Dear friends,

Sorry about the late launch of the Observer, but we’ve been consumed by the need to deal with a campus crime.

Someone stole the dome off my academic home, Old Main, early on the morning of April 1st.

The barstids!

If you play the accompanying video (probably best with the sound muted), there are some way cool images of the pre-theft dome which occur around the: 45 second mark. It’s accompanied by some commentary by a couple of my students and my colleague, Wendy, who, like Anakin, has heard the song of the Dark Side.

Requiem for a heavyweight

The sad tale of Sequoia’s (SEQUX) unwinding continues.

Here’s the brief version of recent events:

• Investors have pulled more than a half billion from the fund, including $230 million just in the first three weeks of March. March will be the sixth consecutive month of net withdrawals.
• The fund trails 98-100% of its peers for 2015 and 2016, as well as for the past one- and three-year periods.
• Manager Bob Goldfarb, whose name is on the door at Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb, resigned and an unnamed analyst who was one of the cheerleaders for Valeant left.
• The remaining guys have had a period of reflection and propose a more collaborative decision-making model and less risk-taking for the years ahead.

The dark version of the Sequoia narrative would be this: Goldfarb, abetted by an analyst, became obsessed about Valeant and crushed any internal dissent. Mr. Poppe, nominally Mr. Goldfarb’s peer, wouldn’t or couldn’t stop the disaster. “All the directors had repeatedly expressed concern” over the size of the Valeant stake and the decision to double-down on it. Mr. Poppe dismissed their concerns: “recent events frustrated them.” The subsequent resignations by 40% of the board, with another apparently threatening to go, were inconsequential annoyances. Sequoia, rather snippily, noted that board members don’t control the portfolio, the managers do. Foot firmly on the gas, they turned the bus toward the cliff.

If the dark version is right, Jaffe is wrong. The headline on a recent Chuck Jaffe piece trumpeted “How a big bet on one bad stock broke a legendary mutual fund” (3/28/2016). If the dark narrative is right, “One bad stock” did not break Sequoia; an arrogant and profoundly dysfunctional management culture did.

Another version, though, starts with this question: “did Goldfarb fall on his sword?” His entire professional life has been entwined with Sequoia, the last living heir to the (Bill) Ruane, (Richard) Cunniff and Goldfarb legacy. Ruane and Cunniff started the firm in 1970, Goldfarb joined the next year and has spent 45 years at it. And now it was all threatening to come apart. Regardless of “who” or “why,” some dramatic gesture was called for. If the choice came down to Goldfarb, age 71, or Poppe, at 51 or 52, it was fairly clear who needed to draw his gladius.

Meanwhile, the usual suspects rushed to close the barn door.

• Morningstar reduced the fund’s Analyst Rating from Gold to Bronze. Why? In the same way that a chef might be embarrassed to celebrate the tender delights of a fish flopping around on the ground, Morningstar’s analysts might have been embarrassed to look at an operation whose wheels were coming off and declaring it “the best of the best.”

  Oddly, they also placed it “under review” on October 30, 2015. At that point, Valeant was over 30% of the fund, investors had been pulling money and the management team conducted their second, slightly-freakish public defense of their Valeant stake. Following the review, the analysts reaffirmed their traditional judgment: Gold! The described it as “compelling” in the week before the review and “a top choice” in the week afterward.

  There’s no evidence in the reaffirmation statement that the analysts actually talked to Sequoia management. If they didn’t, they were irresponsible. If they did and asked about risk management, they were either deceived by management (“don’t worry, we’re clear-eyed value investors and we’re acting to control risk”) or management was honest (“we’re riding out the storm”) and the analysts thought “good enough for us!” I don’t find any of that reassuring.

  Doubts have only set in now that the guys presumably responsible for the mess are gone and the management strategy is becoming collaborative and risk-conscious.

  Similarly, up until quite recently Morningstar’s stock analyst assigned to Valeant recognized “near-term pain” while praising the firms “flawless execution” of its acquisition strategy and the “opportunities [that] exist for Valeant long term.”

• Steve Goldberg, an investment advisor who writes for Kiplinger’s, “still had faith in the fund” back in October after the board members resigned and the extent of the Valeant malignancy was clear. But “What I didn’t know: Valeant was no Berkshire Hathaway.” (stunned silence) Uh, Steve, maybe you should let someone else hold the debit card, just to be safe? Mr. Goldberg correctly points out that Bill Nygren, manager of Oakmark Select (OAKLX), stubbornly rode his vast holdings in Washington Mutual all the way to zero. The lesson he’s learned, curiously late in his professional investing career, “I need to make sure a fund isn’t taking excessively large positions in one or two stocks or engaging in some other dicey strategy. Dramatically outsize returns almost never come without outsize risks.”

The excuse “we couldn’t have known” simply does not hold water. A pseudonymous contributor to Seeking Alpha, who describes himself only as “an engineer in Silicon Valley” wrote a remarkably prescient, widely ignored critique of Sequoia two years ago. After attending Sequoia’s Investor Day, he came away with the eerie sense that Rory Priday and Bob Goldfarb spoke most. The essay makes three prescient claims: that Valeant hadn’t demonstrated any organic growth in years, that they’d been cooking the books for years, and that Goldfarb and Priday were careless in their statements, inexperienced in pharma investing and already hostage to their Valeant stake.

Valeant’s largest shareholder, [Sequoia’s] fate has become inextricably intertwined with Valeant. Valeant is 23% of their portfolio and they own 10% of Valeant. They can’t exit without ruining their returns. This led to a highly desperate defense at the Ruane, Cunniff, Goldfarb annual meeting.

If an amateur investor could smell the rot, why was it so hard for professionals to? The answer is, we blind ourselves by knowing our answers in advance. If I start with the conclusion, “you can’t do much better than the legendary Sequoia,” then I’ll be blind, deaf and dumb on their behalf for as long as I possibly can be.

The bottom line: start by understanding the risks you’re subjecting yourself to. We ignore risks when times are good, overreact when times are bad and end up burned at both ends. If you can’t find your manager’s discussion of risk anywhere except in the SEC-mandated disclosure, run away! If you do find your manager’s discussion of risk and it feels flippant or jaded (“all investing entails risk”), run away! If it feels incomplete, call and ask questions of the advisors. (Yes, people will answer your questions. Trust me on this one.) If, at the end of it all, you’re thinking, “yeah, that makes sense” then double-check your understanding by explaining the risks you’re taking to someone else. Really. Another human being. One who isn’t you. In my academic department, our mantra is “you haven’t really learned something until you’ve proven you can teach it to someone else.” So give yourself that challenge.

Quick note to Fortune: Help staff get the basics right

In Jen Wieczner’s March 18, 2016 story for Fortune, she warns “Sequoia Fund, a mutual fund once renowned for its stock-picking prowess, has been placed under review by Morningstar.” The stakes are high:

Uhh, no. Morningstar is not Michelin. Their stars are awarded based on a mathematical model, not an analyst’s opinions (“This Valeant investor is in even bigger trouble than Bill Ackman,” Fortune.com. The error was corrected eventually).

The Honorable Thing

“Advertising is the modern substitute for argument; its function is to make the worse appear the better.”

               George Santayana

So we find one chapter at Sequoia Fund coming to a close, and the next one about to begin.  On this subject my colleague David has more to offer. I will limit myself to saying that it was appropriate, and, the right thing to do, for Bob Goldfarb to elect to retire. After all, it happened on his watch. Whether or not he was solely to blame for Valeant, we will leave to the others to sort out in the future. Given the litigation which is sure to follow, there will be more disclosures down the road.

A different question but in line with Mr. Santayana’s observations above, is, do those responsible for portfolio miscues, always do the honorable thing? When one looks at some of the investment debacles in recent years – Fannie and Freddie, Sears, St. Joe, Valeant (and not just at Sequoia), Tyco, and of course, Washington Mutual (a serial mistake by multiple firms)  – have the right people taken responsibility? Or, do the spin doctors and public relations mavens come in to do damage control? Absent litigation and/or whistle blower complaints, one suspects that there are fall guys and girls, and the perpetrators live on for another day. Simply put, it is all about protecting the franchise (or the goose that is laying the golden eggs) on both the sell side and the buy side. Probably the right analogy is the athlete who denies using performance enhancing drugs, protected, until confronted with irrefutable evidence (like pictures and test results).

Lessons Learned

Can the example of the Sequoia Fund be a teaching moment? Yes, painfully. I have long felt that the best way to invest for the long-term was with a concentrated equity portfolio (fewer than twenty securities) and some overweight positions within that concentration. Looking at the impact Sequoia has had on the retirement and pension funds invested in it, I have to revisit that assumption. I still believe that the best way to accumulate personal wealth is to invest for the long-term in a concentrated portfolio. But as one approaches or enters retirement, it would seem the prudent thing to do is to move retirement moneys into a very diverse portfolio or fund.  That way you minimize the damage that a “torpedo” stock such as Valeant can do to one’s retirement investments, and thus to one’s standard of living, while still reaping the greater compounding effects of equities. There will still be of course, market risk. But one wants to lessen the impact of adverse security selection in a limited portfolio. 

Remember, we tend to underestimate our life expectancy in retirement, and thus underweight our equity allocations relative to cash and bonds. And in a period such as we are in, the risk free rate of return from U.S. Treasuries is not 12% or 16% as it was in the early 1980’s (although it is perhaps higher than we think it is). And for that retirement equity position, what are the choices?  Probably the easiest again, is something like the Vanguard Total Stock Market or the Vanguard S&P 500 index funds, with minimal expense ratios. We have been talking about this for some time now, but Sequoia provides a real life example of the adverse possibilities.  And, it is worth noting that almost every concentrated investment fund has underperformed dramatically in recent years (although the reasons may have more to do with too much money chasing too few and the same good ideas). Is it really worth a hundred basis points to pay someone to own Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, as their top twenty holdings? Take a look sometime at the top twenty holdings of the largest actively managed funds in the respective categories of growth, growth and income, etc., and see what conclusions you draw.

The more difficult issue going forward will be deflation versus inflation. We have been in a deflationary world for some time now. It is increasingly apparent that the global central banks are in the process (desperately one suspects) to reflate their respective economies out of stagnant or no growth. Thus we see a variety of quantitative easing measures which tend to favor investors at the expense of savers. Should they succeed, it is unlikely that the inflation will stop at their targets (2% here), and the next crisis will be one of currency debasement. The more things change.

Gretchen Morgenson, Take Two

As should be obvious by now, I am a fan of Ms. Morgenson’s investigative reporting and her take no prisoners approach. I don’t know her from Adam, and could be standing next to her in the line for a bagel and coffee in New York and would not know it. But, she has a wonderful knack for goring many of the oxen that need to be gored.

In this Sunday’s New York Times Business Section, she raised the question of the effectiveness of share buybacks. Now, the dirty little secret for some time has been that growth of a business is not impacted by share repurchases. Yet, if you listened to many portfolio managers wax poetic about how they only invest with shareholder friendly managements (which in retrospect turn out to have not been not so shareholder friendly after they have been indicted by a grand jury). Share repurchase does increase per share metrics, such as book value and earnings.  While the pie stays the same size, the size of the pieces changes. But often in recent years, one wonders why the number of shares outstanding does not change after a repurchase of what looked to have been 5% or so of shares outstanding during the year. 

Well, that’s because management keeps awarding themselves options, which are approved by the board. And the options have the effect of selling the business incrementally to the managers over time, unless share purchases eliminate the dilution from issuing the options.  Why approve the options packages? Well, the option packages are marketed to the share owners as critical to attracting and retaining good managers, AND, aligning the interests of management with the interests of shareholders. Which is where Mr. Santayana comes in  –  the bad (for shareholders) is made to look good with the right buzzwords.

However, I think there is another reason. Obviously growing a business is one of the most important things a management can do with shareholder capital. But today, every capital allocation move of reinvesting in a business for growth and expansion directly or by acquisition, faces a barrage of criticism. The comparison is always against the choices of dividends or share repurchase. I think the real reason is somewhat more mundane. 

The quality of analysts on both the buy and sell side has been dumbed down to the point that they no longer know how to go out and evaluate the impact of an acquisition or other growth strategy. They are limited to running their spread sheet models against industry statistics that they pull off of their Bloomberg terminals. I remember the horror with which I was greeted when I suggested to an analyst that perhaps his understanding of a company and its business would improve if he would find out what bars near a company’s plants and headquarters were favorites of the company’s employees on a Friday after work and go sit there. Now actually I wasn’t serious about that (most of the analysts I knew lacked the social graces and skills to pull it off). I was serious about getting tickets to industry tradeshows and talking to the competitor salespeople at their booths.  You would be amazed about how much you can learn about a company and its products that way. And people love to talk about what they do and how it stands up against their competition. That was a stratagem that fell on deaf ears because you actually had to spend real dollars (rather than commission dollars), and you had to spend time out of the office. Horrors!  You might have to miss a few softball games.

The other part of this is managements and the boards, which also have become deficient at understanding the paths of growing and reinvesting in a business that was entrusted to them.

Sadly, what we have today is a mercenary class of professional managers who can and will flit from opportunity to opportunity, never really understanding (or loving) the business. And we also have a mercenary class of professional board members, who spend their post-management days running their own little business – a board portfolio. And if you doubt all of this, take a look again at Valeant and the people on the board and running the business. It was and is a world of consultants and financial engineers, reapplying the same case study or stratagem they had used many times before. The end result is often a hollowed-out shell of a company, looking good to appearances but rotting away on the inside.

By Edward Studzinski.

Steve Romick: A bit more faith is warranted

In our March issue, I reflected on developments surrounding three of the funds in which I’m invested: FPA Crescent (FPACX), my largest holding, Artisan Small Cap Value (ARTVX), my oldest holding, and Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX), my largest international holding. I wrote that two things worried me about FPA Crescent:

First, the fund has ballooned in size with no apparent effort at gatekeeping … Second, Romick blinked.

That is, the intro to his 2015 Annual Report appeared to duck responsibility for poor performance last year. My bottom line on FPA was “I’ve lost faith. I’m not sure whether FPA is now being driven by investment discipline, demands for ideological purity or a rising interest in gathering assets. Regardless, I’m going.”

Ryan Leggio, now a senior vice president and product specialist for FPA but also a guy who many of you would recall as a former Morningstar analyst, reached out on Mr. Romick’s behalf. There were, they believed, factors that my analysis hadn’t taken into account. The hope was that in talking through some of their decision-making, a fuller, fairer picture might emerge. That seemed both generous and thoughtful, so we agreed to talk.

On the question of Crescent’s size, Mr. Romick noted that he’d closed the fund before (from 2005-08) and would do so again if he thought that was necessary to protect his shareholders and preserve the ability to achieve their stated goal of equity-like rates of return with less risk than the market over the long-term. He does not believe that’s the case now. He made three points:

1. His investable universe has grown. That plays out in two ways: he’s now investing in securities that weren’t traditionally central to him and some of his core areas have grown dramatically. To illustrate the first point, historically, Mr. Romick purchased a security only if its potential upside was at least three times greater than its potential downside. He’s added to that an interest in compounders, stocks with the prospect of exceedingly consistent if unremarkable growth over time. Similarly, they continue to invest in mid-cap stocks, which are more liquid than small caps but respond to many of the same forces. Indeed, the correlation between the Vanguard Small Cap (NAESX) and Mid Cap (VIMSX) index funds soared after the late 1990s and is currently .96. At the same time, the number of securities in some asset classes has skyrocketed. In 2000, there was $330 billion in high-yield bonds; today that’s grown to $1.5 trillion. In an economic downturn, those securities can be very attractively priced very quickly.

2. His analytic and management resources have grown. For his first 15 years, Mr. Romick basically managed the fund alone. In recent years, as some of the long-time partners came toward the ends of their careers, FPA “reinvested in people in a very big way which has given me a very large, high capability team.” That culminated in the June 2013 appointment of two co-managers, Mark Landecker and Brian Selmo. Mr. Landecker was previously a portfolio Manager at Kinney Asset Management in Chicago and Arrow Investments. Mr. Selmo founded and managed portfolios for Eagle Lake Capital, LLC, and was an analyst at Third Avenue and Rothschild, Inc. They’re supported by six, soon to be seven analysts, a group that he calls “a tremendously strong team.”

3. Managing a closed fund is not as straightforward as it might appear. Funds are in a constant state of redemption, even if it’s not net Investors regularly want some of their money back to meet life’s other needs or to pursue other opportunities. When a fund is successful and open to new investors, those redemptions can be met – in whole or in large part – from new cash coming in. When a fund is closed, redemptions are met either from a fund’s cash reserves (or, more rarely, a secured line of credit) or from selective liquidation of securities in the portfolio. In bad times, the latter is almost always needed and plays havoc with both tax efficiency and portfolio positioning.

So, on whole, he argues that Crescent is quite manageable at its current size. While many fund managers have chosen to partially close their funds to manage inflows, Mr. Romick’s strategy is simply not to market it and allow any growth to be organic. That is, if investors show up, then fine, they show up. FPA has only two full-time marketers on payroll supporting six open-end mutual funds. While Romick speaks a lot to existing shareholders, his main outreach to potential shareholders is limited to stuff like speaking at the Morningstar conference.

While he agreed that Crescent was holding a lot of cash, reflecting a dearth of compelling investment opportunities, he’s willing to take in more money and let the fund grow. In explaining this rationale, he reflected on the maxim, “Winter is coming,” a favorite line from his daughter’s favorite television show. “The problem,” he said, “is that they never tell you when winter is coming. Just that it is. That’s the way I feel about the bond market today.” He made a point that resonated with Edward Studzinski’s repeated warnings over the past year: liquidity has been drained from the corporate bond market, making it incredibly fragile in the face of a panic. In 2007, for example, the market-makers had almost $300 billion in cash to oil the workings of the bond market; today, thanks to Dodd-Frank, that’s dwindled to less than $30 billion even as the high-yield and distressed securities markets – the trades that would most require the intervention of the market-makers – have ballooned.  Much more market, much less grease; that’s a bad combination.

On the question of dodging responsibility, Mr. Romick’s response is simple. “We didn’t try to duck. We just wrote a paragraph that didn’t effectively communicate our meaning.” They wrote:

At first glance, it appears that we’ve declined as much as the market — down 11.71% since May 2015’s market peak against the S&P 500’s 11.30% decline — but that’s looking at the market only through the lens of the S&P 500. However, roughly half of our equity holdings (totaling almost a third of the Fund’s equity exposure) are not included in the S&P 500 index. Our quest for value has increasingly taken us overseas and our portfolio is more global than it has been in the past. We therefore consider the MSCI ACWI a pertinent alternative benchmark.

My observation was that you didn’t “appear to decline” as much as the stock market; you in actual fact did decline by that much, and a bit more. Mr. Romick’s first reflection was to suggest substituting “additional” for “alternative” benchmark. As the conversation unfolded, he and Mr. Leggio seemed to move toward imagining a more substantial rewrite that better caught their meaning. I might suggest:

We declined as much as the S&P 500 – down 11.71% from the May 2015 market peak to year’s end, compared to the S&P’s 11.30% decline. That might seem especially surprising given our high cash levels which should buffer returns. One factor that especially weighed against us in the short term is the fund’s significant exposure to international securities. Those markets had suffered substantially; from the May market peak, the S&P500 dropped 11.3% but international stocks (measured by the Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund) declined 23.5%. We are continuing to find interesting opportunities overseas and may add the global MSCI ACWI index as an additional benchmark to help you judge our performance.

So where does that leave us? Three things seem indisputable:

1. Crescent is still a large fund. As I write this (3/10/16), Morningstar reports that Crescent has $16.6 billion in assets, well down from its $20.5 billion 2015 peak. A year ago it was larger and still growing. Now, it’s both smaller and FPA expects “modest outflows” in the year ahead. This still makes it one of the hundred largest actively managed funds, the ninth largest “moderate allocation” fund (Morningstar) and the third-largest “flexible portfolio” fund (Lipper). The larger funds tend to be multi-manager beasts from huge complexes such as American Funds, BlackRock, Fidelity, Price and Vanguard.

   On the upside, its equity positions have still managed to beat the S&P 500 in five of the past seven calendar years.

2. Crescent is led by a very talented manager. His recognition as Morningstar’s 2013 Asset Allocation Fund Manager of the Year is one of those “scratch the surface” sorts of statements. He’s beaten his Morningstar peers in eight of the past 10 years; the fund leads 99% of its peers over the past 15 years. Morningstar describes him as “one of the most accomplished” managers in the field and he routinely ends up on lists of stars, masters and gurus. He’s managed Crescent for just under a quarter century which creates a well-documented record of independence and success. While we have no independent record for his co-managers, we also have no reason to doubt their ability.

3. Crescent is not the fund it once was. It’s no longer a small fund driven by one guy’s ability to find and exploit opportunities in small and mid-cap stocks or other small issues. In the course of reflecting on the general failure of flexible funds, a rule to which Crescent is the exception, John Rekenthaler offered a graphic representation of the fund’s evolution over the past decade:

   The size of the dot reflects the size of the fund. The position of the dot reflects the positioning of the stock portion of the portfolio. Tiny dot with the black circle was Crescent a decade ago; big dot with the black circle is today. Currently, 82% of the fund’s stocks are characterized by Morningstar as “large” or “giant,” with more giants than merely large caps. The average market cap is just north of $50 billion. According to Mr. Romick, these securities are more reflective of the opportunity set based on valuations, than a byproduct of the Fund’s size.

   The unanswered question is whether the new Crescent remains a peer of the old Crescent. Over the past 15 years, Crescent has beaten 99% of its peers and it’s beaten them by a huge margin.

I don’t think the fund will be capable of reprising that dominance; conditions are too different with both the fund and the market. The question, I suppose, is whether that’s a fair standard? Likely not.

The better question is, can the fund consistently and honorably deliver on its promise to its investors; that is, to provide equity-like returns with less risk over reasonable time periods? Given that the management team is deeper, the investment process is unimpaired and its size is has become more modest, I think the answer is “yes.” Even if it can’t be “the old Crescent,” we can have some fair confidence that it’s going to be “the very good new Crescent.”

Share Classes

Last month, David Offered Without Comment: Your American Funds Share Class Options. The simple table showing 18 share classes offered for one of AF’s fixed income funds generated considerable comment via Twitter and other media, including good discussion on the MFO Discussion Board.

We first called attention to excessive share classes in June 2014 with How Good Is Your Fund Family?  (A partial update was May 2015.) American Funds topped the list then and it remains on top today … by far. It averages more than 13 share classes per unique fund offering.

The following table summarizes share class stats for the largest 20 fund management companies by assets under management (AUM) … through February 2016, excluding money market and funds less than 3 months old.

At the end of the day, share classes represent inequitable treatment of shareholders for investing in the same fund. Typically, different share classes reflect different expense ratios depending on initial investment amount, load or transaction fee, or association of some form, like certain 401K plans. Here’s a link to AF’s web page explaining Share Class Pricing Details. PIMCO’s site puts share class distinction front and center, as seen in its Products/Share Class navigator below, a bit like levels of airline frequent flyer programs:

We’ve recently added share class info to MFO Premium’s Risk Profile page. Here’s an example for Dan Ivascyn’s popular Income Fund (click on image to enlarge):

In addition to the various differences in 12b-1 fee, expense ratio (ER), maximum front load, and initial purchase amount, notice the difference in dividend yield. The higher ER of the no-load Class C shares, for example, comes with an attendant reduction in yield. And, another example, from AF, its balanced fund:

Even Vanguard, known for low fees and equitable share holder treatment, provides even lower fees to its larger investors, via so-called Admiral Shares, and institutional customers. Of course, the basic fees are so low at Vanguard that the “discount” may be viewed more as a gesture.

The one fund company in the top 20 that charges same expenses to all its investors, regardless of investment amount or association? Dodge & Cox Funds.

We will update the MFO Fund House Score Card in next month’s commentary, and it will be updated monthly on the MFO Premium site.

Shake Your Money Market

By Leigh Walzer

Reports of the death of the money market fund (“MMF”) are greatly exaggerated. Seven years of financial repression and 7-day yields you can only spot under a microscope have made surprisingly little dent in the popularity of MMF’s. According to data from the Investment Company Institute, MMF flows have been flat the past few years. The share of corporate short term assets deposited in MMFs has remained steady.

However, new regulations will be implemented this October, forcing MMFs holding anything other than government instruments to adopt a floating Net Asset Value. These restrictions will also allow fund managers to put up gates during periods of heavy outflows.

MMFs were foundational to the success of firms like Fidelity, but today they appear to be marginally profitable for most sponsors. Of note, Fidelity is taking advantage of the regulatory change to move client assets from less remunerative municipal MMFs to government money market funds carrying higher fees (management fees net of waived amounts.)

While MMFs offer liquidity and convenience, the looming changes may give investors and advisors an impetus to redeploy their assets. In a choppy market, are there safe places to park cash?  A popular strategy over the past year has been high-dividend / low-volatility funds. We discussed this in March edition of MFO. This strategy has been in vogue recently but with a beta of 0.7 it still has significant exposure to market corrections.

Short Duration Funds:  Investors who wish to pocket some extra yield with a lower risk profile have a number of mutual fund and ETF options. This month we highlight fixed income portfolios with durations of 4.3 years or under.

We count roughly 300 funds with short or ultraShort Duration from approximately 125 managers. Combined assets exceed 500 billion dollars.  Approximately one quarter of those are tax-exempt.  For investors willing to risk a little more duration, illiquidity, credit exposure, or global exposure there are roughly 1500 funds monitored by Trapezoid.

Duration is a measure of the effective average life of the portfolio. Estimates are computed by managers and reported either on Morningstar.com or on the manager’s website. There is some discretion in measuring duration, especially for instruments subject to prepayment.  While duration is a useful way to segment the universe, it is not the only factor which determines a fund’s volatility.

Reallocating from a MMF to a Short Duration fund entails cost. Expenses average 49 basis points for Short Term funds compared with 13 basis points for the average MMF.  Returns usually justify those added costs. But how should investors weigh the added risk. How should investors distinguish among strategies and track records? How helpful is diversification?

To answer these questions, we applied two computer models, one to measure skill and another to select an optimal portfolio.

We have discussed in these pages Trapezoid’s Orthogonal Attribution Engine which measures skill of actively managed equity portfolio managers. MFO readers can learn more and register for a demo at www.fundattribution.com. Our fixed income attribution model is a streamlined adaptation of that model and has some important differences. Among them, the model does not incorporate the forward looking probabilistic analysis of our equity model. Readers who want to learn more are invited to visit our methodology page. The fixed income model is relatively new and will evolve over time.

