. 

Matthews China Dividend Investor (MCDFX), rated Bronze.  Also five stars, top 1% performer, low risk, low turnover, with four of five “positive” pillars and the sponsorship of the industry’s leading Asia specialist.  I guess I’d think of this as rather more than Bronze-y but Matthews is one of the fund companies toward which I have a strong bias.

TCW International Small Cap (TGICX), rated Bronze also only one of the five “pillars” of the rating is actually positive.  The endorsement is based on the manager’s record at Oppenheimer International Small Company (OSMAX).  Curiously, TGICX turns its portfolio at three times the rate of OSMAX and has far lagged it since launch.

The Collar (COLLX), rated Bronze, uses derivatives to offset the stock market’s volatility.  In three years it has twice made 3% and once lost 3%.  The underlying strategy, executed in separate accounts, made a bit over 4% between 2005-2010.  Low-risk, low-return and different from – if not demonstrably better than – other options-based funds.

Quaker Akros Absolute Return (AAARFX) rated Neutral.  Well … this fund does have exceedingly low risk, about one-third of the beta of the average long/short fund.  On the other hand, over the eight years between inception and today, it managed to turn a $10,000 investment into a $10,250 portfolio.  Right.  Invest $10,000 and make a cool $30/year.  Your account would have peaked in September 2009 (at $11,500) and have drifted down since then.

Quaker Event Arbitrage A (QEAAX), rated Neutral.  Give or take the sales load, this is a really nice little fund that the Observer profiled back when it was the no-load Pennsylvania Avenue Event Driven Fund (PAEDX).  Same manager, same discipline, with a sales force attached now.

Van Eck Multi-Manager Alternatives A (VMAAX), which strikes me as the most baffling pick of the bunch.  It has a 5.75% load, 2.84% expense ratio, 250% turnover (stop me when I get to the part that would attract you), and 31 managers representing 14 different sub-advisers.  Because Van Eck cans managers pretty regularly, there are also 20 former managers of the fund.  Morningstar rates the fund as “Neutral” with the sole positive pillar being “people.” It’s not clear whether Morningstar was endorsing the fund on the dozens already fired, the dozens recently hired or the underlying principle of regularly firing people (see: Romney, Mitt, “I like firing people”).

I’m afraid that on a Splendid-o-meter, this turns out to be one Splendid (Matthews), one Splendid-ish (Quaker Event Driven), four Meh and one utterly baffling (Van Ick).

Of 57 small, five-star funds, only one (Matthews) warrants attention?  Softies that we are, the Observer has chosen to profile seven of those 57 and a bunch of non-starred funds.  We’re actually pretty sure that they do warrant rather more attention – Morningstar’s and investors’ – than they’ve received.  Those seven are:

Huber Small Cap Value (HUSIX)

Marathon Value (MVPFX)

Pinnacle Value (PVFIX)

Stewart Capital Mid Cap (SCMFX)

The Cook and Bynum Fund (COBYX)

Tilson Dividend (TILDX)

Tributary Balanced (FOBAX)

Introducing: The Elevator Talk

Being the manager of a small fund can be incredibly frustrating.  You’re likely very bright.  You have a long record at other funds or in other vehicles.  You might well have performed brilliantly for a long time: top 1% for the trailing year, three years and five years, for example.  (There are about 10 tiny funds with that distinction.)  And you still can’t get anybody to notice you.

Dang.

The Observer helps, both because we’ve got 11,000 or so regular readers and an interest in small and new funds.  Sadly, there’s a limit to how many funds we can profile; likely somewhere around 20 a year.  I’m frequently approached by managers, asking if we’d consider profiling their funds.  When we say “no,” it’s as often because of our resource limits as of their records.

Frustration gave rise to an experimental new feature: The Elevator Talk.  We’ve decided to offer one or two managers each month the opportunity to make a 200 word pitch to you.  That’s about the number of words a slightly-manic elevator companion could share in a minute and a half.   In each case, I’ve promised to offer a quick capsule of the fund and a link back to the fund’s site.  Other than that, they’ve got 200 words and precisely as much of your time and attention as you’re willing to share.  These aren’t endorsements; they’re opportunities to learn more.

Elevator Talk #1: Tom Kerr, Rocky Peak Small Cap Value (RPCSX)

Mr. Kerr manages the Rocky Peak Small Cap Value Fund (RPCSX), which launched on April 2, 2012. He co-managed RCB’s Small Cap Value strategy and the CNI Charter RCB Small Cap Value Fund (formerly RCBAX, now CSCSX) fund. Tom offers these 200 words on why folks should check in:

Although this is a new Fund, I have a 14-years solid track record managing small cap value strategies at a prior firm and fund. One of the themes of this new Fund is improving on the investment processes I helped develop.  I believe we can improve performance by correcting mistakes that my former colleagues and I made such as not making general or tactical stock market calls, or not holding overvalued stocks just because they are perceived to be great quality companies.

The Fund’s valuation process of picking undervalued stocks is not dogmatic with a single approach, but encompasses multivariate valuation tools including discounted cash flows, LBO models, M&A valuations and traditional relative valuation metrics. Taken together those don’t give up a single “right number” but range of plausible valuations, for which our shorthand is “the Circle of Value.”

As a small operation with one PM, two intern analysts and one administrative assistant, I can maintain patience and diligence in the investment process and not be influenced by corporate politics, investment committee bureaucracy and water cooler distractions.

The Fund’s goal is to be competitive in up markets but significantly outperform in down markets, not by holding high levels of cash (i.e. making a market call), but by carefully buying stocks selling at a discount to intrinsic value and employing a reasonable margin of safety. 

The fund’s minimum initial investment is $10,000, reduced to $1,000 for IRAs and accounts set up with AIPs. The fund’s website is Rocky Peak Funds . Tom’s most-recent discussion of the fund appears in his September 2012 Semi-Annual Report.  If you meet him, you might ask about the story behind the “rocky peak” name.

Morningstar, Part Two: “Speaking of Old Softies”

There are, in addition, 123 beached whales: funds with more than a billion in assets that have trailed their peer groups for the past three, five and ten years.  Of those, 29 earn ratings in the Bronze to Gold range, 31 are Neutral and just six warrant Negative ratings.  So, being large and consistently bad makes you five times more likely to earn a positive rating than a negative one. 

Hmmm … what about being very large and consistently wretched?  There are 25 funds with more than two billion in assets that have trailed at least two-thirds of their peers for the past three, five and ten years.  Of those, seven earn Bronze or Silver ratings while just three are branded with the Negative.  So, large and wretched still makes you twice as likely to earn Morningstar’s approval as their disapproval.

What are huge and stinkin’ like Limburger cheese left to ripen in the August sun? Say $5 billion and trailing 75% of your peers?  There are five such funds, and not a Negative in sight.

Morningstar’s Good Work

Picking on Morningstar is both fun and easy, especially if you don’t have the obligation to come up with anything better on your own.  It’s sad that much of the criticism, as when pundits claim that Morningstar’s system has no predictive validity (check our “Best of the Web” discussion: Morningstar has better research to substantiate their claims than any other publicly accessible system), is uninformed blather.  I’d like to highlight two particularly useful pieces that Morningstar released this month.

Their annual “Buy the Unloved” recommendations were released on January 24.  This is an old and alluring system that depends on the predictable stupidity of the masses in order to make money.  At base, their recommendation is to buy in 2013 funds in the three categories that saw the greatest investor flight in 2012.  Conversely, avoiding the sector that others have rushed to, is wise.  Katie Rushkewicz Reichart reports that

From 1993 through 2012, the “unloved” strategy gained 8.4% annualized to the “loved” strategy’s 5.1% annualized. The unloved strategy has also beaten the MSCI World Index’s 6.9% annualized gain and has slightly beat the Morningstar US Market Index’s 8.3% return.

So, where should you be buying?  Large cap U.S. stocks of all flavors.  “The most unloved equity categories are also the most unpopular overall: large growth (outflows of $39.5 billion), large value (outflows of $16 billion), and large blend (outflows of $14.4 billion).”

A second thought-provoking feature offered a comparison that I’ve never before encountered.  Within each broad fund category, Morningstar tracked the average performance of mutual funds in comparison to ETFs and closed-end funds.  In terms of raw performance, CEFs were generally superior to both mutual funds and ETFs.  That makes some sense, at least in rising markets, because CEFs make far greater use of leverage than do other products.  The interesting part was that CEFs maintained their dominance even when the timeframe included part of the 2007-09 meltdown (when leverage was deadly) and even when risk-adjusted, rather than raw, returns are used.

There’s a lot of data in their report, entitled There’s More to Fund Investing Than Mutual Funds (01/29/13), and I’ll try to sort through more of it in the month ahead.

Matthews Asia Strategic Income Conference Call

We spent an hour on Tuesday, January 22, talking with Teresa Kong of Matthews Asia Strategic Income. The fund is about 14 months old, has about $40 million in assets, returned 13.6% in 2012 and 11.95% since launch (through Dec. 31, 2012).

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

Quick highlights:

1. this is designed to offer the highest risk-adjusted returns of any of the Matthews funds. In this case “risk-adjusted” is measured by the fund’s Sharpe ratio. Since launch, its Sharpe ratio has been around 2.0 which would be hard for any fixed-income fund to maintain indefinitely. They’ve pretty comfortable that they can maintain a Sharpe of 1.0 or so.
2. the manager describes the US bond market, and most especially Treasuries, as offering “asymmetric risk” over the intermediate term. Translation: more downside risk than upside opportunity. She does not embrace the term “bubble” because that implies an explosive risk (i.e., “popping”) where she imagines more like the slow leak of air out of a balloon. (Thanks for Joe N for raising the issue.)
3. given some value in having a fixed income component of one’s portfolio, Asian fixed-income offers two unique advantages in uncertain times. First, the fundamentals of the Asian fixed-income market – measures of underlying economic growth, market evolution, ability to pay and so on – are very strong. Second, Asian markets have a low beta relative to US intermediate-term Treasuries. If, for example, the 5-year Treasury declines 1% in value, U.S. investment grade debt will decline 0.7%, the global aggregate index 0.5% and Asia fixed-income around 0.25%.
4. MAINX is one of the few funds to have positions in both dollar-denominated and local currency Asian debt (and, of course, equities as well). She argues that the dollar-denominated debt offers downside protection in the case of a market disruption since the panicked “flight to quality” tends to benefit Treasuries and linked instruments while local currency debt might have more upside in “normal” markets. (Jeff Wang’s question, I believe.)
5. in equities, Matthews looks for stocks with “bond-like characteristics.” They target markets where the dividend yield in the stock market exceeds the yield on local 10-year bonds. Taiwan is an example. Within such markets, they look for high yielding, low beta stocks and tend to initiate stock positions about one-third the size of their initial bond positions. A new bond might come in at 200 basis points while a new stock might be 75. (Thanks to Dean for raising the equities question and Charles for noticing the lack of countries such as Taiwan in the portfolio.)
6. most competitors don’t have the depth of expertise necessary to maximize their returns in Asia. Returns are driven by three factors: currency, credit and interest rates. Each country has separate financial regimes. There is, as a result, a daunting lot to learn. That will lead most firms to simply focus on the largest markets and issuers. Matthews has a depth of expertise that allows them to do a better job of dissecting markets and of allocating resources to the most profitable part of the capital structure (for example, they’re open to buying Taiwanese equity but find its debt market to be fundamentally unattractive). There was an interesting moment when Teresa, former head of BlackRock’s emerging markets fixed-income operations, mused, “even a BlackRock, big as we were, I often felt we were a mile wide and [pause] … not as deep as I would have preferred.” The classic end of the phrase, of course, is “and an inch deep.” That’s significant since BlackRock has over 10,000 professionals and about $1.4 trillion in assets under management.

AndyJ, one of the members of the Observer’s discussion board and a participant in the call, adds a seventh highlight:

1. TK said explicitly that they have no neutral position or target bands of allocation for anything, i.e., currency exposure, sovereign vs. corporate, or geography. They try to get the biggest bang for the level of risk across the portfolio as a whole, with as much “price stability” (she said that a couple of times) as they can muster.

Matthews Asia Strategic Income, Take Two

One of the neat things about writing for you folks is the opportunity to meet all sorts of astonishing people.  One of them is Charles Boccadoro, an active member of the Observer’s discussion community.  Charles is renowned for the care he takes in pulling together data, often quite powerful data, about funds and their competitors.  After he wrote an analysis of MAINX’s competitors, Rick Brooks, another member of the board, encouraged me to share Charles’s work with a broader audience.  And so I shall.

By way of background, Charles describes himself as

Strictly amateur investor. Recently retired aerospace engineer. Graduated MIT in 1981. Investing actively in mutual funds since 2002. Was heavy FAIRX when market headed south in 2008, but fortunately held tight through to recovery. Started reading FundAlarm in 2007 and have followed MFO since inception in May 2011. Tries to hold fewest funds in portfolio, but many good recommendations by MFO community make in nearly impossible (e.g., bought MAINX after recent teleconference). Live in Central Coast California.

Geez, the dude’s an actual rocket scientist. 

After carefully considering eight funds which focus on Asian fixed-income, Charles concludes there are …

Few Alternatives to MAINX

Under normal market conditions, the Strategic Income Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its total net assets…in the Asia region. ASIA: Consists of all countries and markets in Asia, including developed, emerging, and frontier countries and markets in the Asian region.