We narrowed the universe of 1500 funds to exclude not only unskilled managers but fund classes with AUM too small, duration too long, tenure too short (<3 years), or expenses too great (skill had to exceed expenses, adjusted for loads, by roughly 1%). We generally assumed investors could meet institutional thresholds and are not tax sensitive. For a variety of reasons, our model portfolio might not be right for every investor and should not be construed as investment advice.

DoubleLine Total Return Bond (DBLTX), MassMutual Premier High Yield Fund (MPHZX), and PIMCO Mortgage Opportunities Fund (PMZIX) all receive full marks from Morningstar and Lipper (except in the area of tax efficiency.)  Diversifying among credit classes and durations is a benefit – but the model suggests these three funds are all you need.

Honorable Mentions: The model finds Guggenheim Total Return Bond Fund (GIBIX) is a good substitute for DBLTX and Shenkman Short Duration High Income Fund (SCFIX) is a serviceable substitute for MPHZX. We ran some permutations in which other funds received allocations. These included: Victory INCORE Fund for Income (VFFIX), Nuveen Limited term Municipal Bond (FLTRX), First Trust Short Duration High Income Fund (FDHIX), Guggenheim Floating Rate Strategies (GIFIX), and Eaton Vance High Income Opportunities Fund (EIHIX). 

The Trapezoid Model Portfolio generated positive returns over a 12 and 36-month time frame. (Our data runs through January 2016.) The PIMCO Mortgage fund wasn’t around 5 years ago, but it looks like the five-year yield would have been close to 6%.

The portfolio has an expense ratio of 53 basis points. Our algorithms reflect Trapezoid’s skeptical attitude to high cost managers.  There are alternative funds in the same asset classes with expense ratios of 25 basis points of better. But superb performance more than justifies the added costs. Our analysis suggests the rationale for passive managers like Vanguard is much weaker in this space than in equities. However, investors in the retail classes may see higher expenses and loads which could change the analysis.

No Return Without Risk: How much risk are we taking to get this extra return? The duration of this portfolio is just under 3.5 years.  There is some corporate credit risk: MPHZX sustained a loss in the twelve months ending January. It is mostly invested in BB and B rated corporate bonds. To do well the fund needs to keep credit loss under 3%/yr.  Although energy exposure is light, we see dicey credits including Valeant, Citgo, and second lien term loans. The market rarely gives away big yields without attaching strings.

The duration of this portfolio hurt returns over the past year. What advice can we give to investors unable to take 3.5 years of duration risk? We haven’t yet run a model but we have a few suggestions.

1. For investors who can tolerate corporate credit risk, Guggenheim Floating Rate Strategies (GIFIX) did very well over the past 5 years and weathered last year with only a slight loss.
2. A former fixed income portfolio manager who now advises clients at Merrill Lynch champions Pioneer Short Term Income Fund (PSHYX). Five-year net return is only 2.2%, but the fund has a duration of only 0.7 years and steers clear of corporate credit risk.
3. A broker at Fidelity suggested Touchstone UltraShort Duration Fixed Income Fund (TSDOX) which has reasonable fees and no load.

Short Duration funds took a hit during the subprime crisis.  At the trough bond fund indices were down 7 to 10% from peak, depending on duration. Funds with concentrations in corporate credit and mortgage paper were down harder while funds like VFFIX which stuck to government or municipal bonds held up best. MassMutual High Yield was around during that period and fell 21% (before recovering over the next 9 months.) The other two funds were not yet incepted; judging from comparable funds the price decline during the crisis was in the mid-single digits. Our model portfolio is set up to earn 2.5% to 3% when rates and credit losses are stable. Considering that their alternative is to earn nothing, investors deploying cash in Short Duration funds appear well compensated, even weighing the risk of a once-in-a-generation 10% drawdown.

Bottom Line: The impact of new money market fund regulations is not clear. Investors with big cash holdings have good alternatives.  Expenses matter but there is a strong rationale for selecting active managers with good records, even when costs are above average.  Investors get paid to take risk but must understand their exposure and downside. A moderate amount of diversification among asset classes seems to be beneficial. Our model portfolio is a good starting point but should be tailored to the needs of particular investors.

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and news from DailyAlts.

For anyone who enjoys roller coasters, Q1 2016 was for you. While it seemed a bit wild at times, it was really just a trip down to the bottom of a trough, and a consistent tick back up to where we started. Thanks to a coordinated plan of attack on part of global sovereign bankers, and reiterated by new policy actions from the European Central Bank, the markets shrugged off early losses in the year with a very solid recovery in March. As they say, don’t fight the Fed. And in this case, don’t fight the globally coordinated Fed.

Let’s first take a look at how alternative funds faired in the bull month of March.

Performance

The returns for the month of March were positive, except for managed futures and bear market funds. Commodities led the way over the month, while bear market funds got hammered with the strong rally in equities. Managed futures struggled to add value as markets tended to be one directional in March.

Commodities Broad Basket        4.32%

Long/Short Equity  2.53%

Multicurrency         2.52%

Nontraditional Bond         1.65%

Multialternative      1.27%

Market Neutral       0.46%

Managed Futures    -2.79%

Bear Market  -10.86%

Cleary, equity based alternative strategies, such as long/short equity, struggled to keep up with the strong rally in March, however, nontraditional bond funds performed well relative to their long-only counterpart (Intermediate Term Bonds). Below are a few traditional mutual fund categories:

Large Blend (US Equity)    6.37%

Foreign Large Blend         6.86%

Intermediate Term Bond  1.30%

Moderate Allocation        4.72%

Data Source: Morningstar

Research

Two interesting pieces of research emerged over the month. The first is from an investment advisor in La Jolla, California, called AlphaCore Capital. In a piece written by their director of research, they highlight the importance of research and due diligence when choosing alternative investment managers (or funds) – not because the strategies are more complex (which is also a reason), but because the range of returns for funds in each category is so wide. This is called “dispersion,” and it is a result of the investment strategies and the resulting returns of funds in the same category being so different. Understanding these differences is where the expertise is needed.

The second piece of research comes from Goldman Sachs. In their new research report, they note that liquid alternatives outperformed the pricier hedge funds across all five of the major categories of funds they track. While the comparative results in some categories were close, the two categories that stood out with significant differences were Relative Value and Event Driven. In both cases, alternative mutual funds outperformed their hedge fund counterparts by a wide margin.

Fund Liquidations

Nineteen alternative mutual funds were liquidated over the quarter, with seven of those in March. Most notably, Aberdeen (the new owner of the fund-of-hedge fund firm Arden Asset Management) closed down the larger of the two Arden multi-alternative funds, the Arden Alternative Strategies Fund (ARDNX). The fund had reached a peak of $1.2 billion in assets back in November 2014, but lackluster performance in 2015 put the fund on the chopping block.

In addition to the Arden fund, Gottex Fund Management (another institutional fund-of-hedge funds, as is Arden) liquidated their only alternative mutual fund, the Gottex Endowment Strategy Fund (GTEAX), after losing nearly 6% in 2015. Both of these closures create concerns about the staying power and commitment by institutional alternative asset management firms. And both come on the back of other similar firms, such as Collins Capital and Whitebox (the latter being a hedge fund manager), who both liquidated funds in February.

Where to from here?

Challenging performance periods always serve to clean out the underperformers. In many ways, Q1 served as a housecleaning quarter whereby funds that wrapped up 2015 with few assets and/or below average (or well-below average) performance took the opportunity to shut things down. A little housecleaning is always good. Looking forward, there is significant opportunity for managers with strong track records, compelling diversification, and consistent management teams.

Alternative investment strategies, and alternative asset classes, both have a role to play in a well-diversified portfolio. That fact hasn’t changed, and as more financial advisors and individual investors grow accustom to how these strategies and asset classes behave, the greater the uptake will be in their portfolios.

Be well, stay diversified and do your due diligence.

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. 

AQR Equity Market Neutral (QMNIX) and AQR Long-Short Equity (QLEIX): our colleague Sam Lee, principal of Severian Asset Management, offers a close assessment of two institutional AQR funds. The bottom line is: “AQR does long-short investing right. Check these out.”

Intrepid Endurance (ICMAX): at 70% cash, what’s to like? Well, the highest Sharpe ratio of any small cap fund – domestic, global, or international – of the course of the full market cycle. Also the lower Ulcer Index. And peer-beating returns. Heck, what’s not to like?

Otter Creek Long/Short Opportunity (OTCRX): we’d describe the young Otter Creek fund as “pure alpha” – it has outperformed its peers by 11% a year since inception – except that it’s also done it was lower volatility and a near-zero correlation to the market. We’ll leave it to you to sort out.

Funds in Registration

Whether it’s the time of year or the sense of an industry-wide death spiral, the number of new funds in registration has been steadily declining. This month saw either six or 20 filings, depending on how you could a weird series of options funds from a group called Vest Financial. Two funds start out:

Moerus Worldwide Value Fund marks the return of Amit Wadhwaney, who managed Third Avenue International Value (TAVIX) from 2001-2013. Morningstar described Mr. Wadhwaney as “skilled and thoughtful.” His fund was distinguished by somewhat better than average returns with “markedly lower” volatility and strong down-market performance.  The fund’s performance since his departure has been disastrous.

Sit ESG Growth Fund which targets financially sound firms with good ESG records. The success of the other funds in the Sit family suggests that values-driven investors might find it worth investigating.

Manager Changes

We’ve track down rather more than 70 manager changes this month plus, of course, the one MANAGER CHANGE! Which is to say, Mr. Goldfarb’s departure from Sequoia.

Updates

Congratulations to the good folks at Seafarer. Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX), topped $1.1 billion in assets in March, a singular achievement. In just over four years of operation, the fund has returned 24.8% while its average peer has lost 9.75%. Seafarer seems to have SEC clearance to launch their Seafarer Overseas Value fund, but has not yet done so.

Briefly Noted . . .

GlobalX and Janus are locked in a struggle to see who can release the greatest number of pointless ETFs in a month. The Global X entries are Health & Wellness Thematic ETF (BFIT), Longevity Thematic ETF (LNGR) and Millennials Thematic ETF (MILN). The latter focuses, like a laser, on those uniquely Millennial passions: “social and entertainment, clothing and apparel, travel and mobility, food/restaurants and consumer staples, financial services and investments, housing and home goods, education and employment, and health and fitness.” Janus weighed in with The Health and Fitness ETF, The Long Term Care ETF, The Obesity ETF and The Organics ETF. None have symbols but all will be available on May 31.

Upon further consideration of tax and other stuff, the Board of Trustees of Midas Series Trust has determined not to proceed with the merger of Midas Magic (MISEX) into the Midas Fund (MIDSX). This was an almost incalculably stupid plan from the get-go. MISEX is a diversified domestic equity fund whose top holdings include Berkshire-Hathaway, Google and Johnson & Johnson. Midas invests in gold miners. Over the last decade, Magic shares are up 74% while Midas lost 70%. And no, that’s not just because gold was down over the period; from 2006-2015, the spot price of gold rose from around $560 to about $1060. Here would be your investment options: Midas in blue, the average gold fund in, well, gold or Magic in yellow.

It’s easy to see why liquidating both funds makes sense. They’ve got $12-14 million in assets, weak to horrible long-term records and expenses pushing 4.0%. It’s hard to see how the Trustees managed to declare that “it’s in the best interest of the shareholders” to place them in Midas.

Effective March 31, 2016, the Templeton Foreign (TEMFX), Global Opportunities (TEGOZ) and World (TEMWX) funds gained the flexibility to “to hedge (protect) against currency risks using certain derivative instruments including currency and cross currency forwards and currency futures contracts.”

Tobin Smith, a financial tout for Fox News from 2000-2013, was nailed by the SEC for nearly $258,000 on charges that he fraudulently promoted a penny stock, IceWEB, to investors. Apparently the firm’s CEO wanted to pump its trading volume and price and, for a price, Mr. Smith and his firm was happy to oblige. The IceWEB scam occurred in 2012. He was terminated in 2013 over the on-air promotion of yet another stock.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

As of April 11, 2016, AllianzGI Ultra Micro Cap Fund (GUCAX) will reopen.

Effective April 1, 2016, the Boston Trust Small Cap Fund (BOSOX) and the Walden Small Cap Innovations Fund (WASOX) will no longer be closed to new investors.

The Gotham Index Plus Fund (GINDX) is reducing their administrative fee by 2 basis points, from 1.17% to 1.15%. Woo hoo! Including the “acquired fund fees and expenses,” the fund continues to cost institutional investors 3.28% per year. The reduction came on the $15 million fund’s first anniversary. The fund posted returns in the top 2% of its large-core peer group.

Invesco International Growth Fund (AIIEX) reopened to all investors on March 18, 2016. Class B shares are closed and will not re-open.

J.P. Morgan U.S. Large Cap Core Plus Fund (JLCAX) has reopened to new investors

Effective April 1, 2016, Kaizen Advisory, LLC (the “Advisor”) has lowered its annual advisory fee on Kaizen Hedged Premium Spreads Fund (KZSAX) from 1.45% to 1.10% and agreed to reduce the limit on total annual fund operating expenses by 0.35% to 1.75% for “A” shares.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Effective April 30, 2016, the Diamond Hill Small-Mid Cap Fund (DHSCX) will close to most new investors. 

On the general topic of “related inconveniences,” several fund advisors have decided that they need more of your money. The shareholders of LoCorr Managed Futures Strategy Fund (LFMAX) agreed, and voted to raise their fees management fees to 1.85%. To be clear: that’s not the fund’s expense ratio, that’s just the part of the fee that goes to pay the managers for their services. Similarly, shareholders at Monte Chesapeake Macro Strategies Fund (MHBAX) have voted to bump their managers’ comp to 1.70% of assets. In each case, the explanation is that the advisor needs the more to hire more sub-advisers.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

On May 2, American Century Strategic Inflation Opportunities Fund (ADSIX) will be renamed the Multi-Asset Real Return Fund. The plan is to invest primarily in TIPs with “a portion” in commodities-related securities and REITs.

As of April 1, 2016, Cavanal Hill Balanced Fund became Cavanal Hill Active Core Fund (APBAX). The big accompanying change: The percentage of equity securities that the Fund normally invest in shall change from “between 40% and 75%” to “between 40% and 75%.” If you’re thinking to yourself, “but Dave, those are identical ranges,” I concur.

Effective April 18, 2016, Columbia Small Cap Core (LSMAX) will change its name to Columbia Disciplined Small Core Fund.

Liquidation of JPMorgan Asia Pacific Fund (JAPFX). The Board of Trustees of the JPMorgan Asia Pacific Fund has approved the liquidation and dissolution of the fund on or about April 29, 2016. 

Matthews Asia Science and Technology (MATFX) has been rechristened as Matthews Asia Innovators Fund. They formerly were constrained to invest at least 80% of their assets in firms that “derive more than 50% of their revenues from the sale of products or services in science- and technology-related industries and services.” That threshold now drops to 25%.

Pear Tree PanAgora Dynamic Emerging Markets Fund has been renamed Pear Tree PanAgora Emerging Markets Fund (QFFOX). At the same time, expenses have been bumped up from 1.37% (per Morningstar) to 1.66% (in the amendment on file). Why, you ask? The old version of the fund “allocate[d] its assets between two proprietary strategies: an alpha modeling strategy and a risk-parity strategy.” The new version relies on “two proprietary risk-parity sub-strategies: an alternative beta risk-parity sub-strategy and a “smart beta” risk-parity sub-strategy.” So there’s your answer: beta costs more than alpha.

The PENN Capital High Yield Fund has changed its name to the PENN Capital Opportunistic High Yield Fund (PHYNX).

The managers of the Rainier High Yield Fund (RIMYX), Matthew Kennedy and James Hentges, have announced their intention to resign from Rainier Investment Management and join Angel Oak Capital Advisors. Subject to shareholder approval (baaaaaa!), the fund will follow them and become Angel Oak High Yield. Shareholders are slated to vote in mid-April.

Effective on or about May 1, 2016, the name of each Fund set forth below will be changed to correspond with the following table:

The Board of Trustees of Franklin Templeton Global Trust recently approved a proposal to reposition the Templeton Hard Currency Fund (ICPHX) as a global currency fund named Templeton Global Currency Fund. That will involve changing the investment goal of the fund and modifying the fund’s principal investment strategies.

Seeing not advantage in value, Voya is making the fourth name change in two years to one of its funds. Effective May 1, we’ll be introduced to Voya Global Equity Fund (NAWGX) which has been Voya Global Value Advantage since May 23, 2014. For three weeks it has been called Voya International Value Equity (May 1 – 23, 2014). Prior to that, it was just International Value Equity. The prospectus will remove “value investing” as a risk factor.

Thirty days later, Voya Mid Cap Value Advantage Fund (AIMAX) becomes Voya Mid Cap Research Enhanced Index Fund. The expense ratio does not change as it moves from “active” to “enhanced index,” though both the strategy and management do.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Breithorn Long/Short Fund (BRHAX) has closed and will liquidate on April 8, 2016.

Crow Point Defined Risk Global Equity Income Fund (CGHAX) has closed and will liquidate on April 25, 2016.

The Board of Trustees of Dreyfus Opportunity Funds has approved the liquidation of Dreyfus Strategic Beta U.S. Equity Fund (DOUAX), effective on or about April 15, 2016

DoubleLine just liquidated the last of three equity funds launched in 2013: DoubleLine Equities Growth Fund (DDEGX), which put most of its puddle of assets in high-growth mid- and large cap stocks. Based on its performance chart, you could summarize its history as: “things went from bad to worse.”

Dunham Alternative Income Fund (DAALX) will be exterminated (!) on April 25, 2016. (See, ‘cause the ticker reads like “Daleks” and the Daleks’ catchphrase was not “Liquidate!”)

On August 26, 2016, Franklin Flex Cap Growth Fund (FKCGX) will be devoured. Franklin Growth Opportunities Fund (FGRAX) will burp, but look appropriately mournful for its vanished sibling.

Frost Natural Resources Fund (FNATX) liquidated on March 31, 2016. Old story: seemed like a good idea when oil was $140/barrel, not so much at $40. In consequence, the fund declined 36% from inception to close.

Hodges Equity Income Fund (HDPEX) merged into the Hodges Blue Chip Equity Income Fund (HDPBX) on March 31, 2016. At $13 million each, neither is economically viable, really. $26 million will be tough but the fund’s record is okay, so we’ll be hopeful for them.

The Board of Trustees of LKCM Funds, upon the recommendation of Luther King Capital Management Corporation, the investment adviser to each fund, has approved a Plan of Reorganization and Dissolution pursuant to which the LKCM Aquinas Small Cap Fund (AQBLX) and the LKCM Aquinas Growth Fund (AQEGX), would be reorganized into the LKCM Aquinas Value Fund (AQEIX).

The Board of Trustees of the MassMutual Premier Funds has approved a Plan of Liquidation and Termination pursuant to which it is expected that the MassMutual Barings Dynamic Allocation Fund (MLBAX) will be dissolved. Effective on or about June 29, 2016 (the “Termination Date”), shareholders of the various classes of shares of the fund will receive proceeds in proportion to the number of shares of such class held by each of them on the Termination Date.

Oberweis Asia Opportunities Fund (OBAOX), a series of The Oberweis Funds (the “Trust”), scheduled for April 22, 2016, you will be asked to vote upon an important change affecting your fund. The purpose of the special meeting is to allow you to vote on a reorganization of your fund into Oberweis China Opportunities Fund (OBCHX).

On March 21, the Board of RX Traditional Allocation Fund (FMSQX) decided to close and liquidate it. Ten days later it was gone.

Satuit Capital U.S. Small Cap Fund (SATSX) will be liquidating its portfolio, winding up its affairs, and will distribute its assets to fund shareholders as soon as is practicable, but in no event later than April 15, 2016.

SignalPoint Global Alpha Fund (SPGAX) will liquidate on April 29, 2016.

Toroso Newfound Tactical Allocation Fund was liquidated on March 30, 2016.

On March 17, 2016, the Virtus Board of Trustees voted to liquidate the Virtus Alternative Income Solution (VAIAX), Virtus Alternative Inflation Solution (VSAIX), and Virtus Alternative Total Solution (VATAX) funds. They’ll liquidate around April 29, 2016.

In Closing . . .

May’s a big month for us as we celebrate our fifth anniversary. When we launched, Chip reported that the average life expectancy for a site like ours is … oh, six weeks. Even I’m a bit stunned as we begin a sixth year.

It goes without saying that you make it possible but, heck, I thought I’d say it anyway. Thanks and thanks and thanks again to you all!

Each month about 24,000 people read the Observer but about 6,000 of them are reading it for the first time. For their benefit, I need to repeat the explanation for the “hey, if you’re not charging and there aren’t any ads, how do you stay in business?” question.

Here’s the answer: good question! There are two parts to the answer. First, the Observer reflects the passions of a bunch of folks who are working on your behalf because they want to help, not because they’re looking for money.  And so all of us work for somewhere between nothing (Brian, Charles, Ed, Sam, Leigh – bless you all!) and next-to-nothing (Chip and me). That’s not sustainable in the long term but, for now, it’s what we got and it works. So, part one: low overhead.

Second, we’re voluntarily supported by our readers. Some folks make tax-deductible contributions now and then (Thanks, Gary, Edward, and Mr. West!), some contribute monthly through an automatic PayPal setup (waves to Deb and Greg!) and many more use of Amazon link. The Amazon story is simple: Amazon rebates to us and amount equal to about 7% of the value of any purchase you make using our Amazon Associates link. It’s invisible, seamless and costs you nothing. The easiest way is set it and forget it: bookmark our Amazon link or copy it and paste it into your web browser of choice as a homepage. After that, it’s all automatic. A few hundred readers used our link in March; if we could get everybody who reads us to use the system, it would make a dramatic difference.

In May we’re also hoping to provide new profiles of two old friends: Aston River Road Independent Value and Matthews Asian Growth & Income. And, with luck, we’ll have a couple other happy birthday surprises to share.

Until then, keep an eye out in case you spot a huge dome wandering by. If so, let me know since we seem to be missing one!

Dear friends,

It’s spring! Sort of. Despite the steady, light snow falling outside my window, March 1 is the beginning of “meteorological spring” and I’m indisputably in the middle of Augustana’s Spring Break. (It always looked better on MTV.) Spring training, both for major leaguers and my son’s high school team, has begun. There are stirrings in my garden and a couple newly-arrived catalogs (yes, I still get real mail) are encouraging horticultural fantasies: a swath of pollinator-friendly native plants taking over the southwest corner of the yard, a new home for my towering wall of sunflowers, some experiments with carrots, replacing more of the lawn with a rain garden to reduce run-off, regrowing a full head of hair … anything’s imaginable and everything’s possible, at least until I have to figure out how to pull it off.

Sadly, as Rudyard Kipling observed, “gardens are not made by sitting in the shade.”

For one more month, at least, I focus on tidying up my financial garden. We start this month’s issue with three of the most important kind of story: ones that actually affect me.

Artisan pulls the plug

Artisan has announced the liquidation of Artisan Small Cap Value (ARTVX), my oldest holding. My first fund, purchased when I was young and dumb, was AIM Constellation, then a very good mid-cap growth fund that carried a 5.5% load. After a bit, I learned that paying sales loads without any compensating benefit was stupid, so I stopped. I sold my shares and, shortly before it closed, invested the proceeds in Artisan Small Cap (ARTSX). Shortly after Artisan launched Small Cap Value in 1997, I moved my investment over from Small Cap. The $367 million fund, down from a peak of $3 billion in 2011, will be merged into Artisan Mid Cap Value (ARTQX) in May, 2016.

After a couple withdrawals and almost 19 years of paying taxes on the account, I’m disconcerted to report that I’ll be able to report a 30% tax loss on my 2016 taxes.

What happened? The managers’ discipline (and the dictates of marketing to advisors who want to execute their own asset allocation plans) does not encompass holding significant cash. And so, despite the fact that “We’ve complained for a long time now that too much of the market is fully- or fairly valued,” they stayed fully-invested. Their discipline also pushed them toward overweighting the best-valued stocks they could find and those turned out to be in two of the market’s worst areas: energy and industrials, that latter of which “have backdoor exposure to energy.” They eventually overweighted those areas by more than 2:1. That’s, at best, a very partial explanation for the fact that the fund trailed 90% or more of its small-value peers in five of the past six years, including years with high oil prices.

The folks at Artisan position this as a simple economic decision: “a determination was made that the strategy/fund was no longer commercially viable… Given our past few years of underperformance, we have seen outflows (and passive has been an asset flow winner here). We are also hearing that fewer folks plan to use dedicated small-cap value allocations going forward.” The management team “drove the decision” and they “still believe in the asset class.”

This is the first fund liquidation in Artisan’s history.

The team manages two other funds, Mid Cap Value (ARTQX) and the large-cap oriented Value (ARTLX). Over the full market cycle, ARTQX modestly leads its peer group in performance (40 bps/year) with subdued volatility. ARTLX trails its Lipper peers (80 bps/year) with somewhat higher volatility.

Bottom line

I prefer to maintain exposure to small value stocks, so I won’t wait around for the impending transition to the team’s mid-cap value fund. I’ll book my tax loss and move on.

The finalists for this slot in my portfolio are two cash-rich, low-vol funds: John Deysher’s Pinnacle Value Fund (PVFIX) and the team-managed Intrepid Endurance Fund (ICMAX, formerly Intrepid Small Cap). Both are run by absolute value investors. They have similar expense ratios, though Intrepid is five times Pinnacle’s size. Intrepid’s about two-thirds cash right now, Pinnacle about 50%. They are, by far, the two least volatile small cap funds around. Pinnacle’s market cap and turnover are both far lower.

We profiled Pinnacle one year ago. I think we’ll try to prepare a profile of Intrepid for our April issue and see if that helps decide things.

The tough question remaining

How long should you wait before you write off a manager or a fund? My normal rule is pretty straightforward: if I haven’t changed and they haven’t changed, then we’re not going to change. That is, if my portfolio needs remain the same, the management team remains intact and true to their discipline, then I’m not going to second-guess my due diligence. This may be the first time I’ve sold a fund in a decade. Leigh Walzer’s research on stumbling funds suggests that I should have sold in mid-2014 which would have spared me about a 10% loss assuming that I’d put it in a merely average SCV fund.