Fund manager Teresa Kong references two benchmarks: HSBC Asian Local Bond Index (ALBI) and J.P. Morgan Asia Credit Index (JACI), which cover ten Asian countries, including South Korea, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia and China. Together with Japan, these eleven countries typically constitute the Asia region. Recent portfolio holdings include Sri Lanki and Australia, but the latter is actually defined as Asia Pacific and falls into the 20% portfolio allocation allowed to be outside Asia proper.

As shown in following table, the twelve Asian countries represented in the MAINX portfolio are mostly republics established since WWII and they have produced some of the world’s great companies, like Samsung and Toyota. Combined, they have ten times the population of the United States, greater overall GDP, 5.1% GDP annual growth (6.3% ex-Japan) or more than twice US growth, and less than one-third the external debt. (Hong Kong is an exception here, but presumably much of its external debt is attributable to its role as the region’s global financial center.)

Very few fixed income fund portfolios match Matthews MAINX (or MINCX, its institutional equivalent), as summarized below. None of these alternatives hold stocks.

Aberdeen Asian Bond Fund CSBAX and WisdomTree ETF Asian Local Debt ALD cover the most similar geographic region with debt held in local currency, but both hold more government than corporate debt. CSBAX recently dropped “Institutional” from its name and stood-up investor class offerings early last year. ALD maintains a two-tier allocation across a dozen Asian countries, ex Japan, monitoring exposure and rebalancing periodically. Both CSBAX and ALD have about $500M in assets. ALD trades at fairly healthy volumes with tight bid/ask spreads. WisdomTree offers a similar ETF in Emerging Market Local Debt ELD, which comprises additional countries, like Russia and Mexico. It has been quite successful garnering $1.7B in assets since inception in 2010. Powershares Chinese Yuan Dim Sum Bond ETF DSUM (cute) and similar Guggenheim Yuan Bond ETF RMB (short for Renminbi, the legal tender in mainland China, ex Hong Kong) give US investors access to the Yuan-denominated bond market. The fledgling RMB, however, trades at terribly low volumes, often yielding 1-2% premiums/discounts.

A look at life-time fund performance, ranked by highest APR relative to 3-month TBill:

Matthews Strategic Income tops the list, though of course it is a young fund. Still, it maintains low down side volatility DSDEV and draw down (measured by Ulcer Index UI). Most of the offerings here are young. Legg Mason Western Asset Global Government Bond (WAFIX) is the oldest; however, last year it too changed its name, from Western Asset Non-U.S. Opportunity Bond Fund, with a change in investment strategy and benchmark.

Here’s look at relative time frame, since MAINX inception, for all funds listed:

Charles, 25 January 2013

February’s Conference Call: Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income

As promised, we’re continuing our moderated conference calls through the winter.  You should consider joining in.  Here’s the story:

• Each call lasts about an hour
• About one third of the call is devoted to the manager’s explanation of their fund’s genesis and strategy, about one third is a Q&A that I lead, and about one third is Q&A between our callers and the manager.
• The call is, for you, free.  Your line is muted during the first two parts of the call (so you can feel free to shout at the danged cat or whatever) and you get to join the question queue during the last third by pressing the star key.

Our next conference call features Andrew Foster, manager of Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income (SFGIX).  It’s Tuesday, February 19, 7:00 – 8:00 p.m., EST.

Why you might want to join the call?

Put bluntly: you can’t afford another lost decade.  GMO is predicting average annual real returns for U.S. large cap stocks of 0.1% for the next 5-7 years.  The strength of the January 2013 rally is likely to push GMO’s projections into the red.  Real return on US bonds is projected to be negative, about -1.1%.  Overseas looks better and the emerging markets – source of the majority of the global economy’s growth over the next decade – look best of all.

The problem is that these markets have been so volatile that few investors have actually profited as richly as they might by investing in them.  The average e.m. fund dropped 55% in 2008, rose 75% in 2009, then alternated between gaining and losing 18% per year before 2010 – 2012.  That sort of volatility induces self-destructive behavior on most folk’s part; over the past five years (through 12/30/12), Vanguard’s Emerging Market Stock Index fund lost 1% per year but the average investor in that fund lost 6% per year.  Why?  Panicked selling in the midst of crashes, panicked buying at the height of upbursts.

In emerging markets investing especially, you benefit from having an experienced manager who is as aware of risks as of opportunities.  For my money (and he has some small pile of my money), no one is better at it than Andrew Foster of Seafarer.  Andrew had a splendid record as manager of Matthews Asian Growth and Income (MACSX), which for most of his watch was the least risky, most profitable way to invest in Asian equities.  Andrew now runs Seafarer, where he runs an Asia-centered portfolio which has the opportunity to diversify into other regions of the world.  He’ll join us immediately after the conclusion of Seafarer’s splendid first year of operation to talk about the fund and emerging markets as an opportunity set, and he’ll be glad to take your questions as well.

How can you join in?

Click on the “register” button and you’ll be taken to Chorus Call’s site, where you’ll get a toll free number and a PIN number to join us.  On the day of the call, I’ll send a reminder to everyone who has registered.

Would an additional heads up help?

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

Bonus Time!  RiverNorth Explains Dynamic Buy-Write

A couple months ago we profiled RiverNorth Dynamic Buy-Write Fund (RNBWX), which uses an options strategy to pursue returns in excess of the stock market’s with only a third of the market’s volatility.  RiverNorth is offering a webcast about the fund and its strategy for interested parties.  It will be hosted by Eric Metz, RNBWX’s manager and a guy with a distinguished record in options investing.  He’s entitled the webcast “Harnessing Volatility.”  The webcast will be Wednesday, February 20th, 2013 3:15pm CST – 4:15pm CST.

The call will feature:

• Overview of volatility
• Growth of options and the use of options strategies in a portfolio
• How volatility and options strategies pertain to the RiverNorth Dynamic Buy-Write Fund (RNBWX)
• Advantages of viewing the world with volatility in mind

To register, navigate over to www.rivernorthfunds.com and click on the “Events” link.

Cook & Bynum On-Deck

Our March conference call will occur unusually early in the month, so I wanted to give you advance word of it now.  On Tuesday, March 5, from 7:00 – 8:00 CST, we’ll have a chance to talk with Richard Cook and Dow Bynum, of The Cook and Bynum Fund (COBYX).  The guys run an ultra-concentrated portfolio which, over the past three years, has produced returns modestly higher than the stock market’s with less than half of the volatility. 

You’d imagine that a portfolio with just seven stocks would be wildly erratic.  It isn’t.  Our bottom line on our profile of the fund: “It’s working.  Cook and Bynum might well be among the best.  They’re young.  The fund is small and nimble.  Their discipline makes great sense.  It’s not magic, but it has been very, very good and offers an intriguing alternative for investors concerned by lockstep correlations and watered-down portfolios.”

How can you join in?

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

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

Observer Fund Profiles

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

Artisan Global Equity (ARTHX): after the January 11 departure of lead manager Barry Dargan, the argument for ARTHX is different but remains compelling.

Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX):  the events of 2012 and early 2013 make an already-intriguing fund much more interesting.

PIMCO Short Asset Investment, “D” shares (PAIUX): Bill Gross trusts this manager and this strategy to management tens of billions in cash for his funds.  Do you suppose he might be good enough to warrant your attention to?

Whitebox Long Short Equity, Investor shares (WBLSX): yes, I know I promised a profile of Whitebox for this month.   This converted hedge fund has two fundamentally attractive attributes (crushing its competition and enormous amounts of insider ownership), but I’m still working on the answer to two questions.  Once I get those, I’ll share a profile.  But not yet.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public.  The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details.  Every day we scour new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves. Many of the proposed funds offer nothing new, distinctive or interesting.  Some are downright horrors of Dilbertesque babble.

Funds in registration this month won’t be available for sale until, typically, the beginning of March 2013. We found a dozen funds in the pipeline, notably:

Artisan Global Small Cap Fund (ARTWX) will be Artisan’s fourth overly-global fund and also the fourth for Mark Yockey and his team.  They’re looking pursue maximum long-term capital growth by investing in a global portfolio of small-cap growth companies.  .  The plan is to apply the same investing discipline here as they do with Artisan International Small Cap (ARTJX) and their other funds.  The investment minimum is $1000 and expenses are capped at 1.5%.

Driehaus Event Driven Fund seeks to provide positive returns over full-market cycles. Generally these funds seek arbitrage gains from events such as bankruptcies, mergers, acquisitions, refinancings, earnings surprises and regulatory rulings.  They intend to have a proscribed volatility target for the fund, but have not yet released it.  They anticipate a concentrated portfolio and turnover of 100-200%.  K.C. Nelson, Portfolio Manager for Driehaus Active Income (LCMAX) and Driehaus Select Credit (DRSLX), will manage the fund.  The minimum initial investment is $10,000, reduced to $2000 for IRAs.  Expenses not yet set.

Details on these funds and the list of all of the funds in registration are available at the Observer’s Funds in Registration page or by clicking “Funds” on the menu atop each page.

On a related note, we also tracked down 20 fund manager changes, including a couple high profile departures.

Launch Alert: Eaton Vance Bond

On January 31, Eaton Vance launched Eaton Vance Bond Fund (EVBAX), a multi-sector bond fund that can invest in U.S. investment grade and high yield bonds, floating-rate bank loans, non-U.S. sovereign and corporate debt, convertible securities and preferred stocks.  Why should you care?  Its lead manager is Kathleen Gaffney, once the investing partner of and heir apparent to Dan Fuss.  Fuss and Gaffney managed Loomis Sayles Bond (LSBRX), a multisector fund strikingly similar to the new fund, to an annualized return of 10.6% over their last decade together.  That beat 94% of their peers, as well as beating the long-term record of the stock market.  “A” class shares carry a 4.75% front load, expenses after waivers of 0.95% and a minimum initial investment of $1000.

Launch Alert: Longleaf Global Opens

On Jan. 2, Southeastern Asset Management rolled out its first U.S. open-end fund since 1998 and its first global mutual fund ever available in the United States. The new fund is Longleaf Global (LLGLX), a concentrated fund that invests at least 40% of its assets outside the U.S. A version of the strategy already is available in Europe.

Mason Hawkins and Staley Cates, who received Morningstar’s Domestic-Stock Fund Manager of the Year award in 2006, manage the fund. Like other Longleaf funds, the portfolio targets holding between 15 and 25 companies. The fund will have an unconstrained portfolio that invests in companies of all market capitalizations and geographies. Its expense ratio is capped at 1.65%.

Sibling funds   Longleaf Partners (LLPFX) and   Longleaf Partners Small-Cap (LLSCX) receive Morningstar Analyst Ratings of Gold while   Longleaf Partners International (LLINX) is rated Bronze.

Launch Just-A-Second-There: Longleaf Global Closes

After just 18 trading days, Longleaf Global closed to new investors.  The fund drew in a manageable $28 million and then couldn’t manage it.  On January 28, the fund closed without warning and without explanation.  The fund’s phone reps said they had “no idea of why” and the fund’s website contained a single line noting the closure.

A subsequent mailing to the fund’s investors explained that there simply was nowhere immediately worth investing.  The $16 trillion U.S. stock market didn’t contain $30 million in investible good ideas.  With the portfolio 50% in cash, their judgment was that the market offered no more than about $15 million in worthwhile opportunities.

Here’s the official text:

We are temporarily closing Longleaf Partners Global Fund to new investors. Although the Fund was only launched on December 31, 2012, our Governing Principles guide our decision to close until we can invest the large cash position currently in the Fund. Since October when we began planning to open the Global Fund, stock prices have risen rapidly, leaving few good businesses that meet our 60% of appraisal discount. Limited qualifying investments, combined with relatively quick inflows from shareholders, have left us with more cash than we can invest. Remaining open would dilute existing investors by further raising our cash level.

Our Governing Principle, “We will consider closing to new investors if closing would benefit existing clients,” has caused us to close the three other Longleaf Funds at various times over the past 20 years. When investment opportunities enable us to put the Fund’s cash to work, and additional inflows will benefit our partners, we will re-open the Global Fund to new investors.

Artisan Gets Active

One of my favorite fund advisers are the Artisan Partners.  I’ve had modest investments with the Artisan Funds since 1996 when I owned Artisan Small Cap (ARTSX) and Artisan International (ARTIX).  I sold my Small Cap stake when Small Cap Value (ARTVX) became available and International when International Value (ARTKX) opened, but I’ve stayed with Artisan throughout.  The Observer has profiles of five Artisan funds.

Why?  Three reasons.  (1) They do consistently good work. (2) Their funds build upon their teams’ expertise.  And (3) their policies – from low minimums to the willingness to close funds – are shareholder friendly.

And they’ve had a busy month.

Two of Artisan’s management teams were finalists for Morningstar’s international fund manager of the year honors: David Samra and Daniel O’Keefe of Artisan International Value (ARTKX) and Artisan Global Value (ARTGX) and the team headed by Mark Yockey of Artisan International (ARTIX) and Artisan International Small Cap (ARTJX).

In a rarity, one of the managers left Artisan.  Barry Dargan, formerly of MFS International and lead manager of Artisan Global Equity (ARTHX), left the firm following a year-end conversation with Yockey and others.  ARTHX was managed by a team led by Mr. Dargan and it employed a consistent, well-articulated discipline.  The fund will continue being managed by the same team with the same discipline, though Mr. Yockey will now take the lead. 