Romick stares reality in the face, and turns away

My single largest non-retirement holding is FPA Crescent (FPACX), which has always struck me as the quintessence of active management. While other managers were constrained to invest in a single asset class or in a single country, or to remain fully invested or unhedged, manager Steve Romick declared himself to be “the free-range chicken” of the investing world. He’d look for firms that offered compelling advantages, would analyze their capital structure and then invest in whatever instrument – common stock, warrants, senior debt – offered the most compelling opportunities. If nothing was compelling, he sat on cash.

That strategy performed wonderfully for years. Over the past decade the fund has led its Morningstar peer group by 1.12% annually though, by freakish coincidence, Morningstar also calculates that you lost 1.12% annually to taxes over the same period. Over the past three years, the fund has either been about average (using Morningstar’s “moderate allocation” peer group) or well-above average (using Lipper’s “flexible portfolio” one). In 2015, the fund lost money and finished in the bottom third of its Morningstar peer group.

Those two things do not bother me. Two others do. First, the fund has ballooned in size with no apparent effort at gatekeeping. In 2005, it performed gloriously but had under $1 billion in assets. In 2010, it performed solidly with $2.7 billion. It hit $10 billion in 2013 and $20 billion in 2015 and remains open today. While some funds have doubtless thrived in the face of huge, continual inflows, those are rare.

Second, Romick blinked. His recently released Annual Report offered the following announcement on page two:

At first glance, it appears that we’ve declined as much as the market — down 11.71% since May 2015’s market peak against the S&P 500’s 11.30% decline — but that’s looking at the market only through the lens of the S&P 500. However, roughly half of our equity holdings (totaling almost a third of the Fund’s equity exposure) are not included in the S&P 500 index. Our quest for value has increasingly taken us overseas and our portfolio is more global than it has been in the past. We therefore consider the MSCI ACWI a pertinent alternative benchmark.

What?

“We look pretty good compared to a global all-equity benchmark”?

Uhhh … the fund is 37% cash. Morningstar reports a net exposure (11% long minus 3% short) of only 8.5% to international stocks. The most recent report on FPA’s website suggests 16% but doesn’t separate long/short. If Morningstar is right, net exposure is way less global than either its Morningstar benchmark or Morningstar peer group.

Underperformance doesn’t bother me. Obfuscation does. The irony is that it bothers Mr. Romick as well, at least when it’s being practiced by others. In a 2012 letter criticizing the Fed, he explained what we ought to demand of our leaders and ourselves:

Blind faith has gotten us into trouble repeatedly throughout history. Just consider the rogue’s gallery of false idols, dictators, and charlatans we have followed, hoping for something different, something better. That misplaced conviction corrupts and destroys. Daily life does require we put our trust in others, but we should do so judiciously.

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… 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.”

FPA once ran funds in a couple of different styles, Mr. Romick’s and the other one. They’ve now purged themselves of their quality-growth team and have renamed and repurposed those funds. In repurposing Paramount, they raised the expense ratio, ostensibly to create parity with the Perennial fund. In a private exchange I asked why they didn’t simply lower Perennial’s e.r. rather than raising it and was assured that they really needed the extra cash for as-yet undisclosed enhancements.

I’ve lost faith.

Bottom line

I’m not sure whether FPA is now being driven by investment discipline, demands for ideological purity or a rising interest in gathering assets. Regardless, I’m going. I have long respected the folks at the Leuthold Group and we recently profiled their flagship Leuthold Core Investment Fund (LCORX). Leuthold has delivered on such promises more consistently, with more discipline, for a longer period than virtually any competitor.” They’re apt to be the home for the proceeds from an FPA sale plus closing two small accounts.

Morningstar doesn’t share my reservations and FPACX retains a “Gold” analyst rating from the firm.

The tough question remaining

How do we account for cultural change in assessing a firm? Firms never admit to their internal machinations, the story is always “a long heritage and a strict discipline, honored, preserved, extended!” They say it because they must and, often, because they believe it. From the outside, it’s about impossible to test those claims and people get downright offended when you even broach the subject. Some folks have managed beautifully; Mairs and Power come to mind. Some have been disasters, Third Avenue most recently. And others, such as Royce Funds, are just now trying to navigate it. Without access to contacts within the organization or with their peers, we only see shadows and flickers, “as through a glass, darkly.”

Hate it when that happens.

Andrew Foster, Sufi master

Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment.
Cleverness is mere opinion, bewilderment intuition.
― Rumi, Masnavi I Ma’navi,ca. 1270

I like Andrew Foster, manager of Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX). I also respect him. The confluence of those two is rare.

In his essay “Self Reliance,” Emerson describes “foolish consistency” as “the hobgoblin of little minds.” The rough translation is the people don’t like to admit that they’re unsure, whether it’s about what to think or what to do, even to themselves. And so they come up with procedures, policies, explanations, Great Insights and Magic Rules and claim you can stop thinking worrying now. You’ll notice this in the classroom: young teachers are terrified at losing control or losing respect while really experienced ones are comfortable admitting that they simply don’t have nearly as many answers as they’ve got questions, suspicions or possibilities.

That came to mind in reading two of Mr. Foster’s recent pieces, his Fourth Quarter 2015 Portfolio Review and his Semi-Annual Report. Between the two, you get a sense of a guy who is really sharp but not under the illusion of his own omniscience.

The short version of investing in the emerging markets over the last couple years: things have been wildly volatile and mostly negative, China’s been a concern, Seafarer’s doing better than the great majority of its peers.

Most managers, whether they’re small minded or they think you are, would have said that in about three paragraph – emphasizing their own excellence in the latter – and hit “send.”

Mr. Foster approached things differently. His analysis was more nuanced, sharper, more self-effacing and more respectful of his readers’ intelligence than almost any of what I’ve read in the professional press. You should read it, but only if you have the time to think about what you’ve read because you’ll encounter more careful speculation than illusory certainty.

Why was the market rising at the start of the fourth quarter?

Between October 1 and November 4, the benchmark index rose 9.72%. There was no obvious reason for this gain.

Okay, so what explains Seafarer’s outperformance?

The Fund’s marginal outperformance was due to selected holdings in China, Japan, Indonesia and Turkey. Those holdings had no unifying theme or idea that could explain the basis for their performance during the quarter.

Perhaps it’s because you were defensively positioned on China?

Unfortunately, my notion of “defensive” valuations proved faulty.

Oh. Dja do any better on currencies?

My prediction [there] was terribly wrong.

Ah, I see. You’ve described Seafarer as a China-centric portfolio. What’s going on there?

I wish I knew with certainty. Unfortunately, the situation is sufficiently opaque that facts are scant, and thus I can only speculate as to the cause behind the A-share market’s sudden collapse.

Well, how about a guess then? Surely you’ll do better than the bobbleheads in the media.

Unfortunately, I can only speculate as to the actual cause of the decline, so my thoughts on the matter are frankly no better than the media’s. I have very few facts to substantiate my arguments; all I can do is look at the pattern of events that has unfolded, and speculate as to the causes. 

I’m getting desperate here, Andrew. Why not just fling a wild speculation or two at us?

I would suggest two possible scenarios that might have caused the sell-off:

1. The Renminbi’s weakness is not the direct cause of the decline, but it is a precursor for a growing liquidity shortage within the Chinese financial system. The currency’s persistent weakness may indicate that one or more banks, or perhaps some portion of the “shadow banking system,” may soon experience a liquidity crisis. This explanation would suggest the currency is signaling stressed liquidity within the financial system, to which stocks have reacted swiftly and punitively.
2. The current government is unstable. Over the past three years, the government has propagated a sweeping anti-corruption campaign that has sometimes terminated in controversial political purges. The government has also introduced bold economic reforms – reforms that I largely support – but that have undoubtedly alienated powerful vested interests. Meanwhile, the current president has sought to consolidate power in a manner not seen since Mao’s era. It might be that such dramatic actions have silently eroded support for the current government among powerful factions within the Communist party. If so, the weakness in the currency and the stock market might portend a deeper source of instability.

Either scenario might have been the root cause of the volatility we observed; it is also possible that both acted in tandem.

You get the idea, I think: rather more insight than ego, important arguments made in a clear and accessible style.

In terms of portfolio positioning, he’s finding better values in Latin America and Emerging Europe than in Asia, so the portfolio is the least Asia-centered in its history. Similarly, there are intriguing opportunities in larger firms than in smaller ones right now; he’s actually been surprised at his portfolio’s small- to mid-cap positioning, but that’s where the value has been.

Bottom line

Seafarer remains a core position in my non-retirement portfolio and I’ve been adding to it steadily. Valuations in the emerging markets are compelling, with stocks trading at P/E ratios of 5 or 6. I’m tempted to sell my holdings in Matthews Asia Growth & Income (MACSX) and roll them into Seafarer, mostly as an attempt to simplify, but the two really do seem to be driven by diverse forces.

For now, I’ll continue to invest in each and, mostly, ignore the noise.

The tough question remaining

If emerging markets are simultaneously our best and our worst investment option, what on earth do we do with them? There’s a near-universal agreement that they represent the cheapest stocks and most dynamic economies in the world. And yet, collectively, over the last decade EM equity funds have made 1.3% annually with a standard deviation of 23. Run away? Pretend that investing in Nestle is the same just because they sell a lot in emerging markets? Hedge, which is tough? Hybrid? Hope? The worst case is “hire Greed and Panic to manage your investments,” though that seems awfully popular.

The Weather

By Edward Studzinski

“When we unleash the dogs of war, we must go where they take us.”

Dowager Countess of Grantham

Starting off one of these monthly discussions with a title about the weather should be indicative that this piece will perhaps be more disjointed than usual, but that is how the world and markets look to me at present. And there is very little in the way of rational explanation for why the things that are happening are happening. My friend Larry Jeddeloh, of The Institutional Strategist, would argue that this country has been on a credit cycle rather than a business cycle for more than fifteen years now. Growth in the economy is tied to the price and availability of credit. But the cost of high yield debt is rising as spreads blow out, so having lots of cheap credit available is not doing much to grow the economy. Put another way, those who need to be able to borrow to either sustain or grow their business, can’t. A friend in the investment banking business told me yesterday about a charter school that has been trying to refinance a debt package for several years now, and has not been able to (thank you, Dodd-Frank). So once again we find ourselves in a situation where those who don’t need the money can easily borrow, and those who need it, are having difficulty obtaining it. We see this in another area, where consumers, rather than spend and take on more debt, have pulled back.

Why? We truly are in a moment of deflation on the one hand (think fuel and energy costs) and the hints of inflation on the other (think food, property taxes, and prescription drug costs on the other). And the debt overload, especially public debt, has reached a point where something has to be done other than kicking the can down the road, or other major crisis. I would argue we are on the cusp of that crisis now, where illiquidity and an inability to refinance, is increasingly a problem in the capital markets. And we see that, where the business models of businesses such as energy-related master limited partnerships, premised on always being able to refinance or raise more equity, face issues.

I was reading through some old articles recently, and came across the transcript in Hermes, the Columbia Business School publication, of a seminar held in May 1985 there. The speakers were Warren Buffett, James Rogers, Jr., and Donald Kurtz. As is often the case, sifting through the older Buffett can be rewarding albeit frustrating when you realize he saw something way before its time. One of the things Buffett said then was that, based on his observations of our political system, “ … there is a small but not insignificant probability that we will lose fiscal control at some point.” His point was that given a choice, politicians will always opt for an implicit tax rather than an explicit tax. If expenditures should determine the level of explicit taxes, than taxes should cover expenditures. Instead, we have built in implicit taxation, expecting inflation to cover things without the citizens realizing it (just as you are not supposed to notice how much smaller the contents are with the packaging changes in food products – dramatically increasing your food budget).

The easier way to think of this is that politicians will always do what allows them to keep doing what they like, which is to stay in office. Hence, the bias ends up being to debase the currency through the printing presses. So you say, what’s the problem? We have more deflation than inflation at this point?

And the problem is, if you look at history, especially Weimar Germany, you see that you had bouts of severe inflation and sharp deflationary periods – things did not move in a straight line.

Now we have had many years of a bull market in stocks and other assets, which was supposed to create wealth, which would than drive increases in consumption. The wealth aspect happened, especially for the top 5%, but the consumption did not necessarily follow, especially for those lower on the economic ladder. So now we see stock and asset prices not rising, and the unspoken fear is – is recession coming?

My take on it, is that we have been in a huge jobless recovery for most of the country, that the energy patch and those industries related to it (and the banks that lent money) are now beyond entering recession, and that those effects will continue to ripple through the rest of the economy. Already we see that, with earnings estimates for the S&P 500 continuing to drift lower. So for most of you, again, my suggestion is to pay attention to what your investment time horizons and risk tolerances are.

Moving totally down a different path, I would like to suggest that an article in the February 28, 2016 New York Sunday Times Magazine entitled “Stocks & Bots” is well worth a read. The focus of the article is about the extent to which automation will eliminate jobs in the financial services industry going forward. We are not talking about clerks and order entry positions. That revolution has already taken place, with computerized trading over the last twenty years cutting by way of example, the number of employees buying and selling stock over the phone from 600 to 4 at one of the major investment banking firms. No, we are talking about the next level of change, where the analysts start getting replaced by search programs and algorithms. And it then moves on from there to the people who provide financial advice. Will the Millennials seek financial advice from programs rather than stock brokers? Will the demand grow exponentially for cheaper investment products?

I think the answer to these questions is yes, the Millennials will do things very differently in terms of utilizing financial services, and the profit margins of many of today’s investment products, such as mutual funds, will be driven much lower in the not too distant future. Anecdotally, when one has a year in the markets like 2015 and the beginning of 2016, many investment firms would push down the bonus levels and payments from the highest paid to take care of the lower ranks of employees. I was not surprised however to hear that one of the largest asset managers in the world, based in Boston, had its senior employees elect to keep the bonuses high at the “partner” levels and not take care of the next levels down this past year. They could see the handwriting on the wall.

All of which brings me back to the weather. Probably suggesting that one should read a politically incorrect writer like Mark Twain is anathema to many today, but I do so love his speech on the New England weather. For a preview for those so inclined, “The lightning there is peculiar; it is so convincing that, when it strikes a thing it doesn’t leave enough of that thing behind for you tell whether – Well, you’d think it was something valuable, and a Congressman had been there.”

At a future point I will come back for a discussion of Mr. Twain’s essay “On the Decay of the Art of Lying” which might be essential reading as this year’s elections take shape.

High Dividends, Low Volatility

From the Trapezoid Mailbag:

A financial advisor in Florida is interested in low-volatility products. With the market so choppy, he would like to dial down risk in his client’s portfolio. He wondered whether SEI Institutional Managed Trust Tax-Managed Volatility Fund (TMMAX) was a suitable choice.

As Exhibit I illustrates low-volatility has been a successful investment strategy in recent years. A good argument can be made that historically, low-volatility stocks were mispriced. Players like Berkshire Hathaway and private equity capitalized on this by levering up these firms to deliver strong risk-adjusted returns. There is a heavy overlap between the low-volatility universe and the high-dividend universe. Many high-dividend stocks have dropped assets into REITs in recent years which have fueled better returns for this sector. Low volatility has outperformed the broad market meaningfully for the past two quarters, partly due its lower beta.

Trapezoid doesn’t take a view on whether these trends will continue or whether low-volatility is the best place to hide out in a tough market. In this instance, we wonder whether the “private equity bid” which contributed to the sector’s strong performance will be as reliable as corporate credit markets tighten and whether the increasing use of REIT/MLP structures has about run its course. What Trapezoid does do is help investors, advisors, and allocators find the best instruments to express their investment strategy based on extrapolation of historic skill in relation to risk.

There are several passive strategies which express the same theme. For example, Power Shares markets an S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio (SPLV) and an S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility Portfolio (SPHD). Those two funds move virtually in lockstep, underscoring the overlap between high dividend and low volatility. The correlation between the PowerShares indices and TMMAX is 98.5% and the expense ratio is 70-75 basis points lower.

Despite the availability of good passive indices, we would nonetheless consider TMMAX. The fund’s track record has been slightly above average, making us slightly confident (53%) it is worth the added cost. SEI also manages the SEI US Managed Volatility Fund which has a 50% confidence rating (slightly lower due mainly to higher expense ratio.)

SEI relies on three subadvisors to manage the fund. The largest sleeve is managed by Analytic Investors (39%) followed by LSV (35%) and AJO. While we don’t have sleeve-level data, we can evaluate the body of work by Analytic and LSV looking at comparable sole-managed funds. Analytic’s track record the past five years on Touchstone Dynamic Equity Fund (TDELX) is good but the previous five years were poor. LSV’s record at LSV Conservative Value Equity Fund (LSVVX) and Harbor Mid-Cap Value Fund (HIMVX) was middling.

We have discussed in the past that Morningstar star ratings have some predictive value but that even a five-star rating is not sufficient to make an investment decision. The SEI funds are good examples. TMMAX, SEVIX, and SXMAX all carry five star ratings, and we agree investors are better off choosing these funds than many of the alternatives but the evidence of manager skill is inconclusive.

If the advisor is willing to expand his horizons a little, he can find similar funds which improve the odds a little. We used the Orthogonal Attribution Engine to find highly correlated funds with better confidence ratings and came up with the following.

A few observations

• T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Fund (PRWCX) is closed to new investors
• The two Vanguard funds attempt to outperform their benchmark indices using a quantitative strategy.
• Many of the other similar funds have higher betas, which may be a deal breaker for our advisor who wants to reduce his client’s market exposure
• Many of these funds are large blend funds, accessible to demo customers at the www.fundattribution.com website.
• Our confidence ratings are based on data through 10/30/15. In the subsequent months TMMAX’s performance lagged the lower-cost PowerShares indices. This may serve to erode our confidence that active management pays for itself. Updated data will be posted shortly

The heightened appeal of low-volatility funds might suggest something else: Advisors are more focused on extreme negative outcomes which could get them fired than extreme positive outcomes. In a choppy market, low-volatility funds have the allure of a safe haven. We don’t have a view on the wisdom of this. But we are interested in helping allocators avoid individual managers who have the potential to “blow up.” One of Trapezoid’s forthcoming new metrics hones in on this risk by focusing on the likelihood of extreme negative outcomes.

Offered without comment: Your American Funds share class options

MFO Rating Metrics

When MFO introduced its rating system in June of 2013, it chose Martin Ratio as the principal performance rating metric. Martin is a risk adjusted return metric that is the ratio between excess return, which is the compounded annualized total return above risk free T-Bill return, divided by the so-called Ulcer Index, which is a measure of extent and duration of drawdown. Our friend Peter Matin formulated the Ulcer Index as described in An Alternative Approach to the Measurement of Investment Risk & Risk-Adjusted Performance.

For each fund category, like Large Growth or Moderate Allocation, the MFO Rating system divides funds into five groups or “quintiles” based on the risk adjusted return over selected evaluation periods. Funds with the highest Martin in each category are assigned a 5, while those with the lowest receive a 1.

While this approach suits many MFO readers just fine, especially having lived through two 50 percent equity market drawdowns in the past 15 years, others like Investor on the MFO Discussion Board, were less interested in risk adjusted return and wanted to see ratings based on absolute return. Others wanted to see ratings based on the more traditional risk adjusted Sharpe Ratio. (For more definitions, see A Look A Risk Adjusted Returns.)

It took a while, but subscribers on our MFO Premium site can now choose which rating metric they prefer, including multiple rating metrics simultaneously.

For example, since the start of the current market cycle in November 2007, which Small Cap funds have delivered the best absolute return (APR) and the best Martin Ratio and the best Sharpe Ratio? To find the answer, enter the selection criteria on the MFO MultiSearch tool, as depicted below (click image to enlarge), then hit the “Submit Search” button …

A total of 28 funds appear from the more than 9,000 unique funds in the MFO database. Here are the first 10, sorted by MFO Risk and then name:

Notables include Brown Capital Mgmt Small Company (BCSIX), Champlain Small (CIPSX), Conestoga Small Cap (CCASX), and FMI Common Stock (FMIMX). The closed BCSIX is both an MFO Great Owl and Fund Alarm Honor Roll fund. It is also a Morningstar Gold Medal fund, while Silver goes to CIPSX and CCASX.

Intrepid Endurance (ICMAX) has the lowest risk rating with a MFO Risk of 3, which means this fund has historically carried volatility suited for investors with Moderate risk tolerance. Unlike other metrics in the MFO ratings system, and in fact the risk metric in Morningstar’s rating system, which assign risk relative to other funds in category, the MFO Risk metric assigns its rating based on volatility relative to the overall market.

The MFO MultiSearch tool now enables searches using more than 55 screening criteria, organized by Basic Info, Period Metrics, Composite Period Metrics, MFO Designations, Portfolio Characteristics, and Purchase Info. A list of current criteria can be found here.

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and news from DailyAlts.

Pruning Season

You can call it a cycle, a season, or even a cleansing process, but when one looks at the liquid alternatives market, it’s apparent that there is some pruning going on. Some cleaning out of the products that no longer appeal to investors, those that hit a performance patch from which it would be near impossible to recover, or just didn’t gather the requisite assets for a fund to be viable. Clean out the funds that are not producing the intended results, or just aren’t resonating with investors.

This is all a healthy process as it makes room for newer products, the next generation. It also allows for a greater investment into existing products. Interestingly, we have already seen 9 alternative funds liquidated in the first two months of the year (and at least two more schedule to be liquidated) – some announced late last year, but nonetheless, fully liquidated in 2016. And these are from some bigger names in the industry, such as Lazard, Collins, Whitebox, Virtus, Ramius and Clinton. Some seasoned hedge fund managers in there, along with seasoned asset management firms.

Four of the liquidate funds were long/short equity funds, two were multi-alternative funds, and the remaining three included market neutral, event driven and non-traditional bonds. All in all, I think we will see more pruning in the coming months as fund managers rationalize their fund lineup as markets sell off, and begin thinking about the next set of products to introduce to the market.

The pruning process is healthy and helps future growth, so don’t be surprised to see more down the road. It’s just part of the natural cycle.

Asset Flows

January saw a continuation of 2015 where investors continued to pour money into multi-alternative funds and managed futures funds (inflows of $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion, respectively), while pulling assets from non-traditional bond funds, long/short equity and market neutral (-$3 billion, -$390 million and -$340 million, respectively). Excluding non-traditional bond funds and commodities, alternative mutual funds and ETFs gathered a total of $2.4 billion in January, bringing the total 12-month haul to $18.7 billion, third of any category behind international equity and municipal bonds and 11.5% of all net asset inflows.

Commodities bounced back in January with total inflows of $3.3 billion, led primarily by flows to precious metals funds, and gold funds in particular. Non-traditional bond funds, viewed as an alternative to long-only bond funds and a protective hedge against interest rate increases, have continued to disappoint in the aggregate. As a result, investors have pulled $17.9 billion of assets from these funds over the past 12 months.

Extended Reading

What did DailyAlts readers enjoy the most this past month? The three of the most widely read articles this past month were:

• Adding Liquid Alts to DC Plans and Target-Date Funds
• Distinction Between Mutual Funds and Hedge Funds Is Eroding
• Understanding Liquid Alternatives: Ask The Right Questions

While it appears to be pruning season, that doesn’t mean it is time to stop looking for alternative funds. With Spring approaching, now is a good time to take a look across your portfolio at the risks you have exposure to, and perhaps do a bit of pruning of your own to balance risks and hedge for what might be more volatility ahead.

Have a great March, and to keep up with daily or weekly news in the liquid alts market, be sure to sign up for our newsletter.

Observer Fund Profiles: LSOFX / RYSFX

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.

LS Opportunity Fund (LSOFX): this was a really solid long/short fund that had to press the “reset” button last May when their sub-advisor decided to pack it up and call it a career. In Prospector Partners, they may have found a team that executes the same stock-by-stock discipline even more excellently than their predecessors.

Royce Global Financial Services (RYFSX): when you think “financial services,” you likely think “monstrous big banks with tendrils everywhere and eight-figure bonuses.” Royce thinks differently, and their focus on smaller firms that dominate financial niches worldwide has made a remarkable difference for their investors.

Elevator Talk: Jim Robinson, Robinson Tax-Advantaged Income (ROBAX)

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.

Jim Robinson formed Robinson Capital Management, located in Detroit’s ritzy Grosse Pointe suburb, in December, 2012. The firm manages about a quarter billion in assets for a handful of high net worth clients and advises two (soon to be three) mutual funds.

From 1987-1999, Mr. Robinson served as the Fixed Income CIO for the Munder Funds. During his stint, he grew fixed income AUM from $100 million to $20 billion. Eventually promoted to Chairman, CEO and President, he was responsible for about $38 billion in assets. He left Munder for Telemus Capital Partners, LLC, with whom his firm still has a relationship.

Robinson Capital uses a variety of strategies in their separate accounts. The Tax-Advantaged Income Fund pursues one strategy: it invests in closed-end muni bond funds. Closed-end funds (CEFs) are strange creatures, the forerunners of today’s actively-managed ETFs. They have managers and portfolios like open-end mutual funds do, but trade on exchanges like stocks and ETFs do. Such funds have several relevant characteristics:

1. They are far more likely to pursue income-oriented strategies than are open-end funds
2. They are far more likely to make extensive use of leverage and hold more illiquid securities than are open-end funds
3. Because they trade on exchanges, the managers never need to worry about meeting redemptions or closing the fund to new investors; they issue a set number of shares of the CEF during their initial public offering but after that they let buyers and sellers find each other.
4. Because they trade on exchanges, the market price of their shares changes minute-by-minute, and
5. Because they trade on exchanges, the net asset value of a share (the market value of all of the fund’s holdings divided by the number of shares outstanding) can diverge dramatically from that share’s market price (that is, the amount a potential seller can get at one particular moment for a share of the fund).

When shareholders panic, they may succumb to the temptation to sell shares of their fund for 15, 20 or even 40% less than they’re nominally worth, just because the seller really wants cash-in-hand. That’s mostly irrational. A handful of mutual fund firms – RiverNorth, Matisse, and Robinson among them – look to profit from panic. Using various metrics, they decide when to move in and buy shares that are selling at an unsustainable discount to their net asset values.

If everything goes according to plan, that strategy offers the potential for sustained, substantial, market-neutral gains: as soon as panic subsides, even if the market is still falling, a degree of rationality returns, investors start buying the discounted CEF shares, that bids up the price and the discount closes. If you invest before the crowd, you benefit when the shares you bought at, say, a 25% discount can now be sold at just a 5% discount.

Here’s a hypothetical illustration: the NAV of the Odd Income Fund is $100/share but, when rumors of dinosaurs rampaging down Wall Street rattles people, its market price drops to $75/share. Robinson moves in. In six months, the panic has passed, Odd Income’s NAV has risen a couple percent and its discount contracted to its non-panic norm of 5%. In such a scenario, Odd Income has earned 2% but folks who bought shares during the panic earned 29%.

There are distinct risks to playing this game, of course. The falling knife might continue to fall harder and faster than you’d imagined so that the 25% discount might widen to 35%. The manager of the underlying CEF might find that using leverage in a panicky market drives down the fund’s NAV as well as its market price. And, too, the CEF manager might simply do something stupid. It happens.

The folks who manage CEF-focused funds argue that downside risks are manageable through a combination of careful security selection, position-size limits and hedging. The upside can be dramatic. Here is the performance chart for ROBAX against two possible benchmarks: its Morningstar non-traditional bond peer group (orange) and long-term national muni bond group (yellow).

Here are Mr. Robinson’s 200 words on why investors concerned about income and income taxes should add ROBAX to their due-diligence list:

I generally tell people that the first three things you need to know about our fund are these:

• We pay out 40 basis points a month in tax-exempt income, on average
• We present very little credit risk; our portfolio’s credit quality is A/A+
• We hedge out interest rate risk, such that our effective duration is under a year.

There are 191 Tax-exempt closed-end funds. Today, 150 are trading at a discount to NAV. Some of those discounts are rational; if you have a poorly-managed fund buying difficult-to-price securities and misusing leverage, it should be trading at a discount. Heck, I analyze some of these funds and suspect the discount should be bigger than it is.

What we do is move money from rationally discounted funds to irrationally discounted ones. Six large fund companies – BlackRock, PIMCO, Nuveen and company – dominate the CEF space. That’s important because those companies have pretty good governance practices in place; BlackRock is aggressive about merging funds to harvest economies of scale, others do share buybacks and so on. When funds with good management, good governance and good portfolios sell at irrational discounts, we move. Bill Gross did me a big favor. Two days before we launched, he resigned from PIMCO. Gross had nothing to do with PIMCO’s CEFs but suddenly funds that always trade at a premium were available at a discount. We moved in, the discount predictably reversed, and we closed the position at a nice profit. That discount arbitrage adds about 200 bps to our performance.

The other thing we do that individual investors can’t, and that most advisors would find tough, time-consuming and expensive, is we largely hedge interest rate risk out of the portfolio. Tax-exempt CEFs tend to be long-dated and leveraged so they typically have 10-12 year weighted durations. In a year like 2013 when rates rise 1%, they lose 10-12% in principal value. Our hedge is not perfect, since Treasuries and munis don’t trade in perfect sync, but it’s pretty good.

Robinson Tax-Advantaged Income has a $2500 minimum initial investment for the “A” shares and $1,000,0000 for “I” shares. While there’s a sales load, load-waived shares are widely available. Direct expenses are capped at 1.60% on the “A” shares. Since the fund invests in other funds, you indirectly pay (through lower returns) a portion of those funds’ expenses. In 2014, that added 1.14% to ROBAX’s today expenses. The fund has about gathered about $74 million in assets since its September 2014 launch. Here’s the fund’s homepage.

Funds in Registration

Funds need to submit their prospectuses for SEC review before they’re permitted to offer the fund to the public. The SEC has 75 days in which to ponder the matter, which means that proposed new funds cool their heels for about two and a half months. During that time their prospectuses are available for review on the SEC’s website but fund advisors are forbidden to talk publicly about them. Each month Funds in Reg gives you a heads-up about what’s in the SEC pipeline.

Except for last month, when I stupidly forgot to include the file in our February issue. As a result, this month we cover the last two sets of no-load retail funds that will become available between March and May. We found 17 funds that qualify. Particularly interesting morsels include:

• 361 Domestic Long/Short Equity Fund, which will be managed by a really renowned investor – Harindra de Silva – who has a earned a great deal of respect in the industry and who already manages a number of top-ranked funds.
• Matthews Asia Credit Opportunities, which appears to be a high-yield, distressed securities version of the very fine Matthews Asia Strategic Income Fund.
• RiverPark Commercial Real Estate Fund, the latest entry in RiverPark’s quest to bring hedge fund strategies to “the mass affluent.” This fund has been running as a hedge fund for about five years now.

Sadly, there are a handful of future “Off to the Dustbin of History” nominees as well but I suppose that’s the magic of capitalism: 90% of the stuff we try fails, 9% does okay and 1% changes the world.

Uzès Grands Crus I

The French, being French, have their financial priorities in order. In February, Financière D’uzès announced the launch of their third mutual fund devoted to the investment potential of bottles of fine wine. At least 75% of the fund’s assets will be bottles of fine and their aim is “to outperform the annual rate for the five-year French treasury bond (OAT) with a minimum return of 5%.”

I reflected, very very briefly, on the investment value of the bottle of Lambrusco I bought at Trader Joe’s for $4.99, then made mid-winter sangria instead.

Manager Changes

The biggest news, by far, this month is the impending departure of Taymour R. Tamaddon from T. Rowe Price Health Sciences (PRHSX) and Donald Yacktman from his namesake funds. When Kris Jenner left the fund three years ago (how time flies!), the accepted wisdom was that nobody could live up to his legacy. Mr. Tamaddon then led the fund to 22.4% annualized returns, nearly 500 bps above his peers and good enough for a top 2% record.

Mr. Tamaddon steps down on July 1, 2016, is succeeded by Ziad Bakri then becomes manager of the $12 billion T. Rowe Price Institutional Large-Cap Growth Fund (TRLGX) on January 1, 2017.

Effective May 1, 2016, Donald A. Yacktman will transition to an advisory role and will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for AMG Yacktman (YACKX) and AMG Yacktman Focused (YAFFX) funds. The roughly corresponds with his 75^th birthday. Mr. Yacktman has been managing mutual funds since 1968, starting with Stein, Roe and the Selected American Shares before founding Yacktman Asset Management in 1992. $10,000 invested in YACKX that year would have grown to $95,000 today, which compares well to the returns on an investment in the S&P500 ($76,000) or the average large-value fund ($56,000). He was named Morningstar’s Manager of the Year in 1991 and was joined on the management team by his son, Stephen, in 2002. Stephen Yacktman and Jason Subotky will manage the funds after the transition.

Other than that, we found about 36 manager changes, a few years overdue.

Updates

Sequoia Fund (SEQUX) continues its defense of Valeant Pharmaceuticals in its Annual Report (2016) and they continued dodging the issue.

For the stock to regain credibility with long-term investors, Valeant will need to generate strong earnings and cash flow this year, make progress in paying down some of its debt, demonstrate that it can launch new drugs from its own development pipeline and avoid provoking health care payers and the government. The company has committed to doing all of these things and we are confident interim CEO Howard Schiller and interim board chairman Robert Ingram are focused on the right metrics. Before CEO J. Michael Pearson went out on an extended medical leave, he also seemed committed to this path.

“Avoid provoking health care payers.” Oh, right. That would be the predatory pricing model that attracted Sequoia to Valeant in the first place: Valeant would borrow money to buy a small pharmaceutical firm, then quintuple the price of the firm’s products. If that meant putting a few inexpensive lives at risk, well, that wasn’t Valeant’s problem.

Until it was. Before the blow-up, manager David Poppe’s tone was openly affectionate about “Mike,” Valeant’s president and almost giddy about the prospects. Valeant’s high-profile implosion cost Sequoia a lot:

As the largest shareholder of Valeant, our own credibility as investors has been damaged by this saga. We’ve seen higher-than-normal redemptions in the Fund, had two of our five independent directors resign in October and been sued by two Sequoia shareholders over our concentration in Valeant. We do not believe the lawsuit has merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in court. Moving along …

“Moving along”? No, it’s not time to move along, guys. Barron’s Chris Dieterich provides a nice synopsis of developments that transpired on February 29, the day Sequoia released their report:

Monday ushered in a nightmarish combination of trouble. First, Valeant said it would delay the release of its quarterly results. Then, news broke that Allergan (AGN) is challenging the patent to Xifaxan. Third, Moody’s Investors Service warned that it may need to downgrade portions of the company’s $31 billion of debt. Finally, headlines crossed the tape that Valeant faces a previously undisclosed investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

All told, the stock plunged 18% to $65.80 — a fresh three-year low (“Sequoia Fund Picked A Bad Time To Stick Up For Valeant”).

The bigger, unanswered question is what does this say about you as investors? Any damage to your credibility is (a) self-inflicted and (b) deserved. You committed one third of your fund and all of your credibility to an amoral little schemer who, on his best days, stayed right at the edge of what’s legal. That’s a fact you acknowledged. Then you implicitly compared him to Warren Buffett, an investor whose moral compass, operating style and record makes him utterly incomparable.

Investors might, heck, investors must, ask: where was your brain? Were you so blinded by the prospect of easy money that you chose to ignore the hard questions? The most optimistic interpretation is that you’re not addressing such questions because you’re being sued and you can’t afford to admit to whatever idiocy led to the resignations of 40% of your board last fall. The worrisome interpretation is that Sequoia isn’t Sequoia anymore; that the clarity of thought that guided it to renown in decades past mostly now serves to mask a less exalted management.

Think it can’t happen? Check Magellan, Fidelity (FMAGX), the other Titan which has now managed to trail its peers over the past five, ten, fifteen and twenty year periods. Utterly dominant in the market cycle from 1973-1987 when it beat its peers by 1000 basis points/year, the fund hasn’t even managed consistent mediocrity since.

Morningstar doesn’t share my reservations and SEQUX retains a “Gold” analyst rating from the firm. Their equity analyst also doesn’t share my concerns about Valeant, which they rate (on 3/1/16) as a five-star stock whose shares are selling at about one-third of their fair value. Senior equity analyst Michael Waterhouse doesn’t “anticipate any major shift in our long-term thinking for the company.”

Briefly Noted . . .

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Chou has voluntarily decided to waive its entire advisory fee on the Chou Opportunity Fund (CHOEX) beginning on January 1, 2016. In addition, on February 18, 2016 Chou made a voluntary capital contribution to the Opportunity Fund in the amount of $918,468, which approximates the advisory fees retained by Chou with respect the Opportunity Fund last year. Why, you ask? The advisor describes it as “a gesture of goodwill … in recognition of the fund’s underperformance” in 2015. That’s an oblique reference to having lost 22% in 2015 and another 20% in the first two months of 2016.

The advisor to the Great Lakes Bond Fund has closed the fund’s Investor Class (GLBDX) and converted the former Investor accounts into Institutional Class (GLBNX) ones. They then lowered the minimum on the Institutional shares by 99%, from $100,000 to $1,000. Net, potential retail investors save 25 bps.

Hotchkis & Wiley Mid-Cap Value Fund (HWMAX) has reopened to new investors.

RS Partners Fund (RSPFX) reopened to new investors on March 1, 2016. None of the fund’s independent trustees have chosen to partner with you by investing in the fund. The managers’ investment in the fund ranges between “modest” and “none.”

Walthausen Small Cap Value Fund (WSCVX) reopened to new investors on March 1, 2016.

Wasatch Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund (WAEMX) has reopened to new investors. Thanks for the heads up, Openice!

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Nope, turns out “turning away money” wasn’t a popular move in February. We found no funds closing their doors.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Armor Alternative Income Fund (AAIFX) has become Crow Point Alternative Income Fund. 

Diamond Hill Strategic Income Fund (DSIAX) has been renamed the Diamond Hill Corporate Credit Fund to better reflect what it’s up to.

Forward no more. On May 1, 2016, the name “Forward” disappears from the world of mutual funds. In general, all of the former Forward Funds will be renamed as Salient Funds, which no change other than substituting “Salient” for “Forward” in the name. There are a few exceptions,

TIAA-CREF has boldly rebranded itself as TIAA.

Straightforward. Yep. 74%. Unless you’re buying the retail share class in which case it’s nine of 33 funds excluding money markets, or 27%. 32.5% of all funds receive either four- or five-stars from Morningstar.

And about that “uncomplicated” thing? Count the number of clicks it takes you to get to any particular fund. It took me two cups of coffee before I finally got to the one I wanted.

As of May 9, 2016, Transparent Value becomes … well, insert your own snark here. In any case, the Transparent Value Funds become Guggenheim Funds.

On March 1, 2016, The Wall Street Fund (WALLX) became Evercore Equity Fund (EWMCX). The word “Equity” in the name also triggered a new promise in the prospectus that the fund, which already invests in equities, promises to invest in equities.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

On whole, fund companies would be well-advised to extract their heads from their behinds. If you’re not willing to stick with a new fund for, say, a whole market cycle, then don’t launch the damned thing. The hypocrisy of declaring that you’re “long-term investors” and that you want to be “partners” with your investors, then closing a fund after 12-24 months, is toxic. It conveys some combination of the following three messages: (1) we’re panicked. (2) We have no ability to plan. (3) Pretty much everything we said when we launched the fund was cynical B.S. crafted by marketers who were, themselves, probably disgusted with us.

Which of those messages do you really want to be associated with?

Okay, back to the ranks of the walking dead and the dead dead after a short word of thanks to The Shadow, one of the stalwarts of our discussion board whose daily updates on the comings and goings is enormously helpful in keeping this list current.

Let’s go to Plan B: Under Plan A, Arden Alternative Strategies Fund (ARDNX) was slated to become Aberdeen Multi-Manager Alternative Strategies Fund (no ticker) on March 31, 2016. That made perfect sense since Aberdeen acquired Arden. Plan A survived for about a week when someone likely noticed that the fund wasn’t actually very good, was shrinking in size and required an annual expense subsidy from the adviser, whereupon Plan B emerged: kill it. Same date.

BPV Core Diversification Fund (BPADX) has closed and will be terminated on March 11, 2016. It’s a tiny, conservative fund that’s still managed to lose money over the past three years and trail 90% of its peers.

On February 17, 2016, the CGM Advisor Targeted Equity Fund (NEFGX, reflecting its birth name: New England Growth Fund) was liquidated. Financial Advisor magazine managed to wax nostalgic over the loss of a “venerable” and “once-vaunted” fund. Two quick notes about this: (1) the fund hasn’t earned its keep over the past 20 years. Its closing NAV was below its NAV in 1994. The 20 year performance chart is the very image of what to avoid in your investments:

And (2) you can still access the manager’s skills, if you’d like. Natixis, the fund’s sponsor, no longer has an ownership stake in CGM and so they had no interest in continuing to sponsor a fund. Mr. Heebner continues to run three other CGM funds. Their website would also win the award for the industry’s least useful.

Collins Alternative Solutions Fund (CLLAX) liquidated on February 26, 2016. The fund had about $19 million in assets and dropped 19% in its final year of operation.

Crystal Strategy Absolute Income Fund (CSTFX), Crystal Strategy Absolute Return Fund (CSRAX) and Crystal Strategy Absolute Return Plus Fund (CSLFX) will, based on the recommendation of Brinker Capital, LLC, the investment adviser, be liquidated on March 18, 2016. The funds are just past their second anniversary. Between them they have $16 million in assets and a sorrowful performance record.

Dreyfus Strategic Beta U.S. Equity Fund (DOUAX) will liquidate in mid-April.

The Fortress has fallen! Fortress Long/Short Credit Fund (LPLAX) liquidated on February 12, 2016, about three years too late. The fund lost about 25% over its lifetime. It peaked in December 2012 and its chart since then looks, for all the world, like a child’s drawing of steps leading down to the basement.

Frost International Equity Fund (FANTX) will liquidate on March 31, 2016. The announcement helpfully notes that they’ll refer to that as “the liquidation date.” I think I went on one of those in college.

Gottex Endowment Strategy Fund (GTEAX) is liquidating after about 20 months of operation. In that time it lost about 12% for its few investors.

Guidestone Real Assets Fund (GRAZX) will liquidate on April 29, 2016. It’s a tiny fund-of-funds that’s designed to protect you from inflation by investing in things that are cratering. That’s not intentional, of course, but sectors that would be durable if inflation arose – energy, natural resources, real estate – have been disasters.

The $3 million JPMorgan Asia Pacific Fund (JAPFX) will liquidate on April 6, 2016.

Investors in the Lazard Master Alternatives Portfolio (LALOX) need to find an alternative since the fund was liquidated on March 1, 2016. The fund was 14 months old.

MassMutual Barings Dynamic Allocation Fund (MLBAX) will be dissolved on July 8, 2016. It isn’t an awful tactical allocation fund but it’s tiny and misallocated in the last year, costing its investors 11.5%.

Merk Asian Currency Fund (MEAFX) liquidated on February 29, 2016. From inception in 2008 until liquidation, the fund was above water once, briefly, in 2011.

Meyers Capital Aggressive Growth Fund (MAGFX) liquidated on February 29, 2016, on about three weeks’ notice. Since the manager owns 87% of the funds’ shares, he might have seen it coming. The oddest development is the collapse of the fund’s asset base: in May, Mr. Meyers owned over $1,000,000 in fund shares. By February 2016,the fund only had $130,000 in assets.

Oberweis Asia Opportunities Fund (OBAOX) will be merged into Oberweis China Opportunities Fund (OBCHX) on or about April 29, 2016.

Philadelphia Investment Partners New Generation Fund (PIPGX), having lost 35% in the past 12 months, is now going to lose its head. The execution is March 30, 2016.

After the advisor concluded that Satuit Capital U.S. SMID Cap Fund (SATDX) was not economically viable, they decided “to close the Fund, wind up its affairs, liquidate its portfolio.” I’ve never seen “wind up its affairs,” which the announcement uses twice, in a fund liquidation filling before. Huh. The fund is not yet two years old and had attracted only a couple million, despite a really strong record. The deed is done on April 30, 2016.

Having concluded that the Smith Group Small Cap Focused Growth Fund (SGSVX) has “limited prospects for meaningful growth,” its board authorized liquidation of the fund on March 31, 2016. One can’t fault the managers for a lack of commitment: internal ownership accounted for about two-thirds of the fund’s $600,000 in assets.

Strategic Latin America Fund (SLATX) liquidated in late February, 2016. 

Touchstone Global Real Estate Fund (TGAAX) will liquidate on March 30, 2016. The board attributes the decision to “the Fund’s small size and limited growth potential.” An interim manager, apparently someone who specializes in “safeguard[ing] shareholder interests during the liquidation period,” has been appointed. It’s the sad case of a good fund not finding its audience: top 25% returns over the past five years and even better returns recently, but still only $17 million in assets.

Sometime in mid-summer Victory CEMP Multi-Asset Balanced Fund (CTMAX) will be absorbed by Victory Strategic Allocation Fund (SBALX). As is so often the case, CTMAX is larger and weaker so they’ll bury its record while tripling SBALX’s assets.

On February 5, 2016, Virtus Dynamic Trend Fund merged into Virtus Equity Trend Fund (VAPAX). I’m slightly startled to report that, despite trailing 98—99% of its peers over the intermediate term, VAPAX retains $1.5 billion in assets.

Wanger International Select (WAFFX) will liquidate at the end of March. It appears to be available only through insurance products.

WHV/EAM Emerging Markets Small Cap Equity Fund (WVEAX) and WHV/EAM International Small Cap Equity Fund (WHSAX), rather less than two years old, will liquidate on or about March 31, 2016. Both funds had very strong performance. WHV/Seizert Small Cap Value Equity Fund (WVSAX), a bit more than two years old, will liquidate a month later.

In Closing . . .

Thanks, as always, to folks who’ve supported the Observer in thought, word or deed. Welcome, especially, to Nick Burnett, long-time friend, grad school roommate and mastermind behind the CapRadioCurriculum which helps teachers connect public radio content with classroom lessons. There’s a cool one on multilingual public relations that I rather liked. Thanks, as ever to the ongoing generosity of the folks at Gardey Financial and our first subscribers, Deb and Greg. Thanks to Gary, who didn’t particularly want premium access but did want to help out. Mission accomplished, big guy! Too, to MaryRose, we’re trying to help. Welcome to Abdon Bolivar, working hard to get people to understand the role that plan administrators play in creating and sustaining bad options for investors. By coincidence, Tony Isola and the folks are Ritholtz Wealth Management are pursuing a parallel track trying to educate educators about what to do if they’re getting screwed by the 403(b). And, in a horrifying number of cases, they are.

And so, thanks to you all, not just for your support of the Observer but for all the good work you’re doing for a lot of people.

We’re waiting to talk with the folks at Otter Creek Partners, a hedge fund firm with a small long/short fund that’s performed splendidly. That conversation will let us finish up our profile of Otter Creek Long/Short Opportunity (OTCRX) and share it with you. We’ll add a look at Intrepid Endurance (ICMAX) in conjunction with my own portfolio review. We’ll look for the launch of Seafarer Overseas Value, likely around the 75^th day of 2016. We’ll look for you.

Dear friends,

It’s the BOJ’s fault. Or the price of oil’s. Perhaps the Fed. Probably China. Possibly Putin. Likely ISIL (or Assad). Alternately small investors. (ETF.com assures us it’s definitely not the effect of rapid, block-trading of ETFs on the market, though.) It’s all an overreaction or, occasionally, a lagging one. Could be fears of recession or even fears of fears.

We don’t like randomness. That’s why conspiracy theories are so persistent: they offer simple, satisfying explanations for otherwise inexplicable occurrences. We want explanations and, frankly, the financial media are addicted to offering them. The list in that opening paragraph captures just some of the explanations offered by talking heads to explain January’s turbulence. Those same sages have offered prognostications for the year ahead, ranging from a “cataclysmic” 40% decline and advice to “sell everything” to 7-11% gains, the latter from folks who typically foresee 7-11% gains.

As I drove to campus the other day, watching a huge flock of birds take wing and wheel and listening to financial analysis, it occurred to me that these guys had about as much prospect of understanding the market as they do of understanding the birds’ ballet.

Open confession is good for the soul.

I have two confessions.

First, I can’t find the source of the quotation that serves as the title of this essay. I keep hitting a wall as “Scottish proverb,” with no further discussion. All too often that translates to “some hack at The Reader’s Digest in 1934 made it up and added ‘Scottish proverb’ to dignify the insight.”

Second, until I began this essay, I had only the vaguest idea of how my portfolio had done in 2015. I preach a single doctrine: make a good plan, execute the plan, get on with your life.

Make a good plan: My retirement portfolio is largely hostage to Augustana College. As part of a Retirement Plan Redesign task force a few years ago, we discovered that the college’s plan was too complicated (it offered over 800 funds) and too lax (under 30% of our employees contributed anything beyond the college’s 10% contribution).  The research was clear and we followed it: we dramatically reduced the fund of investment choices so that in each asset class folks had one active fund and one passive fund, installed a lifecycle fund as the default option, the college went from a flat contribution to a modestly more generous one based on a matching system, we auto-enrolled everyone in a payroll deduction which started at 4%, and automatically escalated their contributions annually until they reached 10%. It was, of course, possible to opt out but we counted on the same laziness that kept folks from opting in to keep them from opting out.

We were right. Ninety-some percent of employees now contribute to their own retirements, the amount of money sitting in money markets for years is dramatically reduced, the savings rate is at a record and more accounts seem to contain a mix of assets.

Yay for everyone but me! In pursuit of the common good, I helped strip out my own access to the Fidelity and T. Rowe Price funds that were central to my plan. Those funds are now in a “can’t add more” account and continue to do quite well. Both growth funds (Fidelity Growth Discovery, T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth) and international small caps (Fidelity Japan Smaller Companies, T. Rowe Price International Discovery) were thriving, while my substantial emerging markets exposure and a small inflation hedge hurt. In these later years of my career at the college, the vast bulk of my retirement contributions are going into a combination of the CREF Stock Account (60% of my portfolio, down 0.9% in 2015, up 10.5% annually over the past three years), TIAA Real Estate Account (25% of my portfolio, up 8% in 2015, up 10% annually over the past three years) and a TIAA-CREF Retirement Income fund (15% of the portfolio, flat in 2015, up 4.5% over three years) for broad-based fixed income exposure.

My non-retirement account starts with a simple asset allocation:

• 50% growth / 50% income
• Within growth, 50% domestic equities, 50% foreign
• Within domestic, 50% smaller companies, 50% larger
• Within foreign, 50% developed, 50% emerging
• Within income, 50% conservative, 50% venturesome.

I know that I could optimize the allocation by adjusting the exact levels of exposure to each class, but I don’t need the extra complexity in my life. In most of my funds, the managers have some wiggle room so that they’re not locked into a single narrow asset class. That makes managing the overall asset allocation a bit trickier, but manageable.

The roster of funds, ranked from my largest to smallest positions:

Execute the plan. So what did I do in 2015? Added Grandeur Peak Global Microcap and set up a monthly auto-invest. I also (finally!) transferred my Seafarer holdings from Scottrade directly to Seafarer where I took advantage of their offer to make lower-cost institutional shares available to retail investors who met the retail minimum and established an auto-investing plan. Otherwise, it was mostly stay the course and invest monthly.

What’s up for 2016? Artisan Small Cap Value is on the chopping block. Assets in the fund are down nearly 90% from peak, reflecting year after wretched year of underperformance. This is one of my oldest holdings, I’ve owned it since the late 1990s and have substantial embedded capital gains. Three issues are pushing me toward the door:

1. The managers seem to have fallen into a value trap. Their discipline is explicitly designed to avoid “value traps,” but their dogged commitments to energy and industrials seem to have ensnared them.
2. They don’t seem to be able to get out. Perhaps I’m jaundiced, but their shareholder communications haven’t been inspiring. The theme is “we’re not going to change our discipline just because it’s not working right now.” My fear is that “disciplined” transitions too easily into “bunkered down.” I experienced something similar with Ron Muhlenkamp of Muhlenkamp Fund (MUHLX), which was brilliant for 15 years then rigidly rotten for a decade. Mr. Muhlenkamp’s mantra was “we’re not sacrificing our long-term discipline for short-term gains” which sounded grand and worked poorly. I know of few instances where once-great funds rebound from several consecutive years in the basement. The question was examined closely by Leigh Walzer of Trapezoid in his December 2015 essay, When Good Managers Go Bad.
3. Lead manager Scott Satterwhite is retiring in October. The transition has been underway for a long while now but (a) it’s still epochal and (b) performance during the transition has not been noticeable better.