Artisan has filed to launch Artisan Global Small Cap Fund (ARTWX), which will be managed by Mark Yockey, Charles-Henri Hamker and David Geisler.  Yockey and Hamker co-manage other funds together and Mr. Geisler has been promoted to co-manager in recognition of his excellent work as a senior analyst on the team.   Artisan argues that their teams have managed such smooth transitions from primarily domestic or primary international charges into global funds because all of their investing has a global focus.  The international managers need to know the U.S. market inside and out since, for example, they can’t decide whether Fiat is a “buy” without knowing whether Ford is a better buy.  We’ll offer more details on the fund when it comes to market.

Briefly Noted …

FPA has announced the addition of a new analyst, Victor Liu, for FPA International Value (FPIVX).  The fund started with two managers, Eric Bokota and Pierre Py.  Mr. Bokota left suddenly for personal reasons and FPA has been moving carefully to find a successor for him.  Mr. Py expects Victor Liu to become that successor. Prior to joining FPA, Mr. Liu was a Vice President and Research Analyst for a highly-respected firm, Causeway Capital Management LLC, from 2005 until 2013.  The fund posted top 2% results in 2012 and investors have reason to be optimistic about the year ahead.

Rivers seem to be all the rage in the mutual fund world.  In addition to River Road Asset Management which sub-advises several ASTON funds, there’s River Oak Discovery (RIVSX) and the Riverbridge, RiverFront (note the trendy mid-word capitalization), RiverNorth, RiverPark and RiverSource fund families.  Equally-common bits of geography seem far less popular.  Hills (Beech, Cavanal, Diamond), lakes (Great and Partners), mounts (Lucas), and peaks (Aquila, Grandeur, Rocky) are uncommon while ponds, streams, creeks, gorges and plateaus are invisible.  (Swamps and morasses are regrettably common, though seldom advertised.)

Small Wins for Investors

Calamos Growth & Income (CVTRX) reopened to new investors in January. Despite a lackluster return in 2012, the fund has a strong long-term record, beating 99% of its peers during the trailing 15-year period through December 2012. In August 2012, Calamos announced that lead manager and firm co-CIO Nick Calamos would be leaving the firm. Gary Black, former Janus CIO, joined the management team as his replacement.

The folks at FPA have lowered the expense ratio for FPA International Value (FPIVX). FPA has also extended the existing fee waiver and reduced the Fund’s fees effective February 1, 2013.  FPA has contractually capped the Fund’s fees at 1.32% through June 30, 2015, several basis points below the current rate.

Scout Unconstrained Bond (SUBYX and SUBFX) is now available in a new, lower-cost retail package.  On December 31, 2012, the old retail SUBFX became the institutional share class with a $100,000 minimum.  At the same time Scout launched new “Y” shares that are no-load with the same minimum investment as the old shares, but also with a substantial expense reduction. When we profiled the fund in November, the after-waiver e.r. was 99 basis points while the “Y” shares are at 80 bps.  Scout also reduces the minimum initial investment to $100 for accounts set up with an automatic investing plan.

Scout has also released “Unconstrained Fixed-Income Investing: A Timely Alternative in a Perilous Environment.” They argue that unconstrained investing:

• Has the potential to make portfolios less vulnerable to higher interest rates and enduring economic uncertainty;
• May better position assets to grow long term purchasing power;
• Is worth consideration as investors may need to consider more opportunistic strategies to complement or replace the core strategies that have worked well so far.

They also explain the counter-cyclical investment approach which they have successfully employed for more than three decades.  Mark Egan and team were also finalists for 2012 Fixed Income Manager of the Year honors.

Vanguard has cut expense ratios on four more funds, by 1 -3 basis points.  Those are Equity Income, PRIMECAP Core, Strategic Equity and Strategic Small Cap Equity.  It raised the e.r. on Growth Equity by 2 basis points. 

Closings

ASTON/River Road Independent Value (ARVIX) closed to new investors on January 18 after being reopened just four months. I warned you.

Fairholme Fund (FAIRX) is closing on February 28, 2013. Here’s the perfect illustration of the risks and rewards of high-conviction investing: top 1% in 2010, bottom 1% in 2011, top 1% in 2012, closed in 2013.  The smaller Fairholme Allocation (FAAFX), which has actually outperformed Fairholme since launch, and Fairholme Focused Income (FOCIX) funds are closing at the same time.

Fidelity Small Cap Discovery (FSCRX) closed to new investors on January 31.  The fund has been a rarity for Fidelity: a really good small cap fund.  Most of its success has come under manager Chuck Myers.  Fans of his work might still check out Fidelity Small Cap Value (FCPVX).  It’s nearly as big as Discovery ($3.1 versus $3.9 billion) but hasn’t had to deal with huge inflows. 

JPMorgan Mid Cap Value (JAMCX) will close to new investors at the end of February.

MainStay Large Cap Growth Fund closed to new investors on January 17.  They ascribe the decision to “a significant increase in the net assets” and a desire “to moderate cash flows.”

Virtus announced it will close Virtus Emerging Markets Opportunities (HEMZX) to new investors on Feb. 1. The fund had strong inflows in recent years, ending 2012 with more than $6.8 billion in assets.  Rajiv Jain was named Morningstar International-Stock Fund Manager of the Year for 2012. In three of the past five calendar years the fund has outpaced more than 95% of its peers (it landed in the bottom decile of its category for 2009, despite a 48% return for the year, and placed in the top half of the category in 2011).

Old Wine in New Bottles

DWS is changing the names of its three Dreman Value Management-run funds, including the Neutral-rated  DWS Dreman Small Cap Value (KDSAX), to drop the subadvisor’s name. Dreman’s assets under management have shrunk dramatically to just $4.1 billion today from $20 billion in 2007. The firm previously subadvised a large-cap value fund for DWS but was dropped after that fund (now called DWS Equity Dividend (KDHAX)) lost 46% in 2008, leading to massive outflows. The three funds Dreman subadvises for DWS now account for roughly half of the firm’s total assets under management.

We noted earlier in fall that several of the Legg Mason affiliates are shrinking from the Legg name.  The most recent manifestations: Legg Mason Global Currents International All Cap Opportunity and Legg Mason Global Currents International Small Cap Opportunity changed their names to ClearBridge International All Cap Opportunity (SBIEX) and ClearBridge International Small Cap Opportunity (LCOAX) on Dec. 5, 2012.

Off to the Dustbin of History

ASTON Dynamic Allocation (ASENX) has been closed to new investment and will be shut down on January 30.  The fund’s performance has been weak and 2012 was its worst year yet.   The fact that it drew only $22 million in investments and carried a one-star rating from Morningstar likely contributed to the decision. The fund, subadvised by Smart Portfolios, was launched early 2008. This  will be ASTON’s third closure of late, following the shutdown of ASTON/Cardinal Mid Cap Value and ASTON/Neptune International in mid-autumn.

Fidelity plans to merge the Fidelity 130/30 Large Cap (FOTTX) and Fidelity Advisor Strategic Growth (FTQAX) into Fidelity Stock Selector All Cap  (FDSSX) in June in June.  Neither of the deadsters had distinguished records and neither drew much in assets, at least by Fidelity’s standards.

Invesco Powershares will liquidate thirteen more ETFs on February 26.  Those are  

• Dynamic Insurance Portfolio (PIC)
• Morningstar StockInvestor Core Portfolio (PYH)
• Dynamic Banking Portfolio (PJB)
• Global Steel Portfolio (PSTL)
• Active Low Duration Portfolio (PLK)
• Global Wind Energy Portfolio (PWND)
• Active Mega-Cap Portfolio (PMA)
• Global Coal Portfolio (PKOL)
• Global Nuclear Energy Portfolio (PKN)
• Ibbotson Alternative Completion Portfolio (PTO)
• RiverFront Tactical Balanced Growth Portfolio (PAO)
• RiverFront Tactical Growth & Income Portfolio (PCA)
• Convertible Securities Portfolio (CVRT)

Just when you thought the industry was all dull and normal, along comes Janus.   Janus’s Board approved the merger of Janus Global Research into Janus Worldwide (JAWWX) on March 15, 2013.  Now in a dull and normal world, that would mean the disappearance of the Global Research fund.  Not with Janus!  Global Research will merge into Worldwide, resulting in “the Combined Fund.”  The Combined Fund will then be named “Janus Global Research,” will adopt Global Research’s management team and will use Global Research’s performance record.  Investors get rewarded with a four basis point decrease in their expense ratio.

The RS Capital Appreciation Fund will be merged with RS Growth Fund in March.  In the interim, RS removed Cap App’s entire management team and replaced them with Growth’s:  Stephen Bishop, Melissa Chadwick-Dunn, and D. Scott Tracy.

RiverPark Small Cap Growth (RPSFX) liquidated on Jan. 25, 2013.  I like and respect Mr. Rubin and the RiverPark folks as a whole, but this fund never struck me as particularly compelling.  With only $4.5 million in assets, it seems the others agreed.  On the upside, this leaves the managers free to focus on their noticeably-promised RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity (RLSFX) fund. 

Scout Stock (UMBSX) will liquidate in March. Scout has always been a very risk averse fund for which Morningstar and the Observer both had considerable enthusiasm.  The problem is that the combination of low risk with below average returns was not compelling in the marketplace and assets have dropped by well over half in the past decade.

In a move fraught with covert drama, Sentinel Asset Management is merging the $51 million Sentinel Mid Cap II (SYVAX) into Sentinel Mid Cap (SNTNX). The drama started when Sentinel fired Mid Cap II’s management team in 2011.  The fund’s shareholders then refused to ratify a new management team.  Sentinel responded by converting Mid Cap II into a clone of Mid Cap with the same management team.  Then in August 2012, that management team resigned to join a competitor.  Sentinel rotated in the team that manages Sentinel Common Stock (SENCX) to manage both and, soon, to manage just the survivor.

Torray Institutional (TORRX) liquidated at the end of December.  Like many institutional funds, it was hostage to one or two large accounts.  When a major investor pulled out, the fund was left with too few assets to be profitable.  Torray Fund (TORYX), on which it was based, has had a long stretch of wretched performance (in the bottom quartile of its large cap peer group for six of the past 10 years) but retains over $300 million in assets.

In Closing . . .

We received a huge and humbling stack of mail in January, very little of which I’ve yet responded to.  Some folks, including some professional practices, shared contributions (including one in the … hmm, “mid three digit” range) for which we’re really grateful.  Other folks shared holiday greetings (Zak, Hoyt and River Road Asset Management won, hands down, for the cutest and classiest card of the season), offers, reflections and requests.  Augustana settles into Spring Break in early February and I’m resolved to settle in for an afternoon and catch up with you folks.  Preliminary notes include:

• Major congratulations, Maryrose!  Great news.
• Pretty much any afternoon during Spring Break, Peter
• Thanks for sharing the Fund Investor’s Classroom, Richard.  I’ll sort through it as soon as I’m out of my own classroom.
• Rick, Mohan, it’s always good to hear from old friends
• Fraud Catcher, fascinating book and a fascinating life.  Thanks for sharing it, Tom.
• And, to you all, it’s always good to hear from new friends.

Thanks, as always, for your support and encouragement.  It makes a world of difference.   Do consider joining us for the Seafarer conference call in a couple weeks.  Otherwise, I’ll see you all in March.

Dear friends,

We’ve been listening to REM’s “It’s the End of the World (as we know it)” and thinking about copyrighting some useful terms for the year ahead.  You know that Bondpocalypse and Bondmageddon are both getting programmed into the pundits’ vocabulary.  Chip suggests Bondtastrophe and Bondaster.  

Bad asset classes (say, TIPs and long bonds) might be merged in the Frankenfund.  Members of the Observer’s discussion board offered bond doggle (thanks, Bee!), the Bondfire of the Vanities (Shostakovich’s entry and probably our most popular), the New Fed (which Hank thinks we’ll be hearing by year’s end) which might continue the racetodebase (Rono) and bondacious (presumably blondes, Accipiter’s best).  Given that snowstorms now get their own names (on the way to Pittsburgh, my son and I drove through the aftermath of Euclid), perhaps market panics, too?  We’d start of course with Market Crisis Alan, in honor of The Maestro, but we haven’t decided whether that would rightly be followed by Market Crisis Ben, Barack or Boehner.  Hopeful that they couldn’t do it again, we could honor them all with Crash B3 which might defame the good work done by vitamin B3 in regulating sex and stress.

Feel free to join in on the 2013 Word of the Year thread, if only if figure out how Daisy Duke got there.

The Big Bond Bubble Boomnanza?

I’m most nervous when lots of other folks seem to agree with me.  It’s usually a sign that I’ve overlooked something.

I’ve been suggesting for quite a while now that the bond market, as a whole, might be in a particularly parlous position.   Within the living memory of almost the entire investing community, investing in bonds has been a surefire way to boost your portfolio.  Since 1981, the bond market has enjoyed a 31-year bull market.  What too many investors forget is that 1981 was preceded by a 35-year year bear market for bonds.  The question is: are we at or near another turning point?