I may surrender to Ed’s desire to have me simplify my portfolio. (Does he simplify his? No, not so far as I can tell.) That might mean moving the MACSX money into Seafarer. Maybe closing out a couple smaller holdings because they’re not financially consequential. My asset allocation is a bit overweight in international stocks right now, so I’m probably going to move some into domestic smaller caps. (Yes, I know. I’ve read the asset class projections but my time horizon is still longer than five to seven years.) And making some progress in debt reduction (I took out a home equity loan to handle some fairly-pressing repairs) would be prudent.

Get on with life. I’m planning on resuming my War on Lawns this spring. I’m having a Davenport firm design a rain garden, an area designed to slow the rush of water off my property during storms, for me and I’ll spend some weeks installing it. I’ll add a bunch of native plants, mostly pollinator-friendly, to another corner once overrun by lawn. Together, I think they’ll make my space a bit more sustainable. Baseball season (which my son interprets as “I need expensive new stuff” season) impends. I really need to focus on strengthening MFO’s infrastructure, now that more people are depending on it. And my academic department continues to ask, “how can we change our teaching to help raise diverse, first-generation college students to that same level of achievement that we’ve traditionally expected?” That’s exhausting but exciting because I think, done right, we can make a huge difference in the lives of lots of bright kids who’ve been poorly served in some of their high schools. As a kid whose parents never had the opportunity to finish high school (World War Two interrupted their teen years), my faith in the transformative power of teaching remains undimmed.

It’ll be a good year.

Emerging markets: About as cheap as it gets

In the course of our conversation about Leuthold Core Investment (LCORX), Doug Ramsay shared the observation that emerging markets stocks are painfully cheap. Leuthold’s chart, below, shows the price/earnings ratio based on five-year normalized earnings for E.M. stocks from 2004 to now. Valuations briefly touched a p/e of 31 in 2007 then fell to 8 within a year. As we end January 2016, prices for E.M. stocks hover within a point of their market-crisis lows.

And still Leuthold’s not investing in them. Their E.M. exposure in Core and Global (GLBLX) are both near all-time lows because their analytics don’t (yet) show signs of a turnaround. Still, Mr. Ramsay notes, “they look impossibly cheap.”

Investing in five-star funds? It’s not as daft as you’d think

We asked the good folks at Morningstar if they’d generate a list of all five-star funds from ten years ago, then update their star ratings from five years ago and today. I’d first seen this data several years ago when it had been requested by a Wall Street Journal reporter and shared with us. The common interpretation is “it’s not worth it, since five-star funds aren’t likely to remain five-star funds.”

I’ve always thought that was the wrong concern. Really, I’m less concerned about whether my brilliant manager remains absolutely brilliant than whether he turns wretched. Frankly, if my funds kept bouncing between “reasonable,” “pretty good” and “really good,” I’d be thrilled. That is, if they stay in the three- to five-star range over time, that’s perfectly respectable.

Chip took the data and converted it into a pivot table. (Up until then, I thought “pivot table” was just another name for a “lazy Susan.” Turns out it’s actually a data visualization tool. Who knew?)

Here’s how to read it. There were 354 five-star funds in 2005. Of those, only 16 fell to one-star by 2010. You can see that in the top-center box. Of those 16 one-star funds, none rebounded to five stars by 2015 and only two made it back to four stars. On the upside, 187 of the original 354 remained four- or five-star funds across the whole time period and 245 of 354 never dropped below three stars.

We clearly need to do some refinement of the data to see whether a few categories are highly resilient (for example, single-state muni bond funds might never change their star ratings) and, thus, skewing the results. On whole, though, it seems clear that “first to worst” is a pretty low probability outcome and “first to kinda regrettable” isn’t hugely more likely.

The original spreadsheet is in the Commentary section at MFO Premium, for what interest that holds.

This Time It Really Is Different!

“Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy.”

 Kafka

So, time now for something of a follow-up to my suggestion of a year ago that a family unit should own no more than ten mutual funds. As some will recall, I was instructed by “She Who Must Be Obeyed” to follow my own advice and get our own number of fund investments down from the more than twenty-five where it had been. We are now down to sixteen, which includes money market funds. My first observation would be that this is not as easy to do as I thought it would be, especially when you are starting from something of an ark approach (one of these, two of those). It is far easier to do when you start to build your portfolio from scratch, when you can be ruthless about diversification. That is, you don’t really need two large cap growth or four value funds. You may only add a new fund if you get rid of an old fund. You are quite specific about setting out the reasons for investing in a fund, and you are equally disciplined about getting rid of it when the reasons for owning it change, e.g. asset bloat, change in managers, style drift, no fund managers who are in Boston, etc., etc.

Which brings me to a point that I think will be controversial – for most families, mutual fund ownership should be concentrated in tax-exempt (retirement accounts) if taxes matter. And mutual fund ownership in retirement accounts should emphasize passive investments to maximize the effects of lower fees on compounding. It also lessens the likelihood of an active manager shooting himself or herself in the foot by selling the wrong thing at the wrong time because of a need to meet redemptions, or dare I suggest it, panic or depression overwhelm the manager’s common sense in maintaining an investment position (which often hits short seller specialists more than long only investors, but that is another story for another day).

The reasons for this will become clearer as holdings come out for 12/31 and 3/31, as well as asset levels (which will let you know what redemptions are – the rumor is that they are large). It will also become pretty clear as you look at your tax forms from your taxable fund accounts and are wondering where the money will come from to pay the capital gains that were triggered by the manager’s need to raise funds (actually they probably didn’t need to sell to meet redemptions as they all have bank lines of credit in place to cover those periods when redemptions exceed cash on hand, but …..).

The other thing to keep in mind about index funds that are widely diversified (a total market fund for instance) – yes, it will lag on the upside against a concentrated fund that does well. But it will also do better on the downside than a concentrated fund that does not do well. Look at it this way – a fifty stock portfolio that has a number of three and four per cent positions, especially in the energy or energy services sector this past year, that has seen those decline by 50% or more, has a lot of ground to make up. A total stock market portfolio that has a thousand or more positions – one or two or twenty or thirty bad stocks, do not cripple it. And in retirement accounts, it is the compounding effect that you want. The other issue of course is that the index funds will stay fully invested in the indices, rather than be caught out underinvested because they were trying to balance out exiting positions with adding positions with meeting redemptions. The one exception here would be for funds where the inefficiencies of an asset class can lead to a positive sustainable alpha by a good active manager – look for that manager as one to invest with in either taxable or tax-exempt accounts.

China, China, China, All the Time

In both the financial print press and the financial media on television and cable, much of the “blame” for market volatility is attributed to nervousness about the Chinese economy, the Chinese stock market, in fact everything to do with China. There generally appear to be two sorts of stories about China these days. One recurring theme is that they are novices at capital markets, currencies, as well as dealing with volatility and transparency in their markets, and that this has exacerbated trends in the swings in the Shanghai market, which has spread to other emerging markets. Another element of this particular them is that China’s economy is slowing and was not transparent to begin with, and that lack of growth will flow through and send the rest of the world into recession. Now, mind you, we are talking about economic growth that by most accounts, has slowed from high single digits recently (above 7%) to what will be a range going forward of low to still mid-single digits (4 – 7%).

I think a couple of comments are in order about this first theme. One, the Shanghai market has very much been intended as a punter’s market, where not necessarily the best companies are listed (somewhat like Vancouver in Canada twenty-odd years ago). The best companies in China are listed on the Hong Kong market – always have been, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. The second thing to be said is that if you think things happen in China by accident or because they have lost control, you don’t understand very much about China and its thousands of years of history. Let’s be realistic here – the currency is controlled, interest rates are controlled, the companies are controlled, the economy is controlled – so while there may be random events and undercurrents going on, they are probably not the ones we are seeing or are worried about.

This brings me to the second different theme you hear about China these days, which is that China and the Chinese economy have carried the global economy for the last several years, and that even last year, their contribution to the world economy was quite substantial. I realize this runs counter to stories that you hear emanating from Washington, DC these days, but much that you hear emanating from Washington now is quite surreal. But let’s look at a few things. China still has $3 trillion dollars of foreign exchange reserves. China does not look to be a debtor nation. China has really not a lot of places left to spend money domestically since they have a modern transportation infrastructure and, they have built lots of ghost cities that could be occupied by a still growing population. And while China has goods that are manufactured that they would like to export, the rest of the world is not in a buying mood. A rumor which I keep hearing, is that they have more than 30,000 metric tons of gold reserves with which to back their currency, should they so choose (by comparison, the US as of October 2014 was thought to have about 4,200 metric tons in Fort Knox).

For those familiar with magic shows and sleight of hand tricks, I think this is what we are seeing now. Those who watch the cable financial news shows come away with the impression that the world is ending in the Chinese equity markets, and that will cause the rest of the world to end as well. So while you are watching that, let’s see what you are missing. We have a currency that has become a second reserve currency to the world, supplanting the exclusive role of the U.S. dollar as countries that are commodity economies now price their commodities and do trade deals in Chinese currency. And, notwithstanding that, the prices of commodities have fallen considerably, we continue to see acquisition and investment in the securing of commodities (at fire sale prices) by China. And finally, we have a major expansion by China in Africa, where it is securing arable land to provide another bread basket for itself for the future, as well as an area to send parts of it population.

And let me suggest in passing that the one place China could elect to spend massively in their domestic economy is to build up their defense establishment far beyond what they have done to date. After all, President Reagan launched a massive arms build-up by the US during his terms in office, which in effect bankrupted the Soviets as they tried to keep up. One wonders whether we would or could try to keep up should China elect to do the same to us at this point.

So, dear readers, I will leave it to you to figure out which theme you prefer, although I suspect it depends on your time horizon. But let me emphasize again – looking at the equity markets in China means looking at the wrong things. By the end of this year, we should have a better sense of whether the industrial economy is China has undergone a rather strong recovery, driven by the wealth of a growing middle class (which is really quite entrepreneurial, and which to put it into context, should be approaching by the end of this year, 400M in size). And it will really also become clear that much of the capital that has been rumored to be “fleeing” China has to be split out to account for that which is investment in other parts of the world. Paying attention to those investment outflows will give you some insight as to why China still thinks of and refers to itself as, “The Middle Kingdom.”

— by Edward A. Studzinski

Looking for Bartolo Colon

by Leigh Walzer

Bartolo Colon is a baseball pitcher; he is the second oldest active major leaguer.  Ten years ago he won the coveted Cy Young award. Probably no investment firm has asked Colon for an endorsement but maybe they should. More on this shortly.

FROM THE MAILBAG:

A reader in Detroit who registered but has not yet logged into www.Fundattribution.com  writes: “We find little use for back tested or algorithmic results [and prefer an] index-based philosophy for clients.” 

Index funds offer a great approach for anyone who lacks the time or inclination to do their homework. We expect they will continue to gain share and pressure the fees of active managers.

Trapezoid does not advocate algorithmic strategies, as the term is commonly used. Nor do we oppose them. Rather, we rigorously test portfolio managers for skill. Our “null hypothesis” is that a low-cost passive strategy is best. We look for managers which demonstrate their worth, based on skill demonstrated over a sufficient period of time. Specifically, Honor Roll fund classes must have a 60% chance of justifying their expenses. Less than 10% of the fund universe satisfies this test.  Trapezoid does rate some quantitative funds, and we wrote in the November edition of Mutual Fund Observer about some of the challenges of evaluating them.

We do rely on quantitative methods, including back testing, to validate our tests and hone our understanding of how historic skill translates into future success.

VULCAN MIND MELD

A wealth manager (and demo client) from Denver asks our view of his favorite funds, Vulcan Value Partners (VVPLX). Vulcan was incepted December 2009.Prior to founding Vulcan, the manager, C.T. Fitzpatrick, worked for many years at Southeastern under famed value investor O. Mason Hawkins.  Currently it is closed to new investors.

VVPLX has performed very well in its 6 years of history. By our measure, investors accumulated an extra 20% compared to index funds based on the managers’ stock selection skill alone. We mentioned it favorably in the October edition of MFO.

Vulcan’s expense structure is 1.08%, roughly 90bps higher than an investor would require to hold a comparable ETF. Think of that as the expense premium to hire an active manager. Based on data through October, we assigned VVPLX a 55% probability of justifying its active expense premium. (This is down from 68% based on our prior evaluation using data through July 2015 and places them outside the Honor Roll.)

The wealth manager questioned why we classify VVPLX as large blend?  Vulcan describes itself as a value manager and the portfolio is heavily weighted toward financial services.

VVPLX is classified as large blend because, over its history, it has behaved slightly more like the large blend aggregate than large value. We base this on comparisons to indices and active funds. One of our upcoming features identifies the peer funds, both active and passive, which most closely resemble a given fund. For a majority of our funds, we supplement this approach by looking at historic holdings. We currently consider factors like the distribution of forward P/E ratios over time. Our categorization and taxonomy do not always conform to services like Morningstar and Lipper, but we do consider them as a starting point, along with the manager’s stated objective.  We frequently change classifications and welcome all input. While categories may be useful in screening for managers, we emphasize that the classifications have no impact on skill ratings, since we rely 100% on objective criteria such as passive indices.

The client noted we identified a few managers following similar strategies to VVPLX who were assigned higher probabilities. How is this possible considering VVPLX trounced them over its six-year history?

Broadly speaking, there are three reasons:

• Some of the active managers who beat out VVPLX had slightly lower expenses.
• While VVPLX did very well since 2010, some other funds have proven themselves over much longer periods. We have more data to satisfy ourselves (and our algorithms) that the manager was skillful and not just lucky. 
• VVPLX’s stock selection skill was not entirely consistent which also hurts its case. From April to October, the fund recorded negative skill of approximately 4%. This perhaps explain why management felt compelled to close the fund 4/22/15.

Exhibit I

1. Annualized contribution from stock selection or sector rotation over manager tenure
2. Expenses increased recently by 10bps as BPAIX’s board curtailed the fee waiver
3. Closed to new investors

Exhibit II: Boston Partners All-Cap Value Fund

Exhibit I compares VVPLX to Boston Partners All-Cap Value Fund. BPAIX is on the cusp of value and blend, much like VVPLX. Our model sees a 56.1% chance that the fund’s skill over the next 12 months will justify its expense structure. According to John Forelli, Senior Portfolio Analyst, the managers screen from a broader universe using their own value metrics. They combine this with in-depth fundamental analysis. As a result, they are overweight sectors like international, financials, and pharma relative to the Russell 3000 (their avowed benchmark.) Boston Partners separately manages approximately $10 billion of institutional accounts which closely tracks BPAIX.

Any reader with the www.fundattribution.com demo can pull up the Fund Analysis for VVPLX.  The chart for BPAIX is not available on the demo (because it is categorized in Large Value) so we present it in Exhibit II.  Exhibit III presents a more traditional attribution against the Russell 3000 Value Fund. Both exhibits suggest Boston Partners are great stock pickers. However, we attribute much less skill to Allocation because our “Baseline Return” construes they are not a dyed-in-the-wool value fund.

VVPLX has shown even more skill over the manager’s tenure than BPAIX and is expected to have more skill next year^[1]. But even if VVPLX were open, we would prefer BPAIX due to a combination of cost and longer history. (BPAIX investors should keep an eye on expenses: the trustees recently reduced the fee waiver by 10bps and may move further next year.)

Trapezoid has identified funds which are more attractive than either of these funds. The Trapezoid Honor Roll consists of funds with at least 60% confidence. The methodology behind these findings is summarized at here.

^[1] 12 months ending November 2016.

VETERAN BENEFITS

Our review of VVPLX raises a broader question. Investors often have to choose between a fund which posted stellar returns for a short period against another whose performance was merely above average over a longer period.

For those of you who watched the World Series a few months ago, the NY Mets had a number of very young pitchers with fastballs close to 100 miles per hour.  They also had some veteran pitchers like John Niese and the 42-year-old ageless wonder Bartolo Colon who couldn’t muster the same heat but had established their skill and consistency over a long period of time. We don’t know whether Bartolo Colon drank from the fountain of youth; he served a lengthy suspension a few years ago for using a banned substance. But his statistics in his 40s are on par with his prime ten year ago.  

Unfortunately, for every Bartolo Colon, there is a Dontrelle Willis. Willis was 2003 NL Rookie of the year for the Florida Marlins and helped his team to a World Series victory. He was less effective his second year but by his third year was runner up for the Cy Young award. The “D-Train” spent 6 more years in the major leagues; although his career was relatively free of injuries, he never performed at the same level.

Extrapolating from a few years of success can be challenging. If consistency is so important to investors, does it follow that a baseball team should choose the consistent veterans over the promising but less-tested young arms?

Sometimes there is a tradeoff between expected outcome (∆) and certitude (±).  The crafty veteran capable of keeping your team in the game for five innings may not be best choice in the seventh game of the World Series; but he might be the judicious choice for a general manager trying to stretch his personnel budget. The same is true for investment managers. Vulcan may have the more skillful management team. But considering its longevity, consistency, and expense Boston Partners is the surer bet.

HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH

How long a track record is needed before an investor can bet confident in a portfolio manager? This is not an easy question to answer.

In the December edition of MFO (When_Good_Managers_Go_Bad) we profiled the Clearbridge Aggressive Growth fund which rode one thesis successfully for 20 years. Six years of data might tell us less about them than a very active fund.   

Here is one stab at answering the question.  We reviewed the database to see what percentage of fund made the Trapezoid Honor Roll as a function of manager tenure. 

Recall the Trapezoid Honor Roll consists of fund classes for which we have 60% confidence that future skill will justify expense structure.  In Exhibit IV the Honor Roll fund classes are shown in blue while the funds we want no part of are in yellow.  16% of those fund classes where the manager has been on the job for twenty-five years make the Honor Roll compared with just 2% for those on the job less than three years.  The relationship is not a smooth line, but generally managers with more longevity give us more data points allowing us to be more confident of their skill.. or more likely persuade us they lack sufficient skill. 

There is an element of “survivorship” bias in this analysis. Every year 6% of funds disappear; generally, they are the smallest or worst performers. “All-stars” managers are more likely to survive for 20 years. But surprisingly a lot of “bad” managers survive for a long time. The percentage of yellow funds increases just as quickly as the blue.

It seems reasonable to ask why so many “bad” managers survive in a Darwinian business. We surveyed the top 10. (Exhibit V) We find that in the aggregate they have a modicum of skill, but nowhere sufficient to justify what they charge.  We can say with high confidence all these investors would be better off in index funds or (ideally) the active managers on the Trapezoid honor roll.

We haven’t distinguished between a new manager who takes over an old fund and a brand new fund. Should investors abandon all their confidence when a good manager retires and passes the baton? Should investors give the fund a mulligan when a poor performer is replaced?  Probably not.  From a review of 840 manager changes with sufficient data (Exhibit VI), strong performers tend to remain strong which suggests we may gain confidence by considering the track record of the previous manager.

The “rookie confidence” problem is a challenge for investors. The average manager tenure is about six years and only a quarter of portfolio managers have been on the job longer than 10 years. It is also a challenge for asset managers marketing a new fund or a new manager of an existing fund.  Without a long track record, it is hard to tell if a fund is good – investors have every incentive to stick with the cheaper index fund.  Asset managers incubate funds to give investors a track record but studies suggest investors shouldn’t take much comfort from incubated track records. (Richard Evans, CFA Digest, 2010.) We see many sponsors aggressively waiving fees for their younger funds.  Investors will take comfort when the individuals have a prior track record at another successful fund.  C.T. Fitzpatrick’s seventeen years’ experience under Mason Hawkins seems to have carried over to Vulcan.

BOTTOM LINE:  It is hard to gain complete trust that any active fund is better than an index fund. It is harder when a new captain takes the helm, and harder yet for a brand new fund. The fund with the best five-year record is not necessarily the best choice. Veteran managers are over represented in the Trapezoid Honor Roll — for good reason.

Unlike investing, baseball will always have rookies taking jobs from the veterans. But in 2016 we can still root for Bartolo Colon.

Why are investors so bad at picking alternatives?

By Sam Lee, principal of Severian Asset Management and former editor of Morningstar ETF Investor.

Gateway (GATEX) is the $8 billion behemoth of the long-short equity mutual fund category, and one of the biggest alternative mutual funds. I’ve long marveled at this fund’s size given its demonstrable lack of merit as a portfolio diversifier. Over the past 10 years the fund has behaved like an overpriced, underperforming 40% stock, 60% cash portfolio. Its R-squared over this period to the U.S. stock market index is 0.85.

Not only is its past performance damning, but little in the substance of the strategy suggests performance will radically change. Gateway owns a basket of stocks designed to track the S&P 500, with a slight dividend tilt. On this portfolio the managers sell calls on the S&P 500, capping the potential upside of the fund in exchange for a premium up front, and simultaneously buy puts, capping the potential downside of the fund at the cost of a premium up front. By implementing this “collar” strategy, the managers protect the portfolio from extreme ups and downs.

There is another way to soften volatility: Own less equities and more cash—which is pretty much what this fund achieves in a roundabout manner.

Portfolio theory says that an investment is only attractive to the extent that it improves the risk-adjusted return of a portfolio. That means three things matter for each asset: expected return, expected volatility, and expected correlation with other assets in the portfolio. The first two are intuitive, but many investors neglect the correlation piece. A low return, high volatility asset can be an excellent investment if it has a low enough correlation with the rest of the portfolio.

Consider an asset that’s expected to return 0% with stock-like volatility and a perfectly negative correlation to the stock market (meaning it moves in the opposite direction of the market without fail). Many investors, looking at the asset’s standalone returns and volatility, would be turned off. Someone fluent in portfolio theory would salivate. Assume the expected excess return of the stock market is 5%. If you own the stock market and the negatively correlated asset in equal measure, the portfolio’s expected excess return halves to 2.5% and its expected volatility drops to 0%. Apply some leverage to double the portfolio’s return and you end up with a 5% expected excess return with no volatility.

In practice, many investors do not assess assets from the portfolio perspective. They fixate on standalone return and volatility. Much of the time this is a harmless simplification. But it can go wrong when assessing alternatives, such as with Gateway. Judged by its Sharpe ratio and other risk-adjusted measures, Gateway looks like a reasonable investment. Judged by its ability to enhance a portfolio’s risk-adjusted return, it falls flat.

I don’t believe individual investors are responsible for Gateway’s size. If anything, institutional investors (particularly RIAs) are to blame. You would think that supposedly sophisticated investors would not fall into this trap. But they do. A large part of the blame belongs to committee-driven investment processes, which dominate institutional money management. When a committee is responsible for a portfolio, they often hire consultants. These consultants in turn promise to help members of the committee avoid getting fired or sued.

In this context, the consultants like to create model portfolios that have predefined allocations to investment types—X% in large growth, Y% in small-cap value, Z% in long-short equity, and so on—and then find suitable managers within those categories. When picking those managers, they tend to focus on return and volatility as well as performance relative to peers. If not done carefully, a fund like Gateway gets chosen, despite its utter lack of diversifying power.

Smallest, Shortest, Lowest

David invariably cuts to the chase when it comes to assessing mutual funds. It’s a gift he shares with us each month.

So, in evolving the MFO Premium site, he suggested we provide lists of funds satisfying interesting screening criteria to help users get the most from our search tools.

Last month we introduced two such lists: “Best Performing Rookie Funds” and “Dual Great Owl & Honor Roll Funds.”

This month our MultiSearch screener incorporates three more: “Smallest Drawdown Fixed Income Funds,” “Shortest Recovery Time Small Caps,” and “Lowest Ulcer Moderate Allocation Funds.”

Smallest Drawdown Fixed Income Funds generates a list of Fixed Income (e.g., Bond, Muni) funds that have experienced the smallest levels of Maximum Drawdown (MAXDD) in their respective categories. More specifically, they are in the quintile of funds with smallest MAXDD among their peers.

Looking back at performance since the November 2007, which represents the beginning of the current full market cycle, we find 147 such funds. Two top performing core bond funds are TCW Core Fixed-Income (TGCFX) and RidgeWorth Seix Total Return (SAMFX). The screen also uncovered notables like First Pacific Advisors’ FPA New Income (FPNIX) and Dan Ivascyn’s PIMCO Income (PIMIX).

Here are some risk/return metrics for these Fixed Income funds (click on images to enlarge):

TCW Core Fixed-Income (TGCFX) and RidgeWorth Seix Total Return (SAMFX)

First Pacific Advisors’ FPA New Income (FPNIX)

PIMCO Income (PIMIX)

Shortest Recovery Time Small Caps generates a list of Small Cap (Small Core, Small Value, Small Growth) funds that have incurred shortest Recovery Times (number of months a fund retracts from previous peak) in their respective categories.

For Full Cycle 5, this screen produces 62 such funds through December 2015. Among the best performing funds with shortest Recovery Times, under 30 months, only one remains open and/or accessible: Queens Road Small Cap Value (QRSVX). It was profiled by David in April 2015.

Here’s a short list and risk/return numbers for QRSVX across various timeframes:

Queens Road Small Cap Value (QRSVX)

Lowest Ulcer Moderate Allocation Funds generates a list of Mixed Asset Moderate Allocation funds that have incurred the lowest Ulcer Indices in their respective categories. 

Topping the list (fund with lowest UI) is James Balanced: Golden Rainbow (GLRBX), profiled last August :

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and news from DailyAlts.

We can all be thankful that January 2016 is over. I am at a point in my life where I don’t really enjoy rollercoaster rides, of any sort, as much as I did when I was younger. And this past month has been nothing short of a financial rollercoaster. In many ways, however, it shouldn’t have been a surprise that investors decided to take some air out of the balloon.

In a grand experiment, the central banks around the world have been pumping hot air into the global market balloon since November 2008. But the U.S. Fed officially took its foot off the gas pedal and applied a bit of light pressure to the brakes with its scant rate rise in December. And on top of that, China’s slowdown has raised concerns of contagion, and its equity markets have taken the brunt of that concern.

With all of the re-adjustments of market expectations and valuations currently taking place, 2016 may turn out to be quite a good year to be invested in alternatives.

Performance Review

Let’s start with traditional asset classes for the month of January 2015, where the average mutual fund for all of the major equity markets (per Morningstar) delivered negative performance in the month:

• Large Blend U.S. Equity: -6.95%
• Small Blend U.S. Equity: -9.18%
• Foreign Equity Large Blend: -7.32%
• Diversified Emerging Markets: -6.46%
• Intermediate Term Bond: 0.94%
• World Bond: -0.03%
• Moderate Allocation: -4.36%

Now a look at the liquid alternative categories, per Morningstar’s classification. Only Managed Futures and Bear Market funds generated positive returns in January, as one would expect. Long/Short Equity was down more than expected, but with small cap stocks being down just over 9%, it is not a surprise. Multi-alternative funds held up well, as did market neutral funds.