The number of people reaching that conclusion is growing rapidly.  Floyd Norris of The New York Times wrote on December 28^th: “A new bear market almost certainly has begun” (Reading Pessimism in the Market for Bonds).  The Wall Street Journal headlined the warning, “Danger Lurks Inside the Bond Boom amid Corporate-Borrowing Bonanza, Some Money Managers Warn of Little Room Left for Gains” (12/06/2012).  Separately, the Journal warned of “a rude awakening” for complacent bond investors (12/24/2012).  Barron’s warns of a “Fed-inflated bond bubble” (12/17/2012). Hedge fund manager Ray Dalio claims that “The biggest opportunity [in 2013] will be – and it isn’t imminent – shorting bond markets around the world” (our friends at LearnBonds.com have a really good page of links to commentaries on the bond market, on which this is found).

I weighed in on the topic in a column I wrote for Amazon’s Money and Markets page.  The column, entitled “Trees Do Not Grow to the Sky,” begins:

You thought the fallout from 2000-01 was bad?  You thought the 2008 market seizure provoked anguish?  That’s nothing, compared to what will happen when every grandparent in America cries out, as one, “we’ve been ruined.”

In the past five years, investors have purchased one trillion dollars’ worth of bond mutual fund shares ($1.069 trillion, as of 11/20/12, if you want to be picky) while selling a half trillion in stock funds ($503 billion).

Money has flowed into bond mutual funds in 53 of the past 60 weeks (and out of stock funds in 46 of 60 weeks).

Investors have relentlessly bid up the price of bonds for 30 years so they’ve reached the point where they’re priced to return less than nothing for the next decade.

Morningstar adds that about three-quarters of that money went to actively-managed bond funds, a singularly poor bet in most instances.

I included a spiffy graph and then reported on the actions of lots of the country’s best bond investors.  You might want to take a quick scan of their activities.  It’s fairly sobering.

Among my conclusions:  

Act now, not later. “Act” is not investment advice, it’s communication advice.  Start talking with your spouse, financial adviser, fund manager, and other investors online, about how they’ve thought about the sorts of information I’ve shared and how they’ve reacted to it.  Learn, reflect, then act.

We’re not qualified to offer investment advice and we’re not saying that you should be abandoning the bond market. As we said to Charles, one of our regular readers,

I’m very sensitive to the need for income in a portfolio, for risk management and for diversification so leaving fixed-income altogether strikes me as silly and unmanageable.  The key might be to identify the risks your exposing yourself to and the available rewards.  In general, I think folks are most skeptical of long-term sovereign debt issued by governments that are … well, broke.  Such bonds have the greatest interest rate sensitivity and then to be badly overpriced because they’ve been “the safe haven” in so many panics.  

So I’d at the very least look to diversify my income sources and to work with managers who are not locked into very narrow niches. 

MFWire: Stock Fund Flows Are Turning Around

MF Wire recently announced “Stock Funds Turn Around” (December 28, 2012), which might also be titled “Investors continue retreat from U.S. stock funds.” In the last full week of 2012, investors pulled $750 million from US stock funds and added $1.25 billion into international ones.

Forbes: Buy Bonds, Sleep Well

Our take might be, Observer: buy bonds, sleep with the fishes.  On December 19^th, Forbes published 5 Mutual Funds for Those Who Want to Sleep Well in 2013.  Writer Abram Brown went looking for funds that performed well in recent years (always the hallmark of good fund selection: past performance) and that avoided weird strategies.  His list of winners:

PIMCO Diversified Income (PDVDX) – a fine multi-asset fund.

MFS Research Bond R3 (MRBHX) – R3 shares are only available through select retirement plans.  The publicly available “A” shares carry a sales load, which has trimmed about a percent a year off its returns.

Russell Strategic Bond (RFCEX) – this is another unavailable share class; the publicly available “A” shares have higher expenses, a load, and a lower Morningstar rating.

TCW Emerging Markets Income (TGEIX) – a fine fund whose assets have exploded in three years, from $150 million to $6.2 billion.

Loomis Sayles Bond (LBFAX) – the article points you to the fund’s Administrative shares, rather than the lower-cost Retail shares (LSBRX) but I don’t know why.

Loomis might illustrate some of the downsides to investing in the past.  Its famous lead manager, Dan Fuss, is now 79 years old and likely in the later stages of his career.  His heir apparent, Kathleen Gaffney, recently left the firm.  That leaves the fund in the hands of two lesser-known managers.

I’m not sure of how well most folks will sleep when their manager’s toting 40-100% emerging markets exposure or 60% junk bonds when the next wave crashes over the market, but it’s an interesting list.

Forbes is, by the way, surely a candidate for the most badly junked up page in existence, and one of the least useful.  Only about a third of the screen is the story, the rest are ads and misleading links.  See also “10 best mutual funds” does not lead to a Forbes story on the subject – it leads to an Ask search results page with paid results at top.

Vanguard: The Past 10 Years

In October we launched “The Last Ten,” a monthly series, running between now and February, looking at the strategies and funds launched by the Big Five fund companies (Fido, Vanguard, T Rowe, American and PIMCO) in the last decade.

Here are our findings so far:

Fidelity, once fabled for the predictable success of its new fund launches, has created no compelling new investment option and only one retail fund that has earned Morningstar’s five-star designation, Fidelity International Growth (FIGFX).  We suggested three causes: the need to grow assets, a cautious culture and a firm that’s too big to risk innovative funds.

T. Rowe Price continues to deliver on its promises.  Of the 22 funds launched, only Strategic Income (PRSNX) has been a consistent laggard; it has trailed its peer group in four consecutive years but trailed disastrously only once (2009).  Investing with Price is the equivalent of putting a strong singles-hitter on a baseball team; it’s a bet that you’ll win with consistency and effort, rather than the occasional spectacular play.

PIMCO has utterly crushed the competition, both in the thoughtfulness of their portfolios and in their performance.  PIMCO has, for example, about three times as many five-star funds – both overall and among funds launched in the last decade – than you’d predict.

The retirement of Gus Sauter, Vanguard’s long-time chief investment officer, makes this is fitting moment to look back on the decade just past.

Measured in terms of the number of funds launched or the innovativeness of their products, the decade has been unremarkable.  Vanguard:

• Has 112 funds (which are sold in over 278 packages or share classes)
• 29 of their funds were launched in the past decade
• 106 of them are old enough to have earned Morningstar ratings
• 8 of them has a five star rating (as of 12/27/12)
• 57 more earned four-star ratings.

Morningstar awards five-stars to the top 10% of funds in a class and four-stars to the next 22.5%.  The table below summarizes what you’d expect from a firm of Vanguard’s size and then what they’ve achieved.

What does the chart suggest?  Vanguard is less likely to be “spectacular” than the numbers would suggest but more than twice as likely to be “really good.”  That makes a great deal of sense given the nature of Vanguard’s advantage: the “at cost” ethos and tight budget controls means that they enter each year with a small advantage over the market.  With time that advantage compounds but remains modest.

The funds launched in the past decade are mostly undistinguished, in the sense that they incorporate neither unusual combinations of assets (no “emerging markets balanced” or “global infrastructure” here) nor innovative responses to changing market conditions (as with “real return” or “inflation-tuned” ones).   The vast bulk are target-date funds, other retirement income products, or new indexed funds for conventional market segments.

They’ve launched about five new actively-managed retail funds which, as a group, peak out at “okay.”

This is not to suggest that Vanguard has been inattentive of their shareholders best interests.  Rather they seem to have taken an old adage to heart: “be like a duck, stay calm on the surface but paddle like hell underwater.”  I’m indebted to Taylor Larimore, co-founder of the Bogleheads, for sharing the link to a valedictory interview with Gus Sauter, who points out that Vanguard’s decided to shift the indexes on which their funds are based.  That shift will, over time, save Vanguard’s investors hundreds of millions of dollars.  It also exemplifies the enduring nature of Vanguard’s competitive advantage: the ruthless pursuit of many small, almost invisible gains for their investors, the sum of which is consistently superior results.

Celebrating Small Cap Season

The Observer has, of late, spent a lot of time talking about the challenge of managing volatility.  That’s led us to discussions of long/short, covered call, and strategic income funds.  The two best months for small cap funds are January and February.  Average returns of U.S. small caps in January from 1927 to 2011 were 2.3%, more than triple those in February, which 0.72%.  And so we teamed up again with the folks at FundReveal to review the small cap funds we’ve profiled and to offer a recommendation or two.

You can reach the individual profiles by clicking in the “Funds” tab on our main navigation bar.  We’re in the process of updating them all during January.  Because our judgments embody a strong qualitative element, we asked our resolutely quantitative friends at FundReveal to look at our small caps and to offer their own data-driven reading of some of them. Their full analysis can be found on their blog.

FundReveal’s strategy is to track daily return and volatility data, rather than the more common monthly or quarterly measures.  They believe that allows them to look at many more examples of the managers’ judgment at work (they generate 250 data points a year rather than four or twelve) and to arrive at better predictions about a fund’s prospects.  One of FundReveal’s key measures is Persistence, the likelihood that a particular pattern of risk and return repeats itself, day after day.  In general, you can count on funds with higher persistence. Here are their highlights:

The MFO funds display, in general, higher volatility than the S&P 500 for both 2012 YTD and the past 5 years.  The one fund that had lower volatility in both time horizons is Pinnacle Value (PVFIX).   PVFIX demonstrates consistent performance with low volatility, factors to be combined with subjective analysis available from other sources.

Two other funds have delivered high ADR (Average Daily Return), but also present higher risk than the S&P.  In this case Southern Sun Small Cap (SSSFX) and Walthausen Small Cap (WSCVX) have high relative volatility, but they have delivered high ADR over both time horizons.  From the FundReveal perspective, SSSFX has the edge in terms of decision-making capability because it has delivered higher ADR than the S&P in 10 Quarters and lower ADR in 6 Quarters, while WSCVX had delivered higher ADR than the S&P in 7 Quarters and lower ADR in 7 Quarters.  

So, bottom line, from the FundReveal perspective PVFIX and SSSFX are the more attractive funds in this lineup. 

Some Small Cap funds worthy of consideration:

Small Blend 

• Schwartz Value fund (RCMFX): Greater than S&P ADR, Lower Volatility (what we call “A” performance) for 2012 YTD and 2007-2012 YTD.  It has a high Persistence Rating (40%) that indicates a historic tendency to deliver A performance on a quarterly basis. 
• Third Avenue Small-Cap Fund (TVSVX): Greater than S&P ADR, Lower Volatility with a medium Persistence Rating (33%).

Small Growth

• Wasatch Micro Cap Value fund (WAMVX): Greater than  S&P ADR, Lower Volatility 2007-2012 YTF, with a medium Persistence Rating (30%).  No FundReveal covered Small Growth funds delivered “A” performance in 2012 YTD. (WAMVX is half of Snowball’s Roth IRA.)

Small Value

• Pinnacle Value Fund (PVFIX): An MFO focus fund, discussed above.  It has a high Persistence Rating (50%).
• Intrepid Small Cap Fund (ICMAX ): Greater than  S&P ADR, Lower Volatility for 2007-2012 YTF, with a high Persistence Rating (55%). Eric Cinnamond, who now manages Aston River Road Independent Value, managed ICMAX from 2005-10.
• ING American Century Small-Mid Cap Value (ISMSX): Greater than  S&P ADR, Lower Volatility for 2007-2012 YTF, with a medium Persistence Rating (25%).

If you’re intrigued by the potential for fine-grained quantitative analysis, you should visit FundReveal.  While theirs is a pay service, free trials are available so that you can figure out whether their tools will help you make your own decisions.

Ameristock’s Curious Struggle

Nick Gerber’s Ameristock (AMSTX) fund was long an icon of prudent, focused investing but, like many owner-operated funds, is being absorbed into a larger firm.  In this case, it’s moving into the Drexel Hamilton family of funds.

Or not.  While these transactions are generally routine, a recent SEC filing speaks to some undiscussed turmoil in the move.  Here’s the filing:

As described in the Supplement Dated October 9, 2012 to the Prospectus of Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc. dated September 28, 2012, a Special Meeting of Shareholders of the Ameristock Fund  was scheduled for December 12, 2012 at 11:00 a.m., Pacific Time, for shareholders to vote on a proposed Agreement and Plan of Reorganization and Termination pursuant to which the Ameristock Fund would be reorganized into the Drexel Hamilton Centre American Equity Fund, a series of Drexel Hamilton Mutual Funds, resulting in the complete liquidation and termination of the Ameristock Fund. The Special Meeting convened as scheduled on December 12, 2012, but was adjourned until … December 27, 2012.   … The Reconvened Special Meeting was reconvened as scheduled on December 27, 2012, but has again been adjourned and will reconvene on Thursday, January 10, 2012 …

Uh-huh. 

Should Old Acquaintance Be Forgot and Never Brought to Mind?

Goodness, no.

How long can a fund be incredibly, eternally awful and still survive?  The record is doubtless held by the former Steadman funds, which were ridiculed as the Deadman funds and eventually hid out as the Ameritor funds. They managed generations of horrible ineptitude. How horrible?  In the last decade of their existence (through 2007), they lost 98.98%.  That’s the transformation of $10,000 into $102. Sufficiently horrible that they became a case study at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business.

In celebrating the season of Auld Lang Syne, I set out to see whether there were any worthy successors on the horizon.  I scanned Morningstar’s database for funds which trailed at least 99% of the peers this year.  And over the past five years.  And 10 and 15 years.

Five funds actually cropped up as being that bad that consistently.  The good news for investors is that the story isn’t quite as bleak as it first appears.