• Long/Short Equity: -4.18%
• Non-Traditional Bonds: -1.15%
• Managed Futures: 2.34%
• Market Neutral: -0.22%
• Multi-Alternative: -1.65%
• Bear Market: 11.92%

And a few non-traditional asset classes, where none escaped January’s downdraft:

• Commodities: -3.01%
• Multi-Currency: -0.49%
• Real Estate: -5.16%
• Master Limited Partnerships: -9.77%

Overall, a mixed bag for January.

Asset Flows

One of the more surprising aspects of 2015 was the concentration of asset flows into multi-alternative funds and managed futures funds. All other categories of funds, except for volatility funds, experienced outflows over the full twelve months of 2015, as documented in the below chart:

And despite the massive outflows from non-traditional bonds, the category remains the largest with more than $135 billion in assets. This compares to commodities at $67 billion and multi-alternative at $56 billion.

Hot Topics

Only six new liquid alternative funds were launched in January – four were long/short equity funds, one was a managed futures fund and the sixth was a non-traditional bond fund. Of the six funds, two were ETFs, and fairly innovative ETFs at that. We wrote about their structure in an article titled, Reality Shares Builds Suite of Dividend-Themed ETFs.

On the research front, we published summaries of two important research papers in January, both of which have been popular with readers:

• Using Active Share to Evaluate High-Yield Bond Portfolios – An interesting look at how to use active share to evaluate fixed income portfolios.
• Using Momentum and Hedge Funds to Build a Better Portfolio – It is often documented how hedge funds can help a traditionally allocated portfolio, but this article takes a look at a research paper that proposes something a bit different.

If you would like to keep up with all the news from DailyAlts, feel free to sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter.

I’ll be back next month, and until then, let’s hope the rollercoaster ride that started in January has come to an end.

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.

Cognios Market Neutral Large Cap (COGMX): this tiny fund does what its category is supposed to do, but never has. It makes good money even when the market stinks.

Leuthold Core Investment (LCORX): We celebrate the 20^th anniversary of Leuthold Core, a singularly disciplined and adaptive fund. Just one more year and it will be old enough to drink! We’re hopeful that the markets don’t give it, or us, reason to.

RiverNorth Opportunities (RIV): This is the closed-end fund for serious investors who know there’s a lot of money to be made in the irrational pricing of closed-end funds, but who don’t have the time or expertise to construct such a portfolio on their own.

Launch Alert: Davenport Balanced Income (DBALX)

Most folks haven’t heard of the Davenport Funds, which is understandable but also too bad. Davenport & Company is an employee-owned investment adviser that’s headquartered in Richmond, VA. They’ve been around since 1863 and now “custodies more than $20 billion in assets.” They manage five no-load funds, all somewhere in the solid-to-excellent range. Their newest fund, Davenport Balanced Income, launched on December 30, 2015.

Three things worth knowing:

1. The equity portion of the portfolio mirrors the holdings of the Davenport Value and Income Fund (DVIPX). All Davenport funds target firms with exceptionally high levels of insider equity ownership. Value & Income, in particular, targets three investment themes: Dividend Aristocrats, High Yielders with Capital Appreciation Potential and deep-value Contrarian/Special Situations.
2. Value and Income has performed exceedingly well. The fund just celebrated its fifth anniversary. Morningstar places it in the top 4% of all large value funds since inception. Perhaps more importantly, it significantly outperformed its peers in 2015 and again in 2016’s choppy first month. Since inception, its returns have been about a third higher than its equity income peers while all measures of its volatility have been lower. Based on the conventional measures of risk-adjusted return (Sharpe, Martin and Sortino ratios or Ulcer Index), it’s a Top 20 equity income fund.
3. The equity allocation is fluid, ranging from 25 to 75% of assets. The balance between the two sleeves is determined by the managers’ analysis of “economic trends, changes in the shape of the yield curve and sector analysis.” The income portion of the portfolio is invested for stability rather than appreciation.

John Ackerly, one of Davenport’s directors, claims they have “a long history of developing funds that manage downside risk and produce positive returns … over full market cycles.” The equity portion of the fund is managed by Davenport’s Investment Policy Committee; the fixed-income portion by two of the guys who manage their fixed-income separate accounts. Their managers have, on average, 30 years of experience. Expenses are capped at 1.25%. The minimum initial investment is $5,000 for regular accounts and $2,000 for tax-advantaged ones. More details are at Davenport Asset Management, with the funds linked under the Strategies tab.

Manager Changes

There’s always churn in the manager ranks. This month we tracked down changes at 67 equity or balanced funds. While no cry out “sea change!”, three fairly well-known Fidelity managers – Peter Saperstone, Adam Kutas and Charles Myers – are having their responsibilities changed. Mr. Kutas drops Latin America to focus on EMEA. Mr. Myers takes a six-month leave of absence starting in March. Mr. Saperstone has been steadily moving away for months. I also discovered that I don’t recognize the names of any of the Janus managers (except, of course, Mr. Gross).

Updates

Speaking of Mr. Gross, his Janus Unconstrained Bond (JUCAX) fund’s performance chart looks like this:

So far the fund has been above water for about one month, April 2015, since Mr. Gross came on board. That said, it certainly shows a dogged independence compared to its nontraditional bond peers (the orange line). And it does look a lot better than Miller Income Opportunity Fund (LMCJX), Legg Mason’s retirement gift to former star Bill Miller. Mr. Miller co-manages the fund with his son. Together they’ve managed to lose about 24% for their investors in the same period that Mr. Gross dropped two or three.

Briefly Noted . . .

There was a great thread on our discussion board about the fate of the Berwyn Funds. The Berwyn funds are advised by The Killen Group. The founder, Robert E. Killen, turned 75 and has chosen to sell his firm to the Chartwell Investment Partners. The fear is that Chartwell will use this as an opportunity to vacuum up assets. Their press release on the acquisition reads, in part:

“This transaction creates an investment management firm with annual revenues approaching $50 million and more than $10 billion in assets under management, as part of our well-defined strategy for growing our Chartwell Investment Partners business into a world-class asset manager,” TriState Capital Chief Executive Officer James F. Getz said. “We have an exceptional opportunity to combine Killen’s highly credible investment performance, particularly by the Morningstar five-star rated Berwyn Income Fund, with our proven national financial services distribution model to meaningfully accelerate growth in client assets….”

The fate of Berwyn’s small no-load shareholders seems unresolved.

Thanks, in passing but as always, to The Shadow, the indomitable Ted and the folks on our discussion board. They track down more cool stuff, and think more interesting thoughts, than about any group I know. I browse their work daily and learn a lot.

GoodHaven Fund (GOODX) is reorganizing itself. The key change is that it will have a new board of trustees, rather than relying on a board provided by the Professionally Managed Portfolios trust.

Effective at the end of January, 2016, the Innealta Capital Country Rotation (ICCNX) and Capital Sector Rotation (ICSNX) funds no longer include “consistent with the preservation of capital” as part of their investment objectives.

Manning & Napier has agreed to acquire a majority interest in Rainier Investment Management, the investment adviser to the Rainier Funds. 

Effective February 1, 2016, the T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Index Fund and the T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Index Fund were added as options for all of the T. Rowe Price Retirement Fund. 

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Buffalo Emerging Opportunities Fund (BUFOX) and the Buffalo Small Cap Fund (BUFSX) have re-opened to new investors. They were closed for three and six years, respectively. Both funds posted wretched performance in 2014 and 2015 which might be a sign of disciplined investors out of step with an undisciplined market.

The Fairholme Focused Income (FOCIX) and Allocation (FAAFX) funds have reduced their minimum initial investment from $25,000 to $10,000.

Effective January 29, 2016, the redemption fee for the TCM Small Cap Growth Fund (TCMSX) was removed and the fund reduced its minimum initial investment from $100,000 to $2,500. It’s actually a pretty solid little small-growth fund.

Tweedy, Browne Global Value Fund II -Currency Unhedged (the “Fund”) reopened to new investors on February 1, 2016.

Effective as of January 1, 2016, the Valley Forge Fund’s (VAFGX) advisor, Boyle Capital Management, LLC, has voluntarily agreed to waive the full amount of its management fee. The voluntary waiver may be discontinued at any time. It was always a cute, idiosyncratic little fund run by a guy named Bernie Klawans. The sort of fund that had neither a website nor an 800 number. Bernie passed away at age 90, having run the fund until the last six months of his life. His handpicked successor died within the year. The Board of Trustees actually ran the fund for six months. Their eventual choice for a new manager did okay for a year, then performance fell off a cliff in the middle of 2014.

It’s never recovered and the fund is down to $7 million in assets, down by two-thirds since Mr. Klawan’s passing.

Vanguard Treasury Money Market Fund (VUSXX) has re-opened to all investors without limitations. It’s been charging four basis points and returning one basis point a year for the past three.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

AQR Style Premia Alternative Fund and AQR Style Premia Alternative LV Fund will both close to new investors on March 31, 2016. AQR’s Diversified Arbitrage Risk Parity and Multi-Strategy Alternative funds closed in 2012 and 2013. Sam Lee did a really strong analysis of the two Style Premia funds in our September 2015 issue.

Ziegler Strategic Income Fund (ZLSCX) has liquidated its Investor share class and has converted the existing Investor Class accounts into institutional accounts.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

The American Independence funds announced five name changes, including shortening American Independence to AI.

Aston Small Cap Fund (ATASX) – formerly Aston TAMRO Small Cap – is soon-to-be AMG GW&K Small Cap Growth Fund.

On January 28, 2016, Centre Global Select Equity Fund became Centre Global ex-U.S. Select Equity Fund (DHGRX). Not entirely sure why “Global ex-US” isn’t “International,” but maybe they had some monogrammed stationery that they didn’t want to throw out.

Effective on February 19, 2016, Columbia Intermediate Bond Fund (LIBAX) becomes Columbia Total Return Bond Fund. 

On February 1, 2016, Ivy Global Real Estate Fund (IREAX) became Ivy LaSalle Global Real Estate Fund, and Ivy Global Risk-Managed Real Estate Fund changed to Ivy LaSalle Global Risk-Managed Real Estate Fund (IVRAX). For the past three years, both funds have been sub-advised by Lasalle Investment Management. IVRAX has performed splendidly; IREAX, not so much.

Silly reader. You thought it was Touchstone Small Cap Core Fund. Actually it’s just Touchstone Small Cap Fund (TSFAX). Now, anyway.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

“Because of the difficulty encountered in distributing the Fund’s shares,” 1492 Small Cap Core Alpha Fund (FNTSX) will liquidate on February 26, 2016. The fact that it’s not very good probably contributed to the problem.

American Beacon Retirement Income and Appreciation Fund and American Beacon Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund ( ) will be liquidated and terminated on March 31, 2016. Presumably that’s part of the ongoing house-cleaning as American Beacon tries to reposition itself as a sort of alternatives manager.

Anfield Universal Fixed Income Fund (AFLEX) liquidated two of its share classes (A1 and R) on February 1, 2016. Rather than moving those investors into another share class, they received a check in the mail and a tax bill. Odd. 

ASTON/TAMRO International Small Cap Fund (AROWX) liquidated on February 1, 2016. On the one hand, it only had $2 million in assets. On the other, the adviser pulled the plug after just a year. The manager, Waldemar Mozes, is a bright guy with experience at Artisan and Capital Group. He jokingly described himself as “the best fund manager ever to come from Transylvania.” We wish him well.

Columbia Global Inflation-Linked Bond Plus Fund liquidated after very short notice, on January 29, 2016.

Gator Opportunities Fund (GTOAX) thought it had to hang on until March 21, 2016. The board has discovered that a swifter execution would be legal, and now it’s scheduled to disappear on February 15, 2016.

Hodges Equity Income Fund (HDPEX) will merge into Hodges Blue Chip Equity Income Fund (currently named the Hodges Blue Chip 25 Fund HDPBX) at the end of March, 2016.

Its board simultaneously announced new managers for, and liquidation of, KF Griffin Blue Chip Covered Call Fund (KFGAX). The former occurred on January 6, the latter is slated for February 16, 2016.

Madison Large Cap Growth Fund (MCAAX) merges into Madison Investors (MNVAX) on February 29, 2016,

Don’t blink: McKinley Non-U.S. Core Growth Fund (MCNUX) will be gone by February 5, 2016. It was an institutional fund with a minimum investment of $40 million and assets of $37 million, so ….

Midas Magic (MISEX) and Midas Perpetual Portfolio (MPERX) are both slated to merge into Midas Fund (MIDSX). In reporting their taxable distributions this year, Midas announced that “One of Midas’ guiding principles is that we will communicate with our shareholders and prospective investors as candidly as possible because we believe shareholders and prospective investors benefit from understanding our investment philosophy and approach.” That makes it ironic that there’s no hint about why they’ve folding a diversified equity fund and a tactical allocation fund into a gold portfolio with higher fees than either of the other two.

We previously noted the plan to merge the Royce European Small-Cap and Global Value funds into Royce International Premier, pending shareholder approval. The sheep baa’ed shareholders approved the mergers, which will be executed sometime in February, 2016.

On March 24, 2016, Sentinel Mid Cap Fund (SNTNX) will be absorbed by Sentinel Small Company Fund (SAGWX), which have “identical investment objectives and similar investment strategies.” That’s a clear win for the investors, give or take any actual interest in investing in mid-caps. At the same time, Sentinel Sustainable Mid Cap Opportunities Fund (WAEGX) will be absorbed into Sentinel Sustainable Core Opportunities Fund (MYPVX).

TeaLeaf Long/Short Deep Value Fund (LEFAX) closed on January 25 and liquidated on January 29, 2016.

I’m okay with the decision to liquidate UBS U.S. Equity Opportunity Fund (BNVAX): it’s a tiny fund that’s trailed 98% of its peers over the past decade. The UBS board decided you needed to hear their reasoning for the decision, which they included in a section entitled:

Rationale for liquidating the Fund

Based upon information provided by UBS Asset Management (Americas) Inc., the Fund’s investment advisor, the Board determined that “it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders to liquidate and dissolve the Fund pursuant to a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”). To arrive at this decision, the Board considered factors that have adversely affected, and will continue to adversely affect, the ability of the Fund to conduct its business and operations in an economically viable manner.”

Quick note to the board: that’s not a rationale. It’s a conclusion (“it’s in your best interest”) and a cryptic passage about the process “we considered factors.”

The Board of Trustees of Monetta Trust has concluded “that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders” to liquidate Varsity/Monetta Intermediate Bond Fund (MIBFX), which will occur on February 18, 2016.

Vivaldi Orinda Hedged Equity Fund (OHEAX) is victim of its advisor’s “strategic decision to streamline its product offerings.” The fund will liquidate on February 26, 2016.

Voya Emerging Markets Equity Dividend Fund (IFCAX) will liquidate on April 8, 2016.

In Closing . . .

Please do double-check to see if you’ve set our Amazon link as a bookmark or starting tab in your browser. From Christmas 2014 to Christmas 2015, Amazon’s sales rose 60% but our little slice of the pie fell by 15% in the same period. We try not to be too much of a pesterance on the subject, but the Amazon piece continues as a financial mainstay so it helps to mention it.

If you’re curious about how the Amazon Associates program works, here’s the short version: if you enter Amazon using our link, an invisible little piece of text (roughly: “for the benefit of MFO”) follows you. When you buy something, that tag is attached to your order and we receive an amount equivalent to 6% or so of the value of the stuff ordered. It’s invisible and seamless from your perspective, and costs nothing extra. Sadly the tag expires after a day so if you put something in your cart on Guy Fawkes Day and places the order on Mardi Gras, the link will have expired.

Thanks, too, to the folks whose ongoing support makes it possible for us to keep the lights on (and even to upgrade them to LEDs!). That includes the growing cadre of folks using MFO Premium but also Paul R and Jason B, our most faithful subscribers Deb and Greg, the good folks at Andrei Financial and Gardey Financial and Carl R. (generous repeat offenders in the “keep MFO going” realm).

We’re about 90% done on a profile of the “new” LS Opportunity Fund (LSOFX), so that’s in the pipeline for March. Readers and insiders both have been finding interesting options for us to explore which, with Augustana’s spring break occurring in February, I might actually have time to!

We’ll look for you.

Dear friends,

As you read this, I’ll be wading through a drift of candy wrappers, wondering if my son’s room is still under there somewhere. Weeks ago my local retailers got into the Halloween spirit by setting up their Christmas displays and now I live in terror of the first notes of that first Christmas carol inflicted over storewide and mall-wide sound systems.

But between the two, I pause for thanksgiving and Thanksgiving. I’m thankful for all the things I don’t have: they’re mostly delusion and clutter. I’m thankful for the stores not open on Black Friday (REI most recently) just as I’m thankful for the ones not open on Sundays (Fareway grocery stores, locally); we’ve got to get past the panic and resentment that arises if there’s a whole day without shopping. I’m grateful for those who conspire to keep me young, if only through their contagious craziness. I’m grateful for gravy, for the sweet warmth of a friend hugged close, for my son’s stunning ability to sing and for all the time my phone is turned off.

And I’m grateful, most continually, for the chance to serve you. It’s a rare honor.

Had I mentioned apple pie with remarkably thick and flaky crust? If not, that’s way up on the list too.

There’s a break in the rain. Get up on the roof!

… a bear market is not the base case for most of Wall Street. Adam Shell, 9/29/15

Duh. Cheerleaders lead cheers.

Good news: the sun is out. The Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) soared 7.84% in October, offsetting a 7.29% decline in the third quarter. It’s now above water for the year, through Halloween, with a return of 1.8%. Optimists note that we’re now in the best six months of the year for stocks, and they anticipate healthy gains.

Bad news: none of the problems underlying the third quarter decline have changed.

We have no idea of whether the market will soar, stagger or crash over the next six months. Any of those outcomes are possible, none are predictable. Morningstar’s John Rekenthaler argues that the market isn’t priced for an imminent crash (“Are US stocks overripe?” 10/30/2015). BlackRock’s chief strategist agrees. The Leuthold Group says it’s “a bear until proven otherwise” but does allow for the prospect of a nice, tradable bounce (10/7/2015).

A lot of fairly serious adults are making the same argument: crash or not, the U.S. stock market is priced for futility.

GMO estimates (as of 10/14/2015) US real returns close to zero over the next 5-7 years. They estimate that high quality stocks might make 1% a year, small caps will be flat and large caps in general will lose nearly 1% a year. Those estimates assume simple reversions to long-term average profit margins and stock prices, both of which have been goofed by the Fed’s ongoing zero rate policy.

Jack Bogle (10/14/2015, warning: another auto-launch video) likewise thinks you’ll make about zero. His calculation is a rougher version of GMO’s. Investment gains are dividends plus earnings growth. An optimist would say 2% and 6%, respectively. Bogle thinks the 6% is too optimistic and pencils-in 5%. You then inflate or deflate the investment returns by changes in valuations. He notes that a P/E of 15 is about normal, so if you buy when the P/E is below 15 you get a boost. If you buy when the P/E is above 15, you get a penalty. By his calculations, the market P/E is about 20.

So you start with a 7% investment return (2% + 5%) and begin making deductions:

• P/E contraction would cost 3% then
• inflation might easily cost 2%, and of course
• fund fees and expenses cost 1%, after which
• stupid investor behavior eats 1.5%.

That leaves you with a “real” return of about zero (which at least cuts into your tax bill).

Henry Blodget was the poster child for the abuses of the financial markets in the 1990s. He went on to launch Business Insider, which became the web most popular business news site. It (well, 88% of it) was just sold to the German publisher Axel Springer for $340 million.

Blodget published an essay (10/4/2015) which concluded that we should anticipate “weak” or “crappy” returns for the next decade. The argument is simple and familiar to folks here: stocks are “fantastically expensive relative to most of recorded history.” Vigorous government intervention prevented the phenomenal collapse that would have returned market valuations to typical bear market lows, building the base for a decades-long bull. Zero interest rates and financial engineering conspired to keep stocks from becoming appropriately loathed (though it is clear that many institutional investors are, for better or worse, making structural changes in their endowment portfolios which brings their direct equity exposure down into the single digits).

Adding fuel to the fire, Rob Arnott’s group – Research Affiliates – has entered the debate. They are, mildly put, not optimistic about US stocks. Like Leuthold and unlike Blodget, they’re actually charged with finding way to invest billions ($174 billion, in RA’s case) profitably.

Key points from their latest essay:

1. “High stock prices, just like high house prices, are harbingers of low returns.
2. Investing in price-depressed residential rental property in Atlanta is like investing in EM equities today-the future expected long-term yield is much superior to their respective high-priced alternatives.
3. Many parallels exist between the political/economic environment and the relative valuation of U.S. and EM equities in the periods from 1994 to 2002 and 2008 to 2015.
4. Our forecast of the 10-year real return for U.S. equities is 1% compared to that of EM equities at 8%, now valued at less than half the U.S. C A P E.”

Bottom line: Leuthold – bear’s at the door. GMO – pretty much zero, real, with the prospect of real ugliness after the US election. Bogle – maybe 2% real. Blodget – “crap.” Research Affiliates – 1%.

For most of us, that’s the hole in the roof.  

Recommendation One: fix it now, while the sun’s out and you’re feeling good about life. Start by looking at your Q3 losses and asking, “so, if I lost twice that much in the next year and didn’t get it back until the middle of President Trump’s second term, how much would that affect my life plans?” If you lost 3%, imagine an additional 6% and shrug, then fine. If you lost 17%, deduct another 34% from your portfolio and feel ill, get up on the roof now!  In general, simplify both your life and your portfolio, cut expenses when you can, spend a bit less, save a bit more. As you look at your portfolio, ask yourself the simple questions: what was I thinking? Why do I need that there? Glance at the glidepaths for T. Rowe Price’s retirement date funds to see how really careful folks think you should be invested. If your allocation differs a lot from theirs, you need to know why. If you don’t know your allocation or don’t have one, now would be the time to learn.

Recommendation Two: reconsider the emerging markets. Emerging markets have been slammed by huge capital outflows as investors panic over the prospect that China is broken. Over a trillion dollars in capital has fled in fear. The “in fear” part is useful to you since it likely signals an overshoot. The International Monetary Fund believes that the fears of Chinese collapse are overblown. Josh Brown, writing as The Reformed Broker, raises the prospect of that emerging markets may well have bottomed. No one doubts that another market panic in the U.S. will drive the emerging markets down again.

That having been said, there’s also evidence that the emerging markets may hold the only assets offering decent returns over the remainder of the decade. GMO estimates that EM stocks (4.6% real/year) and bonds (2.8% real/year) will be the two highest-returning asset classes over the next five-to-seven years. Research Affiliates is more optimistic, suggesting that EM stocks are priced to return 7.9% a year with high volatility, about 1.1% in the US and 5.3% in the other developed markets. Leuthold finds their valuations very tempting. Bill Bernstein (auto-launch video, sorry), an endlessly remarkable soul, allows “They are cheap; they are not good and cheap …  It’s important for small investors to realize that you can’t buy low unless you are willing to deal with bad news.”

Look for ways of decoupling from the herd, since the EM herd is a particularly volatile bunch. That means staying away from funds that focus on the largest, most liquid EM stocks since those are often commodity producers and exporters whose fate is controlled by China’s. That may point toward smaller companies, smaller markets and a domestic orientation. It certainly points toward experienced managers. We commend Driehaus Emerging Markets Small Cap Growth (DRESX), Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX and Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX) to you.

A second approach is to consider a multi-asset or balanced fund targeting the emerging markets. We know of just a handful of such funds:

• AB Emerging Markets Multi-Asset Portfolio (ABAEX), AllianceBernstein.
• Capital Emerging Markets Total Opportunities Fund (ETOPX) – a boutique manager affiliated with the American Funds. Capital Guardian Trust Company
• Dreyfus Total Emerging Markets (DTMAX)
• Fidelity Total Emerging Markets (FTEMX)
• Lazard Emerging Markets Multi-Asset (EMMIX)
• PIMCO Emerging Multi Asset (PEAWX) The fund was liquidated on 14 July 2015.
• TCW Emerging Markets Multi-Asset Opportunities (TGMEX)
• First Trust Aberdeen Emerging Opportunities (FEO), a closed-end fund.

Of the options available, Fidelity makes a surprisingly strong showing. We’ll look into it further for you.

Sequoia: “Has anybody seen our wheels? They seem to have fallen off.”

The most famous active fund seems in the midst of the worst screw-up in its history. The fund invested over 30% of its portfolio in a single stock, Valeant Pharmaceuticals (VRX). Valeant made money by buying other pharmaceutical firms, slashing their overhead and jacking up the prices of the drugs they produced. The day after buying to rights to heart medications Nitropress or Isuprel, Valeant increased their prices by six-fold and three-fold, respectively. Hedge funds, and Sequoia, loved it! Everyone else – including two contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination – despised it.

Against the charge that Valeant’s actions are unethical (they put people’s lives at risk in order to reap a windfall profit that they didn’t earn), Sequoia obliquely promises, “When ethical concerns arise, management tends to address them forthrightly, but in the moment.” I have no idea of what “but in the moment” means.

Then, in October, after months of bleeding value, Valeant’s stock did this:

That collapse, which cost Sequoia shareholders about 6% in a single day, was pursuant to a research report suggesting that Valeant was faking sales through a “phantom pharmacy” it owned. Separately, Federal prosecutors subpoenaed documents related to Valeant’s drug pricing.

Three things stand out:

There’s a serious question about whether Sequoia management drank the Kool-Aid. One intriguing signal that they weren’t maintaining an appropriate distance from Valeant is a tendency, noted by Lewis Braham in a post to our discussion board, for the Sequoia managers to call Valeant CEO Michael D. Pearson, “Mike.” From a call transcript he pointed to:

Mike does not like to issue equity.

… not that Mike would shy away from taking a price increase.

… early on in Mike’s reign …

I think Mike said the company was going to …

We met with Mike a few weeks ago and he was telling us how with $300 million, you can get an awful lot done.

Mike can get a lot done with very little.

Mike is making a big bet.

On whole, he was “Mike” about three times more often than “Mike Pearson.” He was never “Mr. Pearson” or “the CEO.” There was no other CEO given comparable acknowledgement; in the case of their other investments, it was “Google” or “MasterCard.”