Jaffe’s Year-End Explosion

I’m not sure that Chuck Jaffe is the hardest-working man in the fund biz, but he does have periods of prodigious output.  December is one of those periods.   Chuck ran four features this month worth special note.

• Farewell to Stupid Investments.  After nearly a decade, Chuck has ended down his “Stupid Investment of the Week” column.  Chuck’s closing columns echoes Cassius, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”  Or perhaps Pogo, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”
• 17^th Annual Lump of Coal Awards, December 10 and December 17.  This is the litany of stupidity surrounding the fund industry, from slack-wit regulators to venal managers.  One interesting piece discusses Morningstar’s analyst ratings.  Morningstar’s ratings roughly break the universe down into good ideas (gold, silver, bronze), okay ideas (neutral) and bad ideas (negative).  Of the 1000+ funds rated so far, only 5%qualify for negative ratings.  Morningstar’s rejoinder is that there are 5000 unrated funds, the vast bulk of which don’t warrant any attention.  So while the 5% might be the tip of a proverbial iceberg, they represent the funds with the greatest risk of attracting serious investor attention.

  My recommendation, which didn’t make Chuck’s final list, was to present a particularly grimy bit o’ bituminous to the fund industry for its response to the bond mania.  Through all of 2012, the industry closed a total of four funds to new investment while at the same time launching 39 new bond funds.  That’s looks a lot like the same impulse that led to the launch of B2B Internet Services funds (no, I’m not making that up) just before the collapse of the tech bubble in 2000; a “hey, people want to buy this stuff so we’ve got an obligation to market it to them” approach.

• Tales from the Mutual Fund Crypt, December 26: stories of recently-departed funds.  A favorite: the Auto-Pilot fund’s website drones on, six months after the fund’s liquidation.  It continues to describe the fund as “new,” six years after launch.

  My nominee was generic: more funds are being shut down after 12 – 18 months of operation which smacks of hypocrisy (have you ever heard of a manager who didn’t preach the “long-term investor” mantra yet the firms themselves have a short-term strategy) and incompetence (in fund design and marketing both).

Chuck’s still podcasting, MoneyLife with Chuck Jaffe.  One cool recent interview was with Doug Ramsey, chief investment officer for the Leuthold Funds.

ASTON/River Road Long-Short Conference Call

On December 17, about fifty readers joined us for an hour-long conversation with Matt Moran and Daniel Johnson, managers of ASTON/River Road Long-Short (ARLSX).  For folks interested but unable to join us, here’s the complete audio of the hour-long conversation.  It starts with Morty Schaja, River Road’s president, talking about the fund’s genesis and River Road’s broader discipline and track record: 

If you’d like a preview before deciding whether you listen in, you might want to read our profile of ARLSX (there’s a printable .pdf of the profile on Aston’s website and an audio profile, which we discuss below).  Here are some of the highlights of the conversation:

Quick highlights:

1. they believe they can outperform the stock market by 200 bps/year over a full market cycle. Measuring peak to peak or trough to trough, both profit and stock market cycles average 5.3 years, so they think that’s a reasonable time-frame for judging them.
2. they believe they can keep beta at 0.3 to 0.5. They have a discipline for reducing market exposure when their long portfolio exceeds 80% of fair value. The alarms rang in September, they reduce expose and so their beta is now at 0.34, near their low.
3. risk management is more important than return management, so all three of their disciplines are risk-tuned. The long portfolio, 15-30 industry leaders selling at a discount of at least 20% to fair value, tend to be low-beta stocks. Even so their longs have outperformed the market by 9%.
4. River Road is committed to keeping the fund open for at least 8 years. It’s got $8 million in asset, the e.r. is capped at 1.7% but it costs around 8% to run. The president of River Road said that they anticipated slow asset growth and budgeted for it in their planning with Aston.
5. The fund might be considered an equity substitute. Their research suggests that a 30/30/40 allocation (long, long/short, bonds) has much higher alpha than a 60/40 portfolio.

An interesting contrast with RiverPark, where Mitch Rubin wants to “play offense” with both parts of the portfolio. Here the strategy seems to hinge on capital preservation: money that you don’t lose in a downturn is available to compound for you during the up-cycle.

Conference Calls Upcoming: Matthews, Seafarer, Cook & Bynum on-deck

As promised, we’re continuing our moderated conference calls through the winter.  You should consider joining in.  Here’s the story:

• Each call lasts about an hour
• About one third of the call is devoted to the manager’s explanation of their fund’s genesis and strategy, about one third is a Q&A that I lead, and about one third is Q&A between our callers and the manager.
• The call is, for you, free.  Your line is muted during the first two parts of the call (so you can feel free to shout at the danged cat or whatever) and you get to join the question queue during the last third by pressing the star key.

Our next conference call features Teresa Kong, manager of Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX).  It’s Tuesday, January 22, 7:00 – 8:00 p.m., EST.

Matthews is the fund world’s best, deepest, and most experienced team of Asia investors.  They offer a variety of funds, all of which have strong – and occasionally spectacular – long-term records investing in one of the world’s fastest-evolving regions.  While income has been an element of many of the Matthews portfolios, it became a central focus with the December 2011 launch of MAINX.  Ms. Kong, who has a lot of experience with first-rate advisors including BlackRock, Oppenheimer and JPMorgan, joined Matthews in 2010 ahead of the launch of this fund. 

Why might you want to join the call? 

Bonds across the developed world seem poised to return virtually nothing for years and possibly decades. For many income investors, Asia is a logical destination. Three factors support that conclusion:

1. Asian governments and corporations are well-positioned to service their debts. Their economies are growing and their credit ratings are being raised.
2. Most Asian debt supports infrastructure, rather than consumption.
3. Most investors are under-exposed to Asian debt markets. Bond indexes, the basis for passive funds and the benchmark for active ones, tend to be debt-weighted; that is, the more heavily indebted a nation is, the greater weight it has in the index. Asian governments and corporations have relatively low debt levels and have made relatively light use of the bond market. An investor with a global diversified bond portfolio (70% Barclays US Aggregate bond index, 20% Barclays Global Aggregate, 10% emerging markets) would have only 7% exposure to Asia. However you measure Asia’s economic significance (31% of global GDP, rising to 38% in the near future or, by IMF calculations, the source of 50% of global growth), even fairly sophisticated bond investors are likely underexposed.

The question isn’t “should you have more exposure to Asian fixed-income markets,” but rather “should you seek exposure through Matthews?” The answer, in all likelihood, is “yes.” Matthews has the largest array of Asia investment products in the U.S. market, the deepest analytic core and the broadest array of experience. They also have a long history of fixed-income investing in the service of funds such as Matthews Asian Growth & Income (MACSX). Their culture and policies are shareholder-friendly and their success has been consistent. Ms. Kong has outstanding credentials and has had an excellent first year.

How can you join in? 

Click on the “register” button and you’ll be taken to Chorus Call’s site, where you’ll get a toll free number and a PIN number to join us.  On the day of the call, I’ll send a reminder to everyone who has registered.

Would an additional heads up help? 

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

Podcasts and Profiles

If you look at our top navigation bar, you’ll see a new tab and a new feature for the Observer. We’re calling it our Podcast page, but it’s much more.  It began as a suggestion from Ira Artman, a talented financial services guy and a longtime member of the FundAlarm and Observer community.  Ira suggested that we archive together the audio recordings of our conference calls and audio versions of the corresponding fund profiles. 

Good idea, Ira!  We went a bit further and create a resource page for each fund.  The page includes:

• The fund’s name, ticker symbols and its manager’s name
• Written highlights from the conference call
• A playable/downloadable .mp3 of the call
• A link to the fund profile
• A playable/downloadable .mp3 of the fund profile.  The audio profiles start with the print profile, which we update and edit for aural clarity.  Each profile is recorded by Emma Presley, a bright and mellifluous English friend of ours.
• A link to the fund’s most recent fact sheet on the fund’s website.

We have resource pages for RiverPark Short Term High-Yield, RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity and Aston/River Road Long Short.  The pages for Matthews Asia Strategic Income, Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income, and Cook and Bynum are in the works.

Observer Fund Profiles

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

Bridgeway Managed Volatility (BRBPX): Dick Cancelmo appreciates RiverNorth Dynamic Buy-Write’s strategy and wishes them great success, but also points out that others have been successful using a similar strategy for well over a decade.  Indeed, over the last 10 years, BRBPX has quietly produced 70% of the stock market’s gains with just 40% of its volatility.

BRBPX and the Mystery of the Incredible Shrinking Fund

While it’s not relevant to the merit of BRBPX and doesn’t particularly belong in its profile, the collapse of the fund’s asset base is truly striking.  In 2005, assets stood around $130 million.  Net assets have declined in each of the past five years from $75 million to $24 million.  The fund has made money over that period and is consistently in the top third of long/short funds.

Why the shrinkage?  I don’t know.  The strategy works, which should at least mean that existing shareholders hang on but they don’t.  My traditional explanation has been, because this fund is dull. Dull, dull, dull.  Dull stocks and dull bonds with one dull (or, at least, technically dense) strategy to set them apart.  Part of the problem is Bridgeway.  This is the only Bridgeway fund that targets conservative, risk-conscious investors which means the average conservative investor would find little to draw them to Bridgeway and the average Bridgeway investor has limited interest in conservative funds.  Bridgeway’s other funds have had a performance implosion.  When I first profiled BRBPX, five of the six funds rated by Morningstar had five-star designations.  Today none of them do.  Instead, five of eight rated funds carry one or two stars.  While BRBPX continues to have a four-star rating, there might be a contagion effect. 

Mr. Cancelmo attributes the decline to Bridgeway’s historic aversion to marketing.  “We had,” he reports, “the ‘if you build a better mousetrap’ mindset.  We’ve now hired a business development team to help with marketing.”  That might explain why they weren’t drawing new assets, but hardly explains have 80% of assets walking out the door.

If you’ve got a guess or an insight, I’d love to hear of it.  (Dick might, too.)  Drop me a note.

As a side note, Bridgeway probably offers the single best Annual Report in the industry.  You get a startling degree of honesty, thoughtfulness and clarity about both the funds and their take on broader issues which impact them and their investors.  I was particularly struck by a discussion of the rising tide of correlations of stocks within the major indices.  Here’s the graphic they shared:

What does it mean?  Roughly, a generation ago you could explain 20% of the movement of the average stock’s price by broader movements in the market.   As a greater and greater fraction of the stock market’s trades are made in baskets of stocks (index funds, ETFs, and so on) rather than individual names, more and more of the fate of each stock is controlled by sentiments surrounding its industry, sector, peers or market cap.  That’s the steady rise of the line overall.  And during a crisis, almost 80% of a stock’s movement is controlled by the market rather than by a firm’s individual merits.  Bridgeway talks through the significance of that for their funds and encourages investors to factor it into their investment decisions.

The report offers several interesting, insightful discussions, making it the exact opposite of – for example – Fidelity’s dismal, plodding, cookie cutter reports.

Here’s our recommendation: if you run a fund, write such like Bridgeway’s 2012 Annual Report.  If you’re trying to become a better investor, read it!

Launch Alert: RiverNorth/Oaktree High Income (RNHIX, RNOTX)

RiverNorth/Oaktree High Income Fund launched on December 28.  This is a collaboration between RiverNorth, whose specialty has been tactical asset allocation and investing in closed-end funds (CEFs), and Oaktree.  Oaktree is a major institutional bond investor with about $80 billion under management.  Oaktree’s clientele includes “75 of the 100 largest U.S. pension plans, 300 endowments and foundations, 10 sovereign wealth funds and 40 of the 50 primary state retirement plans in the United States.”  Their specialties include high yield and distressed debt and convertible securities.  Until now, the only way for retail investors to access them was through Vanguard Convertible Securities (VCVSX), a four-star Gold rated fund.

Patrick Galley, RiverNorth’s CIO, stresses that this is “a core credit fund (managed by Oaktree) with a high income opportunistic CEF strategy managed by RiverNorth.”  The fund has three investment strategies, two managed by Oaktree.  While, in theory, Oaktree’s share of the portfolio could range from 0 – 100%, as a normal matter they’ll manage the considerable bulk of the portfolio.  Oaktree will have the freedom to allocate between their high-yield and senior loan strategies.  RiverNorth will focus on income-producing CEFs.

For those already invested in RiverNorth funds, Mr. Galley explained the relationship of RNHIX to its siblings:

We are staying true to the name and focusing on income producing closed-end funds, but unlike RNSIX (which focuses on income producing fixed income) and RNDIX (which focuses on income producing equities) and RNCOX (which doesn’t have an income mandate and only distributes once a year), RNHIX will invest across the CEF spectrum (i.e. all asset classes) but with a focus on income without sacrificing/risking total return.

The argument for considering this fund is similar to the argument for considering RiverNorth/DoubleLine Strategic Income.  You’re hiring world-class experts who work in inefficient segments of the fixed-income universe. 

RiverNorth had the risk and return characteristics for a bunch of asset classes charted.

You might read the chart as saying something like: this is a strategy that could offer equity-like returns with more nearly bond-like volatility.  In a world where mainstream, investment-grade bonds are priced to return roughly nothing, that’s an option a reasonable person would want to explore.

The retail expense ratio is capped at 1.60% and the minimum initial investment is $5000.

Funds in Registration

New mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be offered for sale to the public.  The SEC has a 75-day window during which to call for revisions of a prospectus; fund companies sometimes use that same time to tweak a fund’s fee structure or operating details.  Every day we scour new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves. Many of the proposed funds offer nothing new, distinctive or interesting.  Some are downright horrors of Dilbertesque babble.

Funds in registration this month won’t be available for sale until, typically, the beginning of March 2013. We found 15 funds in the pipeline, notably:

Investors Variable NAV Money Market Fund, one of a series of four money markets managed by Northern Trust, all of which will feature variable NAVs.  This may be a first step in addressing a serious problem: the prohibition against “breaking the buck” is forcing a lot of firms to choose between underwriting the cost of running their money funds or (increasingly) shutting them down.

LSV Small Cap Value Fund is especially notable for its management team, led by Josef Lakonishok is a reasonably famous academic who did some of the groundbreaking work on behavioral finance, then translated that research into actual investment strategies through private accounts, hedge funds, and his LSV Value Equity Fund (LSVEX) fund.

Details on these funds and the list of all of the funds in registration are available at the Observer’s Funds in Registration page or by clicking “Funds” on the menu atop each page.

On a related note, we also tracked down 31 fund manager changes, including a fair number of folks booted from ING funds.

Briefly Noted

According to a recent SEC filing, Washington Mutual Investors Fund and its Tax-Exempt Fund of Maryland and Tax-Exempt Fund of Virginia “make available a Spanish translation of the above prospectus supplement in connection with the public offering and sale of its shares. The English language prospectus supplement above is a fair and accurate representation of the Spanish equivalent.”  I’m sure there are other Spanish-language prospectuses out there, but I’ve never before seen a notice about one.  It’s especially interesting given that tax-exempt bond funds target high income investors. 

Effective January 1, DWS is imposing a $20/year small account service fee for shareholders in all 49 of their funds.  The fee comes on top of their sales loads.  The fee applies to any account with under $10,000 which is regrettable for a firm with a $1,000 minimum initial investment.  (Thanks to chip for having spotted this filing in the SEC’s database.  Regrets for having gotten friends into the habit of scanning the SEC database.)

Closings

Eaton Vance Atlanta Capital SMID-Cap (EAASX) is closing to new investors on Jan. 15.  More has been pouring in (on the order of $1.5 billion in a year); at least in part driven by a top-notch five-year rating.

Walthausen Small Cap Value (WSCVX) closed to new investors at the end of the year.  At the same time, the minimum initial investment for the $1.7 million Walthausen Select Value Investor Class (WSVIX) went from $10,000 to $100,000.  WSCVX closed on January 1 at $560 million which might explain was they’re making the other fund’s institutional share class harder to access.

William Blair International Growth (WBIGX) closed to new investors, effective Dec. 31.

Old Wine in New Bottles

American Century Inflation Protection Bond (APOIX) has been renamed American Century Short Duration Inflation Protection Bond. The fund has operated as a short-duration offering since August 2011, when its benchmark changed to the Barclays U.S. 1-5 Year Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Index.

Federated Prudent Absolute Return (FMAAX) is about to become less Prudent.  They’re changing their name to Federated Absolute Return and removed the manager of the Prudent Bear fund from the management team.

Prudential Target Moderate Allocation (PAMGX) is about to get a new name (Prudential Defensive Equity), mandate (growth rather than growth and income) and management structure (one manager team rather than multiple).  It is, otherwise, virtually unchanged. 

Prudential Target Growth Allocation (PHGAX) is merging into Prudential Jenison Equity Income (SPQAX).

U.S. Global Investors Global MegaTrends (MEGAX) is now U.S. Global Investors MegaTrends and no longer needs to invest outside the U.S. 

William Blair Global Growth (WGGNX) will change its name to William Blair Global, and William Blair Emerging Leaders Growth (WELNX) will change its name to William Blair Emerging Markets Leaders.

Small wins for investors

Cook & Bynum Fund (COBYX), a wildly successful, super-concentrated value fund, has decided to substantially reduce their expense ratio.  President David Hobbs reports:

… given our earlier dialogue about fees, I wanted to let you know that as of 1/1/13 the all-in expense ratio for the fund will be capped at 1.49% (down from 1.88%).  This is a decision that we have been wrestling with for some time internally, and we finally decided that we should make the move to broaden the potential appeal of the fund. . . .  With the fund’s performance (and on-going 5-star ratings with Morningstar and S&P Capital IQ), we decided to take a calculated risk that this new fee level will help us grow the fund.

Our 2012 profile of the fund concluded, “Cook and Bynum might well be among the best.  They’re young.  The fund is small and nimble.  Their discipline makes great sense.  It’s not magic, but it has been very, very good and offers an intriguing alternative for investors concerned by lockstep correlations and watered-down portfolios.”  That makes the decreased cost especially welcome.  (They also have a particularly good website.)

Effective January 2, 2013, Calamos Growth and Income and Global Growth and Income Funds re-opened to new investors. (Thanks to The Shadow for catching this SEC filing.)

ING Small Company (AESAX) has reopened.  It’s reasonably large and not very good, really.

JPMorgan (JPM) launched Total Emerging Markets (TMGGX), an emerging-markets allocation fund.

Fund firms have been cutting expenses of late as they pressure to gather and hold assets builds. 

Fidelity has reduced the minimum investment on its Advantage share class from $100,000 to $10,000.  The Advantage class has lower expense ratios (which is good) and investors who own more than $10,000 in a fund’s retail Investor class will be moved automatically to the less-expensive Advantage class.

Fido also dropped the minimums on nearly two dozen index and enhanced index products from $10,000 to $2,500, which gives a lot more folks access to low-cost passive (or nearly-passive) shares. 

Fido also cut fees on eight Spartan index funds, between one to eight basis points.  The Spartan funds had very low expenses to begin with (10 basis points in some cases), so those cuts are substantial.

GMO Benchmark-Free Allocation (GBMFX) has decreased its expense ratio from 87 basis points down to 81 bps by increasing its fee waiver.  The fund is interesting and important not because I intend to invest in in soon (the minimum is $10 million) but because it represents where GMO thinks that an investor who didn’t give a hoot about other people’s opinions (that’s the “benchmark-free” part) should invest.

Effective January 1, Tocqueville Asset Management L.P. capped expenses for Tocqueville International Value at 1.25% of the fund’s average daily net assets.  Until now investors have been paying 1.56%. 

Also effective January 1, TCW Investment Management Company reduced the management fees for the TCW High Yield Bond Fund from 0.75% to 0.45%.

Vanguard has cut fees on 47 products, which include both ETFs and funds. Some of the cuts went into effect on Dec. 21, while others went into effect on Dec. 27th.  The reductions on eleven ETFs — four stock and seven bond — on December 21. Those cuts range from one to two basis points. That translates to reductions of 3 – 15%.

Off to the Dustbin of History

The board of trustees of Altrius Small Cap Value (ALTSX) has closed the fund and will likely have liquidated it by the time you read this.  On the one hand, the fund only drew $180,000 in assets.  On the other, the members of the board of trustees receive $86,000/year for their services, claim to be overseeing between 97 – 100 funds and apparently have been doing so poorly, since they received a Wells Notice from the SEC in May 2012.  They were bright even not to place a penny of their own money in the fund.  One of the two managers was not so fortunate: he ate a fair portion of his own cooking and likely ended up with a stomach cramp.

American Century will liquidate American Century Equity Index (ACIVX) in March 2013. The fund has lost 75% of its assets in recent years, a victim of investor disillusionment with stocks and high expenses.  ACIVX charged 0.49%, which seems tiny until you recall that identical funds can be had for as little as 0.05% (Vanguard, naturally).

Aston Asset Management has fired the Veredus of Aston/Veredus Small Cap Growth (VERDX) and will merge the fund in Aston Small Cap Growth (ACWDX).  Until the merger, it will go by the name Aston Small Cap.

The much-smaller Aston/Veredus Select Growth (AVSGX) will simply be liquidated.  But were struggling.

Federated Capital Appreciation, a bottom 10% kind of fund, is merging Federated Equity-Income (LEIFX).  LEIFX has been quite solid, so that’s a win.

GMO is liquidating GMO Inflation Indexed Plus Bond (GMIPX).  Uhh, good move.  Floyd Norris, in The New York Times, points out that recently-auctioned inflation-protected bonds have been priced to lock in a loss of about 1.4% per year over their lifetimes.   If inflation spikes, you might at best hope to break even.

HSBC will liquidate two money-market funds, Tax-Tree and New York Tax-Free in mid-January.

ING Index Plus International Equity (IFIAX) has closed and is liquidating around Feb. 22, 2013.  No, I don’t know what the “Plus” was.

Invesco is killing off, in April, some long-storied names in its most recent round of mergers.  Invesco Constellation (CSTGX) and Invesco Leisure (ILSAX) are merging into American Franchise (VAFAX).  Invesco Dynamics (IDYAX) goes into Mid Cap Growth (VGRAX), Invesco High-Yield Securities (HYLAX) into High Yield (AMHYX), Invesco Leaders (VLFAX) into Growth Allocation (AADAX), and Invesco Municipal Bond (AMBDX) will merge into Municipal Income (VKMMX).   Any investors in the 1990s who owned AIM Constellation (I did), Invesco Dynamics and Invesco Leisure would have been incredibly well-off.

Leuthold Global Clean Technology (LGCTX) liquidated on Christmas Eve Day. Steve Leuthold described this fund, at its 2009 launch, as “the investment opportunity of a generation.”  Their final letter to shareholders lamented the fund’s tiny, unsustainable asset base despite “strong performance relative to its comparable benchmark index” and noted that “the Fund operates in a market sector that has had challenging.”  Losses of 20% per year are common for green/clean/alternative funds, so one can understand the limited allure of “strong relative performance.”

Lord Abbett plan to merge Lord Abbett Stock Appreciation (LALCX) into Lord Abbett Growth Leaders (LGLAX) in late spring, 2013.

Munder International Equity (MUIAX) is merging into Munder International Core Equity (MAICX).

Natixis Absolute Asia Dynamic Equity (DEFAX) liquidated in December.  (No one noticed.)

TCW Global Flexible Allocation Fund (TGPLX) and TCW Global Moderate Allocation Fund (TGPOX) will be liquidated on or about February 15, 2013.  Effective the close of business on February 8, 2013, the Funds will no longer sell shares to new investors or existing shareholders.  These consistent laggards, managed by the same team, had only $10 million between them.  Durn few of those $10 million came from the managers.  Only one member of the management team had as much as a dollar at risk in any of TCW’s global allocation funds.  That was Tad Rivelle who had a minimal investment in Flexible.

In Closing …

Thank you all for your support in 2012. There are a bunch of numerical measures we could use. The Observer hosted 78,645 visitors and we averaged about 11,000 readers a month.  Sixty folks made direct contributions to the Observer and many others picked up $88,315.15 worth of cool loot (3502 items) at Amazon.  And a thousand folks viewed something like 1.6 million discussion topics. 

But, in many ways, the note that reads “coming here feels like sitting down with an old friend and talking about something important” is as valuable as anything we could point to. 

So thanks for it all.

If you get a chance and have a suggestion about how to make the Observer better in the year ahead, drop me a note and let me know.  For now, we’ll continue offering (and archiving) our monthly conference calls.  During January we’ll be updating our small cap profiles and February will see new profiles for Whitebox Long Short Equity (WBLSX) and PIMCO Short Asset Investment (PAIUX).

Until then, take care.

With hopes for a blessed New Year,

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,

Dear friends,

Welcome to a new year.  Take a moment, peer back at 2011 and allow yourself a stunned “what the hell was that about?”  After one of the four most volatile years the stock market’s seen in decades, after defaults, denunciations, downgrades, histrionics and the wild seesaw of commodity prices, stocks are back where they began.  After all that, Vanguard’s Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) had, as of 12/29/11, risen by one-quarter of one percent for the year.

I have no idea what the year ahead brings (except taxes).  I’m dubious that the world will follow the Mayans into extinction on December 21^st.    My plan for the new year, and my recommendation for it: continue to live sensibly, invest cautiously and regularly, enjoy good wine and better cheese, celebrate what I have and rejoice at the fact that we don’t need to allow the stock market to run our lives.

All of which introduces a slightly-heretic thought.

Consider Taking a Chill Pill: Implications of a Stock-Light Portfolio

T. Rowe Price is one of my favorite fund companies, in part because they treat their investors with unusual respect.  Price’s publications depart from the normal marketing fluff and generally provide useful, occasionally fascinating, information.  I found two Price studies, in 2004 and again in 2010, particularly provocative.  Price constructed a series of portfolios representing different levels of stock exposure and looked at how the various portfolios would have played out over the past 50-60 years.

The original study looked at portfolios with 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% stocks.  The update dropped the 20% portfolio and looked at 0, 40, 60, 80, and 100%.

As you think about your portfolio’s shape for the year ahead, you might find the Price data useful.  Below I’ve reproduced partial results for three portfolios.  The original 2004 and 2010 studies are available at the T. Rowe Price website.

What does that mean for you?  Statisticians would run a Monte Carlo Analysis to guide the answer.  They’d simulate 10,000 various decades, with different patterns and sizes of losses and gains (you could lose money in 6 of 10 years which, though very unlikely, has to be accounted for), to estimate the probabilities of various outcomes.

Lacking that sophistication, we can still do a quick calculation to give a rough idea of how things might play out.  Here’s how the simple math plays out.