Sequoia’s research sounds a lot like Valeant’s press releases. The most serious accusation against Valeant, Sequoia insists in its opening paragraph, “is false.” That confidence rests on a single judgment: that changes in sales and changes in inventory parallel each other, so there can’t be anything amiss. Ummm … Google “manipulate inventory reporting.” The number of tricks that the accountants report is pretty substantial. The federal criminal investigation of Valeant doesn’t get mentioned. There is no evidence that Sequoia heightened its vigilance as Valeant slowly lost two-thirds of its value. Instead, they merely assert that it’s a screaming buy “at seven times the consensus estimate of 2016 cash earnings.”

Two of their independent directors resigned shortly thereafter. Rather than announcing that fact, Sequoia filed a new Statement of Additional information that simply lists three independent trustees rather than five. According to press reports, Sequoia is not interested in explaining the sudden and simultaneous departure. One director refused to discuss it with reporters; the other simply would not answer calls or letters.

Sequoia vigorously defends both Valeant’s management (“honest and extremely driven”) and its numbers. A New York Times analysis by Gretchen Morgenson is caustic about the firm’s insistence on highlighting “adjusted earnings” which distort the picture of the firm’s health. They are, Morgenson argues, “fantasy numbers.”

Sequoia’s recent shareholder letter concludes by advising Valeant to start managing with “an eye on the company’s long-term corporate reputation.” It’s advice that we’d urge upon Sequoia’s managers as well.

The Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing

By Edward Studzinski

“The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

                             Oscar Wilde

There are a number of things that I was thinking about writing, but given what has transpired recently at Sequoia Fund as a result of its investment in and concentration in Valeant Pharmaceuticals, I should offer some comments and thoughts to complement David’s. Mine are from the perspective of an investor (I have owned shares in Sequoia for more than thirty years), and also as a former competitor.

Sequoia Fund was started back in 1970. It came into its own when Warren Buffett, upon winding up his first investment partnership, was asked by a number of his investors, what they should do with their money since he was leaving the business for the time being. Buffett advised them to invest with the Sequoia Fund. The other part of this story of course is that Buffett had asked his friend Bill Ruane to start the Sequoia Fund so that there would be a place he could refer his investors to and have confidence in how they would be treated.

Bill Ruane was a successful value investor in his own right. He believed in concentrated portfolios, generally fewer than twenty stock positions. He also believed that you should watch those stock investments very carefully, so that the amount of due diligence and research that went into making an investment decision and then monitoring it, was considerable. The usual course of business was for Ruane, Dick Cunniff and almost the entire team of analysts to descend upon a company for a full day or more of meetings with management. And these were not the kind of meetings you find being conducted today, as a result of regulation FD, with company managements giving canned presentations and canned answers. These, according to my friend Tom Russo who started his career at Ruane, were truly get down into the weeds efforts, in terms of unit costs of raw materials, costs of manufacturing, and other variables, that could tell them the quality of a business. In terms of something like a cigarette, they understood what all the components and production costs were, and knew what that individual cigarette or pack of cigarettes, meant to a Philip Morris. And they went into plants to understand the manufacturing process where appropriate.

Fast forward to the year 2000, and yes, there is a succession plan in place at Ruane, with Bob Goldfarb and Carly Cunniff (daughter of Dick, but again, a formidable talent in her own right who would have been a super investor talent if her name had been Smith) in place as President and Executive Vice President of the firm respectively. The two of them represented a nice intellectual and personality balance, complementing or mellowing each other where appropriate, and at an equal level regardless of title.

Unfortunately, fate intervened as Ms. Cunniff was diagnosed with cancer in 2001, and passed away far too early in life, in 2005. Fate also intervened again that year, and Bill Ruane also passed away in 2005.

At that point, it became Bob Goldfarb’s firm effectively, and certainly Bob Goldfarb’s fund. At the end of 2000, according to the 12/31/2000 annual report, Sequoia had 11 individual stock positions, with Berkshire representing 35.6% and Progressive Insurance representing 6.4%. At the end of 2004, according to the 12/31/2004 annual report, Sequoia had 21 individual stock positions, with Berkshire representing 35.3% and Progressive Insurance representing 12.6% (notice a theme here). By the end of 2008, according to the 12/31/2008, Berkshire represented 22.8% of the fund, Progressive was gone totally from the portfolio, and there were 26 individual stock positions in the fund. By the end of 2014, according to the 12/31/2014 report, Sequoia had 41 individual stock positions, with Berkshire representing 12.9% and healthcare representing 21.4%.

So, clearly at this point, it is a different fund than it used to be, in terms of concentration as well as the types of businesses that it would invest in. In 2000 for instance, there was no healthcare and in 2004 it was de minimis. Which begs the question, has the number of high quality businesses expanded in recent years? The answer is probably not. Has the number of outstanding managements increased in recent years, in terms of the intelligence and integrity of those management teams? Again, that would not seem to be the case. What we can say however, is that this is a Goldfarb portfolio, or more aptly, a Goldfarb/Poppe portfolio, distinct from that of the founders.

An interesting question is, given the fund’s present composition, would Buffett, if asked today for a recommendation as to where his investors should go down the road, still suggest Sequoia? My suspicion is he would not with how the fund is presently managed and, given his public comments advocating that his wife’s money after his demise should go to an S&P 500 index fund.

A fairer question is – why have I held on to my investment at Sequoia? Well, first of all, Bob Goldfarb is 70 and one would think by this point in time he has proved whatever it was that he felt he needed to prove (and perhaps a number of things he didn’t). But secondly, there is another great investor at Ruane, and that is Greg Alexander. Those who attend the Sequoia annual meetings see Greg, because he is regularly introduced, even though he is a separate profit center at Ruane and he and his team have nothing to do with Sequoia Fund. However, Bruce Greenwald of Columbia, in a Value Walk interview in June of 2010 said Buffett had indicated there were three people he would like to have manage his money after he died (this was before the index fund comment). One of them was Seth Klarman at Baupost. Li Lu who manages Charlie Munger’s money was a second, and Greg Alexander at Ruane was the third. Greg has been at Ruane since 1985 and his partnerships have been unique. In fact, Roger Lowenstein, a Sequoia director, is quoted as saying that he knows Greg and thinks Warren is right, but that was all he would say. So my hope is that the management of Ruane as well as the outside directors remaining at Sequoia, wake up and refocus the fund to return to its historic roots.

Why is the truth never pure and simple in and of itself. We have said that you need to watch the changes taking place at firms like Third Avenue and FPA. I must emphasize that one can never truly appreciate the dynamics inside an active management firm. Has a co-manager been named to serve as a Sancho Panza or alternatively to truly manage the portfolio while the lead manager is out of the picture for non-disclosed reasons? The index investor doesn’t have to worry about these things. He or she also doesn’t have to worry about whether an investment is being made or sold to prove a point. Is it being made because it is truly a top ten investment opportunity? But the real question you need to think about is, “Can an active manager be fired, and if so, by whom?” The index investor need not worry about such things, only whether he or she is investing in the right index. But the active investor – and that is why I will discuss this subject at length down the road.

Dancing amidst the elephants: Active large core funds that earn their keep

By Leigh Walzer

Last month in these pages we reviewed actively managed utility funds. Sadly, we could not recommend any of those funds. Either they charged too much and looked too much like the cheaper index funds or they strayed far afield and failed to distinguish themselves.

We are not here to bury the actively managed fund industry. Trapezoid’s goal is to help investors and allocators identify portfolio managers who have predictable skill and evaluate whether the fees are reasonable. Fees are reasonable if investors can expect with 60% confidence a better return with an active fund than a comparable passive fund. (Without getting too technical, the comparable fund is a time-weighted replication portfolio which tries to match the investment characteristics at a low cost.)

To demonstrate how this works, we review this month our largest fund category, large blend funds. (We sometimes categorize differently than Morningstar and Lipper. We categorize for investors’ convenience but our underlying ratings process does not rely on performance relative to a peer group.)

We found 324 unique actively-managed large blend funds where the lead manager was on the job at least 3 years.

We recently posted to the www.fundattribution.com website a skill rating for each of these funds. Our “grades” are forward-looking and represent the projected skill decile for each fund over the 12 months ending July 2016.  “A” means top 10%; “J” is bottom 10%. In our back-testing, the average skill for funds rated A in the following year exceeded the skill for B-rated funds, and so on with the funds rated J ranking last. Table I presents the grades for some of the largest funds in the category.  For example, the Fidelity Puritan Fund is projected to demonstrate more skill in the coming year than 80-90% of its peer group.

MFO readers who want to see the full list can register for demo access at no cost. (The demo includes a few fund categories and limited functionality.)  Demo users can also see backtesting results.

Table I

Skill Projections for Major US Large Blend Funds

A few caveats:

• Our grades represent projected skill, not performance. Gross return reflects skill together with the manager’s positioning. Fund expenses are considered separately.
• The difference in skill level between an E and F tends to be small while at the extremes the difference between A and B or I and J is larger.
• Generally, deciles A through E have positive skill while F thru J are negative. The median fund may have skill which is slightly positive. This occurs because of survivorship bias: poorly managed funds are closed or merged out of existence
• We do not have a financial interest in any of these funds or their advisors

Of course, costs matter. So we ran 1900 large blend fund classes through our Orthogonal Attribution Engine (OAE) to get the probability the investment would outperform its replication portfolio by enough to cover expenses. The good news (for investors and the fund industry) is there are some attractive actively managed funds. Our analysis suggest the fund classes in Table II will outperform passive funds, despite their higher fees.

Table II

Highly-rated Large blend Fund Classes (based on skill through July 2015)

_{[a]   Morningstar ratings as of 10/20/15. G means gold (e.g. 5G means 5stars and “Gold”), S is silver, B is bronze}

_{[b]   For those of you who like ActiveShare, OAI provides a measure of how active each fund is.  A closet indexer should have an OAI near zero. If we can replicate the fund, even with more complicated techniques, it will also score low. Funds which are highly differentiated can score up to 100.}

_{[c]    Red funds are closed to new investors. Green are limited to institutional investors and retirement plans. Blue are limited to retirement plans}

The bad news is that top-rated fund, Vanguard PrimeCap (VPCCX), is closed to new investors. So, too, is Vulcan Value Fund (VVPLX).  Fortunately, the PRIMECAP Odyssey Stock Fund (POSKX) is open and accessible to most investors.  Investors have 66% confidence this fund will generate excess return next year after considering costs. The Primecap funds have done well by overweighting pharma and tech over utilities and financials and have rotated effectively into and out of high-dividend stocks.

In many cases only the institutional or retirement classes are good deals for investors. For example, the Fidelity Advisor New Insights Fund classes I and Z offer 70% confidence; but a new investor who incurs the higher fees/load for classes A, B, C, and T would be less than 55% confident of success. Of course investors who already paid the load should stay the course.

While all these funds are worthy, we have space today to profile just a few funds.

Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund (BOPIX, BOPAX, etc.) is just under $1 billion. This fund was once known as BB&T Special Opportunities Equity Fund and was rated five-stars by Morningstar. The rating of the A class later fell to 3 stars and recently regained four-stars. 

Table III

Return Attribution: Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund

Special Opps’ gross return was 22% before expenses over the past 3 years. (Table III) Even after fees, returns trounced the S&P500 by over 300bps for the past 3 years and over the past 10 years. The one and 5 year comparisons are less favorable but still positive. Combined skill has been consistently positive over the twelve year history of the fund.

However, that doesn’t tell the whole story. Comparing this to the S&P500 (or the Russell 1000) is neither accurate nor fair. The replicating portfolio – i.e., the one the OAE chooses as the best comparison – is approximately 90% equities (mostly the S&P500 with a smattering of small cap and hedged international which has decreased over time) plus 25% fixed income. The fixed income component surprised us at first, because the portfolio includes no bonds and does not utilize leverage. But the manager likes to write covered calls to generate extra income. We observe he sells about 5% of the portfolio on average about 10 to 20% out of the money. In this way he probably generates premium income of 25bp/yr., which the fixed income component captures well.  As always, the model evaluates the manager based on what he actually does, rather than against his stated benchmark (Russell 1000) or peer group.

Option writing helps explain why his beta is lower (We estimate .89, you will find other figures as low as .84.)  In the eyes of the Orthogonal Attribution Engine, that makes his performance more remarkable. We are not quite so impressed to pay an upfront 5.75% load for BOPAX (Class A), but BOPIX rates well. BOPAX is available no-load and NTF through Schwab and several smaller brokerages.

We had an opportunity to speak to the manager, George Shipp. Table III shows his skill derives much more from stock selection than sector rotation, a view he shared.  We can make a few observations.   He has a team of experienced generalists and a lot of continuity. His operation in Virginia Beach is separate from the other Sterling/BB&T operations in North Carolina.  He also manages Sterling Capital Equity Income (BAEIX), a much larger fund with zero historical overlap. The team follows a stable of companies, mainly industry leaders. They like to buy when the stock is dislocated and they see a catalyst.  The investment process is deliberative. That sounds like a contrarian, value philosophy, but in fact they have an even balance of growth and value investments. We reviewed his portfolio from 5 years ago, several of the top holdings trounced the market. (The exceptions were energy stocks.) Shipp noted he had good timing buying Apple when it was pummeled. He doesn’t specifically target M&A situations, but his philosophy puts the fund in a position to capture positive event risk. It is not unusual for the fund to own the same company more than once.

We also had a chance to speak to the folks at Davis Opportunity Fund (RPEAX). What jumps out about this $530mm fund is their ability to grind out excess return of 1 to 1.25% /yr. for nearly twenty years.  It is no great feat that DGOYX net returns just match the S&P500 for the past 5 years but they managed to do this despite two tailwinds: a 20% foreign allocation (partly hedged) and moderate cash balances. There is an old saw: “You can’t eat relative performance.” But when a fund shows positive relative performance for two decades with some consistency the Orthogonal model concludes the manager is skillful and some of that skill might carry over to the future.   We are willing to pay an incremental 60bp for their institutional class compared with an index fund but we cannot recommend the other share classes. A new co-manager was named in 2013, we see no drop-off in performance since then. (As with Sterling, the team manages a $15bn fund called Davis NY Venture (NYVTX) which does not rate nearly as well; there is some performance correlation between the two funds.)

Their process is geared toward global industry leaders and is somewhat thematic.  OAI of 24 indicates they run a very concentrated portfolio which cannot be easily replicated using passives. (We will talk more about OAI in the future.) Looking back at their portfolio from 5 years ago, their industry weightings were favorable and they did very well with CVS and Google but took hits from Sino Forest (ouch!) and Blount.

In general, the expected skill for a purely passive large blend fund will be close to zero and the probability will be around 50%. (There are exceptions including funds which don’t track well against our indices.)  However, there are a number of quantitatively driven and rules-based funds competing in the large blend space which show skill and some make our list

Table IV

Highly-Rated Large Blend Quantitative Funds

We are a little cautious in applying the model to quantitative funds. We know from backtesting that smart managers tend to stay smart, but there is a body of view that good quantitative strategies invite competition and have to be reinvented every few years. Nevertheless, here are the top-rated quant funds. All funds in Table IV carry five-star ratings from Morningstar except ACGOX is rated four-stars)

We had a chance to speak to the team managing American Century Legacy Large Cap (ACGOX), led by John Small and Stephen Pool in Kansas City.  Their approach is to devise models which predict what stock characteristics will work in a given market environment and load up on those stocks. There is some latitude for the managers to override the algorithms. Note this fund is rather small at $23 mm. The fund was evaluated based on data since management started in 2007.  However, the model was overhauled from 2010-2012 and has been tweaked periodically since then as market conditions change. The same team manages three other funds (Legacy Multicap, Legacy Focused, and Veedot); since 2012 they have used the same process, except they apply it to different market sectors.

Bottom Line:

If you are ready to throw in the towel on active funds, you are only 94% right.  There are a few managers who offer investors a decent value proposition. Mostly these managers have sustained good records over long periods with moderate expense levels.   Our thinking on quant funds will evolve over time. Based on our look at American Century Legacy, we suggest investors evaluate these managers based on the ability to react and adapt their quant models rather and not focus too much on the current version of the black box.   Remember to check out our fearless predictions for the entire large blend category at www.fundattribution.com (registration required)

If you have any questions, drop me a line at [email protected]

Five great overlooked little funds

Barron’s recently featured an article by journalist Lewis Braham, entitled “Five great overlooked little funds” (10/17/2015). Lewis, a frequent contributor of the Observer’s discussion board, started by screening for small (>$100 milllion), excellent (top 20% performance over five years) funds, of which he found 173. He then started doing what good journalists do: he dug around to understand when and why size matters, then started talking with analysts and managers. His final list of worthies is:

• SSgA Dynamic Small Cap(SSSDX) which has been added to Morningstar’s watchlist. A change of management in 2010 turned a perennial mutt into a greyhound. It’s beaten 99% of its peers and charged below average expenses.
• Hood River Small-Cap Growth(HRSRX) has $97 million but “its 14.1% annualized five-year return beats its peers by 2.3 percentage points a year.” The boutique fund remains small because, the manager avers, “We’re stockpickers, not marketers.”
• ClearBridge International Small Cap(LCOAX), sibling to a huge domestic growth fund, has a five-year annualized return of 8.5%, which beats 95% of its peers. It has $131 million in assets, 1% of what ClearBridge Aggressive Growth (SHRAX) holds.
• LKCM Balanced (LKBAX) holds an inexpensive, low-turnover portfolio of blue-chip stocks and high-grade bonds. It’s managed to beat 99% of its peers over the past decade while still attracting just $37 million.
• Sarofim Equity (SRFMX) is a virtual clone of Dreyfus Appreciation (DGAGX). Both buy ultra-large companies and hold them forever; in some periods, the turnover is 2%. It has a great long-term record and a sucky short-term one.

Lewis is also the author of The House that Bogle Built: How John Bogle and Vanguard Reinvented the Mutual Fund Industry(2011), which has earned a slew of positive, detailed reviews on Amazon. He is a graceful writer and lives in Pittsburgh; I’m jealous of both. Then, too, when I Googled his name in search of a small photo for the story I came up with

To which I can only say, “wow.”

Here Mr. Herro, have a smoke and a smile!

After all, science has never been able to prove that smoking is bad for you. Maureen O’Hara, for example, enjoyed the pure pleasure of a Camel:

And she passed away just a week ago (24 October 2015), cancer-free, at age 95. And the industry’s own scientists confirm that there are “no adverse effects.”

And, really, who’d be in a better position to know? Nonetheless, the Association of National Advertisers warns, this “legal product in this country for over two centuries, manufactured by private enterprise in our free market system” has faced “a fifty-year conspiracy” to challenge the very place of cigarettes in the free enterprise system. The debate has “lost all sense of rationality.”

It’s curious that the industry’s defense so closely mirrors the federal court’s finding against them. Judge Marion Kessler, in a 1700 page finding, concluded that “the tobacco industry has engaged in a conspiracy for decades to defraud or deceive the public … over the course of more than 50 years, defendants lied, misrepresented and deceived the American public … suppress[ed] research, destroyed documents, destroyed the truth and abused the legal system.”

David Herro is the famously successful manager of Oakmark International (OAKIX), as well as 13 other funds for US or European investors. Two of Mr. Herro’s recent statements give me pause.

On climate change: “pop science” and “environmental extremism”

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr. Herro denounced the 81 corporate leaders, whose firms have a combined $5 trillion market cap, who’d signed on to the White House Climate Pledge (“Fund manager David Herro criticizes corporate ‘climate appeasers,’” 10/21/15). The pledge itself has an entirely uncontroversial premise:

…delaying action on climate change will be costly in economic and human terms, while accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy will produce multiple benefits with regard to sustainable economic growth, public health, resilience to natural disasters, and the health of the global environment.

As part of the pledge, firms set individual goals for themselves. Coke wants to reduce its carbon footprint by 25%. Facebook promises to power its servers with power from renewables. Bloomberg would like to reduce its energy use by half while achieving an internal rate of return of 20% or more on its energy investments.

To which Mr. Herro roars: “climate appeasers!” They had decided, he charged, to “cave in to pop science and emotion.” Shareholders “should seriously question executives who appease such environmental extremism and zealotry.”

Like others on his island, he engages in a fair amount of arm-flapping. Climate change, he claims, “is not proven by the data.” The Grist.org project, “How to Talk to Climate Deniers” explains the problem of “proof” quite clearly:

There is no “proof” in science — that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century.

Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.

But Mr. Herro has a reply at hand: “Their answer is … per cent of scientists and Big Oil. My answer is data, data, data.”

What does that even mean, other than the fact that the undergrad science requirement for business majors at Mr. Herro’s alma mater (lovely UW-Platteville) ought to be strengthened? Is he saying that he’s competent to assess climatological data? That he can’t find any data? (If so, check NASA’s “evidence” page here, sir.) That the data’s not perfect? Duh. That you’ve found the data, data, data straight from the source: talk radio and self-published newsletters? Or that there’s some additional bit not provided by the roughly 14,000 peer-reviewed studies that have corroborated the science behind global warming?

Can you imagine what would happen if you used to same criteria for assessing evidence about investments?

None of which I’d mention except for the fact that Herro decided to expand on the subject in his Financial Times interview which moves the quality of his analysis from the realm of the personal to the professional.

In my endless poking around, I came upon a clear, thoughtful, entertaining explanation of global warming that even those who aren’t big into science or the news could read, enjoy and learn from. The site is Wait But Why and it attempts to actually explain things (including sad millennials and procrastination) using, well, facts and humor.

Climate Change is a Thing

Let’s ignore all the politicians and professors and CEOs and filmmakers and look at three facts.

1. Burning Fossil Fuels Makes Atmospheric CO2 Levels Rise
2. Where Atmospheric CO2 Levels Go, Temperatures Follow
3. The Temperature Doesn’t Need to Change Very Much to Make Everything Shitty

In between our essays, you should go peek at the site. If you can understand the designs on the stuff in their gift shop, you really should drop me a note and explain it.

On emerging markets: “never again”

In an interview with the Associated Press (“answers have been edited for clarity”), Mr. Herro makes a statement that’s particularly troubling for the future of the Oakmark funds. The article, “Fund manager touts emerging-market stocks” (10/25/15), explains that much of the success of Oakmark International (OAKIX) was driven by Mr. Herro’s prescient and substantial investment in emerging markets:

If we back up to 1998 or 1999, during the Asian financial crisis, we had 25 or 26% of the portfolio in emerging markets. We built up a huge position and we benefited greatly from that the whole next decade. It was the gift that kept giving.

The position was eventually reduced as he harvested gains and valuations in the emerging markets were less attractive. The logical question is, would the fund be bold enough to repeat the decision that “benefited [them] greatly” for an entire decade. Would he ever go back to 25%.

No, no, no. It could come up to 10 or 15% … but we’ll try to cap it there because, nowadays, people use managers (who are dedicated to emerging markets). And we don’t bill ourselves as an emerging-market manager.

This is to say, his decisions are now being driven by the demands of asset gathering and retention, not by the investment rationale. He’ll cap his exposure at perhaps half its previous peak because “people” (read: large investment advisers) want their investments handled by specialists. Having OAKIX greatly overweighted in EMs, even if they were the best values available, would make the fund harder to sell. And so they won’t do it.

Letting marketability drive the portfolio is a common decision, but hardly an admirable one.

A picture for the Ultimus Client Conference folks

At the beginning of September, I had the opportunity to irritate a lot of nice people who’d gathered for the annual client conference hosted by Ultimus Fund Services. My argument about the fund industry was two-fold:

1. You’re in deep, deep trouble but
2. There are strategies that have the prospect of reversing your fortunes.

Sometimes the stuff we publish takes three or four months to come together. Our premium site has a feature called “Works in Progress.” It’s the place that we’ll share stuff that’s not ready for publication here. Between now and year’s end, we’ll be posting pieces of the “how to save yourself” essay bit-by-bit.

But that’s not what most folks at the conference wanted to talk about. No, for 12 hours after my talk, the corporate managers at various fund companies and advisers brought up the same topic: I have no idea of how to work with the Millennials in my office. They have no sense of time, urgency, deadlines or focus. What’s going on with these people? All of that was occasioned by a single, off-hand comment I’d made about the peculiar decisions made by a student of mine.

We talked through the evidence on evolving cultural norms and workplace explanations, and I promised to try to help folks find some useful guidance. I found a great explanation of why yuppies are unhappy in an essay at WaitButWhy, the folks above. After explaining why young folks are delusional, they illustrated the average Millennial’s view of their career trajectory:

If you’ve been banging your head on the desk for a while now, you should read it. You’ll feel better. Pwc, formerly Price, Waterhouse, Cooper, published an intricate analysis (Millennials at work 2015) of Millennial expectations and strategies for helping them be the best they can be. They also published a short version of their recommendations as How to manage the millennials (2015). Scholars at Harvard and the Wharton School of Business are rather more skeptical, taking the counter-intuitive position that there are few real generational differences. Their sources seem intrigued by the notion of work teams that combine people of different generations, who contrasting styles might complement and strengthen one another.

It’s worth considering.

Jack and John, Grumpy Old Men II

Occasionally you encounter essays that make you think, “Jeez, and I thought I was old and grouchy.” I read two in quick, discouraging succession.

Jack Bogle grouched, “I don’t do international.” As far as I can tell, Mr. Bogle’s argument is “the world’s a scary place, so I’m not going there.” At 86 and rich, that’s an easy and sensible personal choice. For someone at 26 or 36 or 46, it seems incredibly short-sighted. While he’s certainly right that “Outside of the U.S., you can be very disappointed,” that’s also true inside the United States. In an oddly ahistoric claim, Bogle extols our 250 year tradition of protecting shareholders rights; that’s something that folks familiar with the world before the Securities Act of 1934 would find freakishly ill-informed.

A generation Mr. Bogle’s junior, the estimable John Rekenthaler surveyed the debate concerning socially responsible investing (alternately, “sustainable” or “ESG”) and grumped, “The debate about the merits of the genre is pointless.” Why? Because, he concludes, there’s no clear evidence that ESG funds perform differently than any other fund. Exactly! We reviewed a lot of research in “It’s finally easy being green” (July 2015). The overwhelming weight of evidence shows that there is no downside to ESG investing. You lose nothing by way of performance. As a result, you can express your personal values without compromising your personal rate of return. If you’re disgusted at the thought that your retirement is dependent on addicting third world children to cigarettes or on clearing tropical forests, you can simply say “no.” We profiled clear, palatable investment choices, the number of which is rising.