Assuming no losing years, $10,000 invested conservatively for 10 years might grow to $20,900.  You might or might not have experienced a loss (historically, the portfolio lost money one year in 16). If your loss occurred in Year 10, your $10,000 would still have grown to $20,000.

Assuming no losing years, $10,000 invested moderately for 10 years might grow to $25,000.  You’ll likely have lost money twice, about 6.5% each year.  If you suffered an average loss in Year Five and again at Year Ten, your $10,000 would still have grown to $17,600.

Assuming no losing years, $10,000 invested aggressively for 10 years might grow to $29,900.  You’ll likely have lost money twice, about 12.5% each year.  If you suffered an average loss in Year Five and again at Year Ten, your $10,000 would still have grown to $18,385.

Measured against a conservative portfolio, a pure stock portfolio increases the probability of losing money by 400% (from a 6% chance to 23%), increases the size of your average loss by 2500% (from 0.5% to 12.5%) and triples your volatility.  With extraordinary luck, it doubles the conservative portfolio’s gain.  With average luck, it trails it. This is not a prediction of how stocks will do, in the short term, or the long term, but  is simply a reminder of the consequence of investing in them.

We can’t blithely assume that future returns will be comparable to past ones.  As Bob Cochran and others point out, bonds enjoyed a 30 year bull market which has now ended.  GMO foresees negative “real” returns for bonds and cash over the next seven years and substandard ones for US stocks as a whole.   That said, the Price studies show how even fairly modest shifts in asset allocation can have major shifts in your risk/reward balance.  As with Tabasco sauce, dribbles and not dollops offer the greatest gain.  Adding only very modest amounts of stock exposure to otherwise very conservative portfolios might provide all the heat you need (and all the heat you can stand).

Launch Alert: TIAA-CREF Lifestyle Income

On December 9, 2011, TIAA-CREF launched a new series of Lifestyle funds-of-funds.  In light of the T. Rowe Price research, Lifestyle Income (TSILX) might be worth your attention.  TSILX invests 20% of its assets in stocks, 40% in Short-Term Bond Fund (TCTRX) and 40% in their Bond (TIORX) and Bond Plus (TCBPX) funds.  The bond funds are all low cost offerings with index-like returns.  The equities sleeve is needlessly complicated with 11 funds, the smallest allocation being 0.2% to Mid-Cap Value.  That said, TSILX has a bearable expense ratio for a new fund (0.85%).  It’s run by the same team that has achieved consistent mediocrity with TIAA-CREF Managed Allocation (TIMIX), another fund of too many TIAA-CREF funds.   In this case, “mediocrity” isn’t bad and “consistent” is good.   The minimum initial investment is $2500.

TSILX might, then, approximate T. Rowe Price’s conservative portfolio allocation.  They are, of course, not the only option.  Several of the “retirement income” funds offered by the major no-load families have the same general nature.  Here’s a rundown of them:

The Great Unanswered Question: “What Are Our Recommendations Worth?”

This is the time of year when every financial publication and most finance websites (not including the Observer), trumpet their “can’t miss” picks for the year ahead.  A search of the phrase “Where to Invest in 2012” produced 99,200 hits in Google (12/26/2011), which likely exceeds the number of sensible suggestions by about 99,100.

Before browsing, even briefly, such advice, you should ask “what are those recommendations worth?”  A partial answer lies in looking at how top publications did with their 2011 picks.  Here are The Big Four.

Morningstar, Where to Invest in 2011 was a report of about 30 pages, covering both general guidance and funds representing a variety of interests.  It no longer seems available on the various Morningstar websites, but copies have been posted on a variety of other sites.

Kiplinger, Where to Invest in 2011 began with the guess that “Despite tepid economic growth, U.S. stocks should produce respectable gains in the coming year.”  As long as you can respect 1.6% (Vanguard’s Total Stock Market Index through Christmas), they’re right. In a sidebar story, Steven Goldberg assured that “This Bull Market Has Room to Run.”  Again, if “into walls” and “off cliffs” count, they’re right.

The story focused on 11 stocks and, as a sort of afterthought, three funds.  In a particularly cruel move, the article quotes a half dozen fund managers in defense of its stock picks – then recommends none of their funds.

SmartMoney, Where to Invest in 2011, cheated a bit by not offering its recommendations until February.  Even then, it focused solely on a dozen individual stocks.  The worst of their picks, Oracle ORCL, was down 16% between the start of the year and the Christmas break.  The best, TJX Companies TJX, was up 49%. Six stocks lost money, six gained.  The portfolio gained 4.8%.  A rough conversion into fund terms would have you subtract 1.4% for operating expenses, leaving a return of 3.4%.  That would have it ranked in the top 14% of large cap core funds, through Christmas.  If you missed both the best and worst stock, your expense-adjusted returns would drop to 1.4%.

Money, Make Money in 2011: Your Investments discussed investing as a small part of their 2011 recommendations issue.  The offered a series of recommendations, generally a paragraph or two, followed by a fund or two from their Money 70 list.

Money’s strategic recommendations were: Favor stocks over bonds, favor large caps over small cap, good overseas carefully and don’t rush into emerging markets,  shorten up bond durations to hedge interest rate risks and add a few riskier bonds to boost yields

The Bottom Line: give or take the Fairholme implosion, Morningstar was mostly right on equities and mostly wrong on bonds and commodities, at least as measured by a single year’s return.  SmartMoney’s stock picks weren’t disastrous, but missing just one stock in the mix dramatically alters your results. Kiplinger’s got most of the forecasts wrong but chose funds with predictable, long term records.

Amateur Hour in Ratings Land, Part 1: TheStreet.com

How would you react to an article entitled “The Greatest Baseball Players You’ve Never Heard Of,” then lists guys named DiMaggio, Clemente and Kaline?  Unknown novelists: Herman Melville, Stephen King . . . ?

TheStreet.com, founded by frenetic Jim Cramer, is offering up mutual fund analysis.  In December, mutual fund analyst Frank Byrt offered up “10 Best Mutual Funds of 2011 You’ve Never Heard Of.”  The list made me wonder what funds the folks at TheStreet.com have heard of.  They start by limiting themselves to funds over $1 billion in assets, a threshold that suggests somebody has heard of them.  They then list, based on no clear criteria (they’ve been “leaders in their category”), some of  the industry’s better known funds:

Franklin Utilities (FKUTX) – $3.6 billion in assets under management

Fidelity Select Biotechnology (FBIOX) – $1.2 billion

Sequoia Fund (SEQUX) – $4.7 billion, the most storied, famously and consistently successful fund of the past four decades.

Federated Strategic Value Dividend Fund (SVAAX) – $4.9 billion

Delaware Smid Cap Growth (DFDIX) – $1 billion

GMO Quality (GQETX) – technically it’s GMO Quality III, and that number is important.  Investors wanting Quality III need only shell out $10 million to start while Quality IV requires $125 million, Quality V requires $250 million and Quality VI is $300 million.   In any case, $18 billion in assets has trickled in to this unknown fund.

Wells Fargo Advantage Growth (SGRNX) – the fund, blessed by a doubling of assets in 2011 and impending bloat, is closing to new investors. Mr. Byrt complains that “Ognar has wandered from the fund’s mandate,” which is proven solely by the fact that he owns more small and midcaps than his peers.  The prospectus notes, “We select equity securities of companies of all market capitalizations.”  As of 10/30/2011, he had 45% in large caps, 40% in mid caps and 15% in small names which sounds a lot like what they said they were going to do.  Mr Byrt’s ticker symbol, by the way, points investors to the $5 million minimum institutional share class of the $7.2 billion fund.  Po’ folks will need to pay a sales load.

Vanguard Health Care Admiral Fund (VGHAX) – a $20 billion “unknown,” with a modest $50,000 minimum and a splendid record.

SunAmerica Focused Dividend (FDSAX) – $1 billion

Cullen High Dividend Equity (CHDVX) – $1.3 billion.

Of the 10 funds on Mr. Byrt’s list, three have investment minimums of $50,000 or more, four carry sales loads, and none are even arguably “undiscovered.”  Even if we blame the mistake on an anonymous headline writer, we’re left with an unfocused collection of funds selected on unexplained criteria.

Suggestion from the peanut gallery: earn your opinion first (say, with serious study), express your opinion later.

Amateur Hour in Ratings Land, Part 2: Zacks Weighs In

Zacks Investment Research rates stocks.  It’s not clear to me how good they are at it.  Zacks’ self-description mixes an almost mystical air with the promise of hard numbers:

The guiding principle behind our work is that there must be a good reason for brokerage firms to spend billions of dollars a year on stock research. Obviously, these investment experts know something special that may be indicative of the future direction of stock prices. From day one, we were determined to unlock that secret knowledge and make it available to our clients to help them improve their investment results.

So they track earnings revisions.

Zacks Rank is completely mathematical. It”s cold. It”s objective.

(It’s poorly proofread.)

The Zacks Rank does not care what the hype on the street says. Or how many times the CEO appeared on TV. Or how this company could some day, maybe, if everything works perfectly, and the stars are aligned become the next Microsoft. The Zack Rank only cares about the math and whether the math predicts that the price will rise.

Momentum investing.  That’s nice.  The CXO Advisory service, in an old posting, is distinctly unimpressed with their performance.  Mark Hulbert discussed Zacks in a 2006 article devoted to “performance claims that bear little or no relationship with the truth.”

In a (poorly proofread) attempt to diversify their income stream, Zacks added a mutual fund rating service which draws upon the stock rating expertise to rank “nearly 19,000 mutual funds.”

There are three immediately evident problems with the Zacks approach.

There are only 8000 US stock funds, which is surely a problem for the 10,000 funds investing elsewhere.  Zacks expertise, remember, is focused on US equities.

The ratings for those other 10,000 funds are based “a number of key factors that will help find funds that will outperform.”  They offer no hint as to what those “key factors” might be.

The ratings are based on out-of-date information.  The SEC requires funds to disclose their holdings quarterly, but they don’t have to make that disclosure for 60 days after the end of the quarter.  If Zacks produces, in January, a forecast of the six-month performance of a fund based on a portfolio released in November of the fund’s holdings in September, you’ve got a problem.

Finally, the system doesn’t attend to trivial matters such as strategy, turnover, expenses, volatility . . .

All of which would be less important if there were reliable evidence that their system works.  But there isn’t.

Which brings us to Zack’s latest: a 12/20/11 projection of which aggressive growth funds will thrive in the first half of 2012 (“Top 5 Aggressive Growth Mutual Funds”).  Zacks has discovered that aggressive growth funds invest in “a larger number of” “undervalued stocks” to provide “a less risky route to investing in these instruments.”

Investors aiming to harness maximum gains from a surging market often select aggressive growth funds. This category of funds invests heavily in undervalued stocks, IPOs and relatively volatile securities in order to profit from them in a congenial economic climate. Securities are selected on the basis of their issuing company’s potential for growth and profitability. By holding a larger number of securities and adjusting portfolios keeping in mind market conditions, aggressive growth funds offer a less risky route to investing in these instruments.

Larger than what?  Less risky than what?  Have they ever met Ken Heebner?

Their five highest rated “strong buy” funds are:

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth A (SHRAX): ClearBridge is Legg Mason’s largest equity-focused fundamental investing unit.  SHRAX traditionally sports high expenses, below average returns (better lately), above average risk (ditto), a 5.75% sales load and a penchant for losing a lot in down markets.

Delaware Select Growth A (DVEAX): give or take high expenses and a 5.75% sales load, they’ve done well since the March 2009 market bottom (though were distinctly average before them).

Needham Aggressive Growth (NEAGX) which, they sharply note, is “a fund focused on capital appreciation.”  Note to ZIR: all aggressive growth funds focus on capital appreciation.  In any case, it’s a solid, very small no-load fund with egregious expenses (2.05%) and egregious YTD losses (down almost 15% through Christmas, in the bottom 2% of its peer group)

Sentinel Sustainable Growth Opportunities A (WAEGX): 5% sales load, above average expenses, consistently below average returns

American Century Ultra (TWCUX): a perfectly fine large-growth fund.  Though American Century has moved away from offering no-load funds, the no-load shares remain available through many brokerages.

So, if you like expensive, volatile and inconsistent . . . .  (Thanks to MFWire.com for reproducing, without so much as a raised eyebrow, Zacks list.  “Are These Funds Worth a Second Look?” 12/21/2011)

Two 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.  They fall into two categories:

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’s new fund:

HNP Growth and Preservation (HNPKX): one of the strengths and joys of small funds is that they offer the opportunity to try new approaches, rather than offering the next bloated version of an old one.  The HNP managers, learning from the experience of managed futures funds, offer a rigorous, quantitative approach to investing actively and cautiously across several asset classes.

Stars in the shadows: Small funds of exceptional merit. There are thousands of tiny funds (2200 funds under $100 million in assets and many only one-tenth that size) that operate under the radar.  Some intentionally avoid notice because they’re offered by institutional managers as a favor to their customers (Prospector Capital Appreciation and all the FMC funds are examples).  Many simply can’t get their story told: they’re headquartered outside of the financial centers, they’re offered as part of a boutique or as a single stand-alone fund, they don’t have marketing budgets or they’re simply not flashy enough to draw journalists’ attention.  There are, by Morningstar’s count, 75 five-star funds with under $100 million in assets; Morningstar’s analysts cover only eight of them.

The stars are all time-tested funds, many of which have everything except shareholders.

Tocqueville Select (TSELX): Delafield Fund is good.  Top 5% of the past three years.  And five years.  And ten and fifteen years, for that matter.  Could Tocqueville Select be better?  It offers the same talented team that runs Delafield, but allows them to construct a concentrated portfolio that needs to invest only one-twentieth of Delafield’s assets.

Launch Alert:

Matthews Asia Strategic Income Fund (MAINX) launched on November 30, 2011.  The fund will invest in a wide variety of bonds and other debt securities of Asian corporate and sovereign issuers in both local and hard currencies. The fund will draw on both Matthews’ expertise in Asian fixed-income investing, which dates to the firm’s founding, and on the expertise of its new lead manager, Teresa Kong. Ms. Kong was Head of Emerging Market Investments at Barclays Global Investors / BlackRock, where she founded and led the Fixed Income Emerging Markets team. She was a Senior Portfolio Manager for them, a Senior Securities Analyst at Oppenheimer Funds, and an analyst for JP Morgan Securities.  Matthews argues that the Asian fixed income market is large, diverse, transparent and weakly-correlated to Western markets. Because Asian firms and governments have less debt than their Western counterparts, they are only a small portion of global bond indexes which makes them attractive for active managers. The Matthews fund will have the ability to invest across the capital structure, which means going beyond bonds into convertibles and other types of securities. The minimum initial investment is $2500 for regular accounts, $500 for IRAs.  Expenses are capped at 1.40%.

Prelaunch Alert: RiverNorth Tactical Opportunities

RiverNorth Core Opportunities (RNCOX) exemplifies what “active management” should be.  The central argument in favor of RNCOX is that it has a reason to exist, a claim that lamentably few mutual funds can seriously make.  RNCOX offers investors access to a strategy which makes sense and which is not available through – so far as I can tell – any other publicly accessible investment vehicle. The manager, Patrick Galley, starts with a strategic asset allocation model (in the neighborhood of 60/40), modifies it with a tactical asset allocation which tilts the fund in the direction of exceptional opportunities, and then implements the strategy either by investing in low-cost ETFs or higher-cost closed-end funds.  He chooses the latter path only when the CEFs are selling at irrational discounts to their net asset value.  He has, at times, purchased a dollar’s worth of assets for sixty cents.

Closed-end funds are investment vehicles very much like mutual funds.  One important difference is that they can make greater use of leverage to boost returns.  The other is that, like stocks and exchanged-traded funds, they trade throughout the day in secondary markets.  When you buy shares, it’s from another investor in the fund rather than from the fund company itself.  That insulates CEFs from many of the cash-flow issues that plague the managers of open-ended funds.

RNCOX, since inception, has outperformed its average peer by about two-to-one, though the manager consistently warns that his strategy will be volatile.  After reaching about a half billion in assets, the fund closed in the summer of 2011.

In the fall of 2011, RiverNorth filed to launch a closed-end fund of its own, RiverNorth Tactical Opportunities.  The fund will invest in other closed-end funds, just as its open-ended sibling does.  The closed-end fund will have the ability to use leverage, which will magnify its movements.  The theory says that they’ll deploy leverage to magnify the upside but it would be hard to avoid catching downdrafts as well.

Morningstar’s Mike Taggart agrees that the strategy is “compelling.”  Mr. Galley, legally constrained from discussing a fund in registration, says only that the timing of launch is still unknown but that he’d be happy to talk with us as soon as he’s able.  Folks anxious for a sneak peek can read the fund’s IPO filing at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Pre- Pre-Launch Alert:

Andrew Foster announced on Seafarer’s website that he’s “exploring” a strategy named Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income.  At this point there is no vehicle for the strategy, that is, nothing in registration with the SEC, but tracking Mr. Foster’s thinking is likely to be a very wise move.

Mr. Foster managed Matthews Asian Growth and Income (MACSX), a FundAlarm “star in the shadows” fund, from 2005-2011.   As its manager, he first worked with and then succeeded Paul Matthews, the firm’s founder.  Saying that he did an excellent job substantially understates his success.  MACSX was one of the most consistent, least volatile and most rewarding Asia-focused funds during his tenure. Andrew also served as Matthews’ director of research and chief investment officer.

Andrew left to found his own firm in 2011, with the announced intention of one day launching a thoroughly modern mutual fund that drew on his experience.  While this is not yet that fund, it does illustrate the direction of his planning.   Andrew writes:

This strategy attempts to offer a stable means of participating in a portion of developing countries’ growth prospects, while providing some downside protection relative to a strategy that invests only in the common stocks of emerging markets. The strategy’s objective is to provide long-term capital appreciation along with some current income. In order to pursue that objective, the strategy incorporates dividend-paying equities, convertible bonds and fixed income securities. It may also invest in companies of any size or capitalization, including smaller companies.

We’ll do our best to monitor the strategy’s development.

Mining for Hidden Gems among Funds

Journalist Javier Espinoza’s pursuit of “hidden gems” – great funds with under $100 million in assets – led him to the Observer.  His article Mining for Hidden Gems Among Funds ran in the Wall Street Journal’s “Investing in Funds” report (12/05/2011).  The Journal highlighted five funds:

Pinnacle Value (recommended David Snowball and profiled as a “star in the shadows”)

Marathon Value (another “star in the shadows,” recommended by Johanna Turner of Milestones Financial Planning and a supporter of both FundAlarm and the Observer)

Artio US Smallcap (recommended by Bob Cochran of PDS Planning, one of the most thoughtful and articulate members of the community here and at FundAlarm)

Bogle Small Cap Growth (recommended by Russel Kinnel, Morningstar’s venerable director of fund research)

Government Street Equity (recommended by Todd Rosenblut, mutual fund analysis for S&P Capital IQ)

Fund Update

RiverPark Wedgewood (RWGFX), which the Observer profiled in September as one of the most intriguing new funds, has an experienced manager and a focused portfolio of exceptionally high-quality firms.  Manager Dave Rolfe aims to beat index funds at their own game, by providing a low turnover, tightly-focused portfolio that could never survive in a big fund firm.

The fund is approached the end of 2011 with returns in the top 2% of its large growth peer group.  Manager Dave Rolfe has earned two distinctions from Morningstar.  His fund has been recognized with the new Bronze designation, which means that Morningstar’s analysts weigh it as an above-average prospect going forward.  In addition, he was featured in a special Morningstar Advisor report, Wedgewood’s Lessons Pay Off.  After lamenting the pile of cookie-cutter sales pitches for firms promising to invest in high-quality, reasonably-priced firms, Dan Culloton happily observes, “self-awareness, humility and patience set Wedgewood apart.”  I agree.

Briefly Noted . . .

Matthews International Capita Management reopened Matthews Asian Growth and Income Fund (MACSX) and the Matthews Asia Small Companies Fund (MSMLX) on January 4, 2012. The funds have been closed for about a year, but both saw substantial asset outflows as Asian markets got pummeled in 2011.  MACSX was identified as an Observer “Star in the Shadows” fund.  As usual, it’s one of the best Asian funds during market turbulence (top 15% in 2011) though it seems to be a little less splendid than under former manager Andrew Foster.  The young Small Companies fund posted blistering returns in 2009 and 2010.  Its 2011 returns have modestly trailed its Asian peers.  That’s a really reassuring performance, given the fund’s unique focus on smaller companies.

The Wall Street Journal reports on a fascinating initiative by the SEC.  They’ve been using quantitative screens to identify hedge funds with “aberrational performance,” which might include spectacularly high returns or inexplicably low volatility. They then target such funds for closer inspection.  The system is been so productive that they’re now adding mutual funds to the scan (“SEC Ups its Game to Identify Rogue Firms,” 12/29/11).

Artisan Partners has withdrawn their planned IPO, citing unfavorable market conditions.  The cash raised in the IPO would have allowed the firm to restructure a bit so that it would be easier for young managers to hold a significant equity stake in the firm.

Ed Studzinski, long-time comanager of Oakmark Equity & Income (OAKBX) retired on January 1, 2012, at age 62.  Clyde McGregor will now manage the fund alone.

ETrade daily publishes the list of “most searched” mutual funds, as an aid to folks wondering where investors’ attention is wandering.  If you can find any pattern in the post-Christmas list, I’d be delighted to hear of it:

• Rydex Russell 2000 2x Strategy (RYRSX)
• Managers PIMCO Bond (MBDFX)
• T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Stock (PRMSX)
• Vanguard Energy (VGENX)
• T. Rowe Price New Horizons (PRNHX)

Highland Funds Asset Management will spin-off from Highland Capital Management next month and switch its name to Pyxis Capital.  Highland’s 19 mutual funds will be rebranded with the Pyxis name effective January 9.  Pyxis is a constellation in the southern sky and Latin for a mariner’s compass.  Pixies?  Pick Six?  Pick sis?  What do you suppose was going on at the meeting where someone first suggested, “hey, let’s change our name to something that no one has ever heard of, which is hard to say and whose sole virtue is an obscure reference that will be grasped by three Latin astronomers?”

Anya Z. and the Observer’s New Look

In December we unveiled the Observer’s new visual design, which is easier to navigate, easier to maintain and infinitely more polished.  I’d like to take a moment to recognize, and thank, the designer.  Anya Zolotusky is a Seattle area web designer who specializes in elegant and highly useable websites for small businesses.  Anya’s resume has entries so cool that they make me laugh.  Uhhh . . . she pioneered “cybercasts from uncomfortable places.”   One presumably uncomfortable place was a Mt Everest Basecamp, 18,000’ up from which she handled all communications, including live audio and video interviews with CNN and their ilk).

We talked a while about what I imagined the Observer should look like and Anya took it from there.  She describes her goal:

Primarily I wanted a more polished look that would better suit the spirit of the MFO and make using the site a more pleasant experience for visitors. I liked incorporating the energy of the exchange floor, but faded way back, because the MFO is a source of calm and reason in the midst of investment world chaos. The colors, the clean layout and clear navigation are all intended to create a calm backdrop for a topic that is anything but. And the iconic Wall Street bull is just a natural totem for the MFO. I’m happy to have contributed a little to what I hope is a long, bullish future for the MFO and all the Snowball Groupies (especially my mom)!

Anya’s mom is a Soviet émigré and long-time fan of FundAlarm.  Her encouragement, in a note entitled “Come on, Snowball.  Do it for mom!” helped convince me to launch the Observer in the first place.

And so, thanks to Anya and all the remarkably talented folks whose skill and dedication allows me to focus on listening and writing.  Anyone interested in seeing the rest of Anya’s work should check out her Darn Good Web Design.

Two New Observer Resources

The Observer continues to add new features which reflect the talents and passions of the folks who make up our corps of volunteer professionals.  I’m deeply grateful for their support, and pleased to announce two site additions.

The Navigator

Accipiter, our chief programmer and creator of the Falcon’s Eye, has been hard at work again. This time he’s turned his programming expertise to The Navigator, a valuable new tool for looking up fund and ETF information. Similar to the Falcon’s Eye, you can enter a ticker and receive links to major sources of information, 27 at last count. In added functionality, you can also enter a partial ticker symbol and see a dropdown list of all funds that begin with those characters. Additionally, you can search for funds by entering only part of a fund name and again seeing a dropdown list of all funds containing the string you entered. Choosing a fund from the dropdown then returns links to all 27 information sources. This all strikes me as borderline magical.  Please join me in thanking Accipiter for all he does.

Miscommunication in the Workplace

This ten-page guide, which I wrote as a Thanksgiving gift for the Observer’s readers, has been downloaded hundreds of times.  It has now found a permanent home in the Observer’s Resources section.  If you’ve got questions or comments about the guide, feel free to pass them along.  If we can make the guide more useful, we’ll incorporate your ideas and release a revised edition.

In Closing . . .

Augustana College bell tower panorama, photo by Drew Barnes, class of 2014.

Winter will eventually settle in to the Midwest.  The days are short and there are lots of reasons to stay inside, making it a perfect time to catch up on some reading and research.  I’ve begun a conversation with Steve Dodson, former president of Parnassus Investments and now manager of Bretton Fund (BRTNX) and I’m trying to track down James Wang, manager of the curious Oceanstone Fund (OSFDX).  Five years, five finishes at the top of the fund world, cash heavy, few assets and virtually no website.  Hmmm. Our plan is to review two interesting new funds, one primarily domestic and one primarily international, in each of the next several months. We’ll profile the new Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities (GPGOX) and Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX) funds in February and March, respectively.

Observer readers have asked for consideration of a half dozen funds, including Conestoga Small Cap (CCASX) and Aston/Cornerstone Large Cap Value (RVALX).  I don’t know what I’ll find, but I’m delighted by the opportunity to learn a bit and to help assuage folk’s curiosity.

In addition, Junior Yearwood, who helped in editing the Miscommunication in the Workplace guide, has agreed to take on the task of bringing a long-stalled project to life.  Chuck Jaffe long ago suggested that it would be useful to have a launch pad from which to reach the highest-quality information sources on the web; a sort of one-stop shop for fund and investing insights.  While the Observer’s readers had a wealth of suggestions (and I’ll be soliciting more), I’ve never had the time to do them justice.  With luck, Junior’s assistance will make it happen.

We’re healthy, in good spirits, the discussion board is populated by a bunch of good and wise people, and I’m teaching two of my favorite classes, Propaganda and Advertising and Social Influence.  Life doesn’t get much better.

I’ll see you soon,

David