The freak show behind the curtain: 25,000 funds that you didn’t even know existed

Whatever their flaws (see above), mutual funds are relatively stable vehicles that produce reasonable returns. Large cap funds, on average and after expenses, have returned 7.1% over the past 15 years which puts them 70 bps behind the S&P 500 for the same period.

But those other 25,000 funds …

Which others? ETFs? Nope. There are just about 1,800 of them – with a new, much-needed Social Media Sentiment Index ETF on the way (whew!) – controlling only $3 trillion. You already know about the 7,700 ’40 Act funds and the few hundred remaining CEFs are hardly a blip (with apologies to RiverNorth, to whom they’re a central opportunity).

No, I mean the other 24,725 private funds, the existence of which is revealed in unintelligible detail in a recent SEC staff report entitled Private Fund Statistics, 4th Quarter 2014 (October 2015). That roster includes:

• 8,625 hedge funds, up by 1100 since the start of 2013
• 8,407 private equity funds, up by 1400 in that same period
• 4,058 “other” private funds
• 2,386 Section 4 private equity funds
• 1,789 real estate funds
• 1,541 qualifying hedge funds
• 1,327 securitized asset funds
• 504 venture capital funds
• 69 liquidity funds
• 49 Section 3 liquidity funds, these latter two being the only categories in decline

The number of private funds was up by 4,200 between Q1/2013 and Q4/2014 with about 200 new advisers entering the market. They have $10 trillion in gross assets and $6.7 trillion in net assets. (Nope, I don’t know what gross assets are.) SEC-registered funds own about 1% of the shares of those private funds.

Sadly, the report explains nothing. You get tables of technical detail with nary a definition nor an explanation in sight. “Asset Weighted-Average Qualifying Hedge Fund Investor and Portfolio Liquidity” assures that that fund liquidity at seven days is about 58% while investor liquidity in that same period is about 15%. Not a word anywhere about what that means. An appendix defines about 10 terms, no one of which is related to their data reports.

A recent report in The Wall Street Journal does share one crucial bit of information: equity hedge funds don’t actually make money for their investors. The HRFX Equity Hedge Fund Index is, they report, underwater over the past decade. That is, “if you have invested … in this type of fund 10 years ago, you would have less than you started with.” An investment in the S&P 500 would have doubled (“Funds wrong-footed as Glencore, others gain,” 10/31/2015).

About a third of hedge funds fold within three years of launch; the average lifespan is just five years. Unlike the case of mutual funds, size seems no guardian against liquidation. Fortress Investment Group is closing its flagship macro fund by year’s end as major domo Michael Novogratz leaves. Renaissance Capital is closing their $1.3 billion futures fund. Bain Capital is liquidating their Absolute Return Capital fund. Many funds, including staunch investors in Valeant such as William Ackman of Pershing Square, are having their worst year since the financial crisis. As a group, they’re underwater for 2015.

---

Hedge Fund, n. Expensive and exclusive funds numbering in the thousands, of which only about a hundred might be run by managers talented enough to beat the market with consistency and low risk. “The rest,” says the financial journalist Morgan Housel, “charge ten times the fees of mutual funds for half the performance of index funds, pay half the income-tax rates of taxi drivers, and have triple the ego of rock stars. Jason Zweig, The Devil’s Financial Dictionary (2015)

---

 

Matching your funds and your time horizon

The Observer has profiled, and praised, the two RiverPark funds managed by David Sherman of Cohanzick. The more conservative, RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX/RPHIX, closed), usually makes 300-400 bps over a money market fund with scarcely more volatility. Year-to-date, through Halloween, the fund has returned a bit over 1% in a difficult market. The slightly more aggressive, RiverPark Strategic Income (RSIVX/RSIIX) might be expected to about double its sibling’s return with modest volatility, a feat that it has managed regularly. Strategic has had a performance hiccup lately; leading some of the folks on our discussion board to let us know that they’d headed for the exits.

For me, the questions are (1) is there a systemic problem with the fund? And (2) what’s the appropriate time-frame for assessing the fund’s performance? I don’t see evidence of the former, though we’re scheduled to meet Mr. Sherman in November and will talk more.

On the latter, the Observer’s fund-screener tracks “recovery times” for every fund over 20 time periods. Carl Bacon, in the book, Practical Risk Advanced Performance Measurements (2012), defines recovery time, or drawdown duration, as the time taken to recover from an individual or maximum drawdown to the original level. Recovery time helps investors approximate reasonable holding periods and also assessment periods. If funds of a particular type have recovery times of, say, 18-24 months, then (1) it would be foolish to use them for assets you might need in less than 18-24 months and (2) it would be foolish to panic if it takes them 18-24 months to recover.

Below, for comparison, are the maximum recovery times for the flexible bond funds that Morningstar considers to be the best.

Gold- and Silver-rated Flexible bond funds

The Observer has decided to license data for our fund screener from Lipper rather than Morningstar; dealing with the sales rep from Morningstar kept making my systolic soar. Within about a week the transition will be complete. The difference you’ll notice is a new set of fund categories and new peer groups for many funds. Here are the recovery times for the top “flexible income” and “multi-sector” income funds, measured by Sharpe ratio over the current full market cycle (11/2007 – present). This screens out any fund that hasn’t been around for at least eight years.

Bottom line: Before you succumb to the entirely understandable urge to do something in the face of an unexpected development, it’s essential to ask “am I being hasty?” Measures such as Recovery Time help, both in selecting an investment appropriate to your time horizon and in having reasonable criteria against which to assess the fund’s behavior.

Last fall we were delighted to welcome Mark Wilson, Chief Investment Officer for The Tarbox Group which is headquartered in Newport Beach, California. As founder and chief valet for the website CapGainsValet, Mark provided a remarkable service: free access to both thoughtful commentaries on what proved to be a horror of a tax season and timely data on hundreds of distributions. We’re more delighted that he agreed to join us again for the next few months.

Alive and kicking: The return of Cap Gains Valet

By Mark Wilson, APA, CFP®, Chief Valet

CapGainsValet.com is up and running again (and still free). CGV is designed to be the place for you to easily find mutual fund capital gains distribution information. If this concept is new to you, have a look at the Articles section of the CGV website where you’ll find educational pieces ranging from beginner concepts to more advanced tax saving strategies.

It’s quite early in the reporting season, but here are some of my initial impressions:

• Many firms have already posted 2015 estimates. The site already has over 75 firms’ estimates posted so there is already some good information available. This season I’m expecting to post estimates for over 190 fund firms. I’ll continue to cycle through missing firms and update the fund database as new information becomes available. Keep checking in.
• This year might feel more painful than last year. Based on estimates I’ve found to-date, I’m expecting total distributions to be lower than last year’s numbers. However, if fund performance ends the year near today’s (flat to down) numbers, investors can get a substantial tax bill without accompanying investment gains.
• It’s already an unusual year. My annual “In the Doghouse” list compiles funds with estimated (or actual) distributions over 20% of NAV. The list will continue to grow as fund firms post information. Already on the list is a fund that distributed over 80%, an index fund and a “tax-managed” fund – oddball stuff!
• Selling/swapping a distributing fund could save some tax dollars. If you bought almost any fund this year in a taxable account, you should consider selling those shares if the fund is going to have a substantial distribution. (No, fund companies do not want to hear this.) Tax wise, running some quick calculations can help you decide a good strategy. Be careful not to run afoul of the “wash sale” rules.

Of course, the MFO Discussion board (led by TheShadow) puts together its own list of capital gains distribution links. Be sure to check their work out as that list may have some firms that are not included on CGV due to their smaller asset base. Between the two resources, you should be well covered.

I value the input of the MFO community, so if you have any comments to share about CapGainsValet.com, feel free to contact me.

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, searchable, and filtered as never before. For the 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.

Orders & Decisions

• A U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended that the court deny First Eagle‘s motion to dismiss fee litigation regarding two of its international equity funds. (Lynn M. Kennis Trust v. First Eagle Inv. Mgmt., LLC)
• In Jones v. Harris Associates—the fee litigation regarding Oakmark funds in which the U.S. Supreme Court set the legal standard for liability under section 36(b)—the Seventh Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc in their unsuccessful appeal of the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Harris Associates.
• J.P. Morgan Investment Management was among six firms named in SEC enforcement actions for short selling violations in advance of stock offerings. J.P. Morgan agreed to pay $1.08 million to settle the charges.
• Further extending the fund industry’s dismal losing record on motions to dismiss section 36(b) fee litigation, the court denied New York Life‘s motion to dismiss a lawsuit regarding four of its MainStay funds. The court viewed allegations that New York Life delegated “substantially all” of its responsibilities as weighing in favor of the plaintiff’s claim. (Redus-Tarchis v. N.Y. Life Inv. Mgmt., LLC.)
• After the Tenth Circuit reversed a class certification order in a prospectus disclosure case regarding Oppenheimer‘s California Municipal Bond Fund, the district court reaffirmed the order such that the litigation is once again proceeding as a certified class action. Defendants include independent directors. (In re Cal. Mun. Fund.)
• Denying Schwab defendants’ petition for certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the controversial Ninth Circuit decision that allowed multiple state common-law claims to proceed with respect to Schwab’s Total Bond Market Fund. Defendants include independent directors. (Northstar Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Invs.)
• In the same lawsuit, the district court partly denied Schwab‘s motion to dismiss, holding (among other things) that defendants had abandoned their SLUSA preclusion arguments with respect to Northstar’s breach of fiduciary duty claims. (Northstar Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Invs.)
• Two UBS advisory firms agreed to pay $17.5 million to settle SEC charges arising from their purported roles in failing to disclose a change in investment strategy by a closed-end fund they advised.
• By order of the court, the securities fraud class action regarding four Virtus funds transferred from C.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y. (Youngers v. Virtus Inv. Partners, Inc.)

New Lawsuits

• Allianz Global Investors and PIMCO are targets of a new ERISA class action that challenges the selection of proprietary mutual funds for the Allianz 401(k) plan. Complaint: “the Fiduciary Defendants treat the Plan as an opportunity to promote the Allianz Family’s mutual fund business and maximize profits at the expense of the Plan and its participants.” (Urakhchin v. Allianz Asset Mgmt. of Am., L.P.)
• J.P. Morgan is the target of a new section 36(b) excessive fee lawsuit regarding five of its funds. The plaintiffs rely on comparisons to purportedly lower fees that J.P. Morgan charges to other clients. (Campbell Family Trust v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt., Inc.)
• Metropolitan West‘s Total Return Bond Fund is the subject of a new section 36(b) excessive fee lawsuit. The plaintiff relies on comparisons to purportedly lower fees that Metroplitan West charges to other clients. (Kennis v. Metro. W. Asset Mgmt., LLC.)

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and news from DailyAlts.

October proved to be less than spooky for the equity market as the S&P 500 Index rose 8.44% over the month, leading major asset classes and alternative investment categories. While bonds and commodities were relatively flat, long/short equity funds topped the list of alternative funds and returned an average of 2.88%, while bear market funds shed 11.30% over the month as stocks rallied. Managed futures funds gave back gains they had made earlier in the year with a loss of 1.82% on average, according to Morningstar, while multi-alternative funds posted gains of 1.33%.  All in all, a mixed bag for nearly everything but long-only equity.

Asset Flows

September turned out to be a month when investors decided that it was time to pull money from actively managed mutual funds and ETFs, regardless of asset class, style or strategy – except for alternatives. Every actively managed category, as reported by Morningstar saw outflows other than alternatives, which had net inflows of $719 million to actively managed funds and another $884 million to passively managed alternative mutual funds and ETFs.

As you will recall, volatility started to spike in August when the Chinese devaluated the Yuan, and the turmoil carried into September. But not all alternative categories saw positive inflows in September – in fact few did. Were it not for trading strategy funds, such as inverse funds, the overall alternatives category would be negative:

• Trading strategies, such as inverse equity funds, added $1.5 billion
• Multi-alternative funds picked up $998 million
• Managed futures funds added $744 million
• Non-traditional bond funds shed $1.3 billion
• Volatility based funds lost $551 million

New Fund Filings

AlphaCentric and Catalyst both teamed up with third parties to invest in managed futures or related strategies. AlphaCentric partnered with Integrated Managed Futures Corp for a more traditional, single manager managed futures fund while Catalyst is looking to Millburn Ridgefield Corporation to run a managed futures overlay on an equity portfolio – very institutional like!

Another interesting filing was that from a new company called Castlemaine who plans to launch five new alternative mutual funds – all managed by one individual. That’s just hard to do! Hard to criticize that this point, but we will keep an eye on the firm as they come out with new products later this year.

Research

Finally, there were a couple pieces of interesting research that we uncovered this past month, as follows:

• The Pros and Cons of Single- and Multi-Manager Alternative Funds – this is a thoughtful piece from Steben & Co. that outlines the pros and cons of investing in single and multi-manager funds. Some important points are made in the paper for anyone looking to allocate to an actively managed fund.
• Enhancing Performance With Dynamic Timing of Factor Exposures – this paper from State Street Global Advisors presents an outline for potentially enhancing returns of a static “factor” allocation portfolio. For anyone using smart beta products, this is a solid paper to read.

Have a wonderful November, and Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Observer Fund Profiles: RNCOX

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.

RiverNorth Core Opportunity (RNCOX). RiverNorth turns the typical balanced strategy (boring investments, low costs) on its head. At the price of higher pass-through costs, the fund attempts to exploit the occasionally-irrational pricing of the closed-end fund market to add a market-neutral layer of returns to a flexible underlying allocation. That’s work well far more often than it hasn’t.

Launch Alert: T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Value (PRIJX)

Price launched its Emerging Markets Value fund at the end of September. The manager is Ernest C. Yeung. He started at Price in 2003 as an analyst covering E.M. telecommunication stocks. In 2009 he became a co-manager of the International Small Cap Equity strategy (manifested in the U.S. as Price International Discovery PRIDX), where he was the lead guy on Asian stock selection. Nick Beecroft in Price’s Hong Kong office reports that at the end of 2014, “he began to manage a paper portfolio for the new T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Value Stock Fund, which he then ran until the fund was launched publicly in September 2015. So Ernest [has] been part of our emerging markets team at T. Rowe for over 12 years.”

The fund will target 50-80 stocks and stock selection will drive both country and sector exposure. Characteristics he’ll look for:

• low valuation on various earnings, book value, sales, and cash flow metrics, in absolute terms and/or relative to the company’s peers or its own historical norm;
• low valuation relative to a company’s fundamentals;
• companies that may benefit from restructuring activity or other turnaround opportunities;
• a sound balance sheet and other positive financial characteristics;
• strong or improving position in an overlooked industry or country; and
• above-average dividend yield and/or the potential to grow dividends.

As Andrew Foster and others have pointed out, value investing has worked poorly in emerging markets. Their argument is that many EM markets, especially Asian ones, have powerful structural impediments to unlocking value. Those include interlocking directorships, control residing in founding families rather than in the corporate management, cross-ownership and a general legal disregard for the rights of minority shareholders. I asked the folks at Price what they thought had changed. Mr. Beecroft replied:

We agree that traditional, fundamental value investing can be challenging in emerging markets. Companies can destroy value for years for all the reasons that you mention. Value traps are prevalent as a result. Our approach deliberately differs from the more traditional fundamental value approach. We take a contrarian approach and actively seek stocks that are out of favour with investors or which have been “forgotten” by the market. We also look for them to have a valuation anchor in the form of a secure dividend yield or book value support. These stocks typically offer attractive valuations and with limited downside risk.

But in emerging markets, just being cheap is not enough. So, we look for a re-rating catalyst. This is where our research team comes in. Re-rating catalysts might be external to the company (e.g., industry structure change, or an improving macro environment) or internal (ROE/ROIC improvement, change in management, improved capital allocation policy, restructuring, etc.). Such change can drive a significant re-rating on the stock.

The emerging markets universe is wide and deep. We are able to find attractive upside potential in stocks that other investors are not always focused on.

The fund currently reports about a quarter million in its portfolio. The initial expense ratio, after waivers, is 1.5%. The minimum initial investment is just $1,000.

Funds in Registration

There are fifteen or so new funds in registration this month. Funds in registration with the SEC are not available for sale to the public and the advisors are not permitted to talk about them, but a careful reading of the filed prospectuses gives you a good idea of what interesting (and occasionally appalling) options are in the pipeline. The funds in registration now have a good chance of launching on December 31, which is critical to allowing them to report full-year results for 2016.

There are some interesting possibilities. Joe Huber is launching a mid-cap fund. ASTON will have an Asia dividend one. And Homestead is launching their International II fund, sub-advised by Harding Loevner.

Manager Changes

Chip tracked down 63 manager changes this month, a fairly typical tally. This month continues the trend of many more women being removed from management teams (9) than added to them (1). There were a few notable changes. The outstanding Boston Partners Long/Short Equity Fund (BPLEX) lost one of its two co-managers. Zac Wydra left Beck Mack & Oliver Partners Fund (BMPEX) to become CIO of First Manhattan Corporation. In an unusual flurry, Kevin Boone left Marsico Capital, then Marsico Capital got booted from the Marsico Growth FDP Fund (MDDDX) that Kevin co-managed, then the fund promptly became the FDP BlackRock Janus Growth Fund.

The Navigator: Fund research fast

One of the coolest resources we offer is also one of the least-used: The Navigator. It’s located on the Resources tab at the top-right of each page. If you enter a fund’s name or ticker symbol in The Navigator, it will instantly search 27 sites for information on the fund:

If you click on any of those links, it takes you directly to the site’s profile of the fund. (Did you even know The Google had fund pages? They do.)

Updates: INNAX, liquidity debate

In October we featured Capital Innovations Global Agri, Timber, Infrastructure Fund (INNAX) in our Elevator Talk. Energy-light portfolio, distinctive profile given their focus on “soft” resources like trees and cattle. Substantially above-average performance. They’d just passed their three year anniversary and seven days later they received their inaugural star rating from Morningstar. They’re now recognized as a four star fund within the natural resources group.

We’ve argued frequently that liquidity in the U.S. securities market, famously the most liquid in the world, might be drying up. The translation is: you might not be able to get a fair price for your security if you need to sell at the same time lots of other people are. The SEC is propounding rules to force funds to account for the liquidity of their holdings and to maintain a core of highly-liquid securities that would be sufficient to cover several days’ worth of panicked redemptions. The Wall Street Journal provided a nice snapshot of the potential extent of such problems even in large, conservative fixed-income funds. Using the ability to sell a security within seven days, the article “Bond funds push limits” (9/22/2015) estimates the extent of illiquid assets in five funds:

Between them, those funds hold $130 billion. The Investment Company Institute, the industry’s mouthpiece, immediately denounced the story.

It’s not quite The Satanic Verses, but ….

In October, Jason Zweig published his The Devil’s Financial Dictionary. The title, of course, draws from Ambrose Bierce’s classic The Devil’s Dictionary (1906). Critics of Wall Street still nod at entries like “Finance: the art or science of managing revenues or resources for the best advantage of the manager.”

With a combination of wit and a long career during which he incubates both insight and annoyance, Jason wrote what’s become a bedside companion for me. It’s full of short, snippy entries, each of which makes a point that bears making. I think you’d enjoy it, even if you’re the object of it.

---

Financial Journalist, n. Someone who is an expert at moving words about markets around on a page or screen until they sound impressive, regardless of whether they mean anything. Until the early 20^th century, financial journalists knew exactly what they were doing, as many of them were paid overtly or covertly by market manipulators to promote or trash various investments … Nowadays, most financial journalists are honest, which is progress—and ignorant, which isn’t.

---

Another thing to be thankful for: New data and our impending launch

We’ll be writing to the 6,000 or so of you on our mailing list in the next week or so with updates about our database and other analytics, as well as word of the formal launch of the “MFO premium” site, which will give all of our contributors access to all of this stuff and more.

Comparing Lipper Ratings

MFO recently started computing its risk and performance fund metrics and attendant fund ratings using the Lipper Data Feed Service for U.S. Open End funds. (See MFO Switches To Lipper Database.) These new data have now been fully incorporated on the MFO Premium beta site, and on the Great Owl, Fund Alarm, and Dashboard of Profiled Funds pages of our legacy Search Tools. (The Risk Profile and Miraculous Multi-Search pages will be updated shortly).

Last month we noted that the biggest difference MFO readers were likely to find was in the assigned classifications or categories, which are described in detail here. (Morningstar’s categories are described here,  and Lipper nicely compares the two classification methodologies here.) Some examples differences:

• Lipper uses “Core” instead of “Blend.” So, you will find Large-Cap Growth, Large-Cap Core, and Large Cap Value.
• Lipper includes a “Multi-Cap” category, in addition to Large-Cap, Medium-Cap, and Small-Cap. “Funds that, by portfolio practice, invest in a variety of market capitalization ranges …” Examples are Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Inv (VTSMX), Auxier Focus Inv (AUXFX), and Bretton (BRTNX).
• Lipper does not designate an “Asset Allocation” category type, only “Equity” and “Fixed Income.” The traditional asset allocation funds, like James Balanced: Golden Rainbow Retail (GLRBX) and Vanguard Wellesley Income Inv (VWINX) can be found in the categories “Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Moderate” and “Mixed-Asset Target Allocation Conservative,” respectively.
• Lipper used “Core Bond” instead of say “Intermediate-Term Bond” to categorize funds like Dodge & Cox Income (DODIX).
• Lipper extends data back to January 1960 versus January 1962. Number of funds still here today that were here in January 1960? Answer: 72, including T Rowe Price Growth Stock (PRGFX).

A few other changes that readers may notice with latest update:

• Ratings for funds in all the commodities categories, like Commodities Agriculture, where previously we only included “Broad Basket.”
• Ratings for funds of leveraged and short bias categories, so-called “trading” funds.
• Ratings for 144 categories versus 96 previously. We continue to not rate money market funds or funds less than 3 months old.
• No ratings for funds designated as a “variable insurance product,” which typically cannot be purchased directly by investors. Examples are certain Voya, John Hancock, and Hartford funds.
• There may be a few differences in the so-called “Oldest Share Class (OSC)” funds. MFO has chosen to define OSC as share class with earliest First Public Offering (FPO) date. (If there is a tie, then fund with lowest expense ratio. And, if tied again, then fund with largest assets under management.)

Overall, the changes appear quite satisfactory.

Briefly Noted . . .

Columbia Acorn Emerging Markets (CAGAX) has lifted the cap on what constitutes “small- and mid-sized companies,” their target universe. It has been $5 billion. Effective January 1 their limit bumps to $10 billion. That keeps their investment universe roughly in line with their benchmark’s.

Goldman Sachs Fixed Income Macro Strategies Fund (GAAMX) is making “certain enhancements” to its investment strategies. Effective November 20, 2015, the Fund will use a long/short approach to invest in certain fixed income securities. The trail of the blue line certainly suggests that “certain enhancements” might well be in order.

Here’s something I’ve not read before: “The shareholder of Leland Thomson Reuters Private Equity Index Fund (LDPAX) … approved changing the Fund’s classification from a diversified Fund to a non-diversified Fund under the Investment Company Act of 1940.”

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Not a lot to cheer for.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

The closure of the 361 Managed Futures Strategy Fund (AMFQX/ AMFZX) has been delayed “until certain administrative and other implementation matters have been completed.” The plan is to close by December 31, 2015.

The shareholders of Hennessy Cornerstone Large Growth Fund, the Hennessy Cornerstone Value Fund, and the Hennessy Large Value Fund bravely voted to screw themselves by adding 12(b)1 fees to their funds, beginning on November 1, 2015. The Hennessy folks note, in passing, that “This will increase the fees of the Investor Class shares of such Hennessy Funds.”

Invesco European Small Company Fund (ESMAX) will close to new investors on November 30, 2015. By pretty much all measures, it offers access to higher growth rates at lower valuations than the average European stock fund does. The question for most of us is whether such a geographically limited small cap fund ever makes sense. 

Effective after November 13, 2015, the RiverNorth/DoubleLine Strategic Income Fund (RNDLX) is closed to new investors.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

On December 30, the microscopic and undististinguished Alger Analyst Fund (SPEAX) will become Alger Mid Cap Focus Fund. Usually when a fund highlights Analyst in its name, it’s run by … well, the firm’s analysts. “Research” often signals the same thing. In this case, the fund has been managed since inception by CEO/CIO Dan Chung. After the name change, the fund will be managed by Alex Goldman. 

In one of those “I just want to slap someone” moves, the shareholders of City National Rochdale Socially Responsible Equity Fund (AHRAX) are voting on whether to become the Baywood SociallyResponsible Fund. The insistence of fund firms to turn two words into one word is silly but I could imagine some argument about the ability to trademark a name that’s one word (DoubleLine) that wouldn’t be available if it were two. But mashed-together with the second half officially italicized? Really, guys? The fact that the fund has trailed 97% of its peers over the past decade suggests the need to step back and ask questions more probing than this.

Effective December 31, 2015, Clearbridge Global Growth (LGGAX) becomes ClearBridge International Growth Fund.

Oppenheimer International Small Company Fund (OSMAX) becomes Oppenheimer International Small-Mid Company Fund on December 30, 2015. It’s a very solid fund except for the fact that, at $5.1 billion, is no longer targets small caps: 75% of the portfolio are mid- to large-cap stocks.

On January 11, 2016, the Rothschild U.S. Large-Cap Core Fund, U.S. Large-Cap Value, U.S. Small/Mid-Cap Core, U.S. Small-Cap Core, U.S. Small-Cap Value and U.S. Small-Cap Growth funds will become part of the Pacific Funds Series Trust. Rothschild expects that they’ll continue to manage the year-old funds with Pacific serving as the parent. The new fund names will be simpler than the old and will drop “U.S.”, though the statement of investment strategies retains U.S. as the focus. The funds will be Pacific Funds Large Cap, Large Cap Value, Small/Mid-Cap, Small-Cap, Small-Cap Value and Small-Cap Growth. It appears that the tickers will change.

On December 18, 2015, SSgA Emerging Markets Fund (SSELX) will become State Street Disciplined Emerging Markets Equity Fund, leading mayhap to speculation that it hadn’t been disciplined up until then. The fund will use quant screens “to select a portfolio that the Adviser believes will exhibit low volatility and provide competitive long-term returns relative to the Index.”

As part of a continuing series of fund adoptions, Sound Point Floating Rate Income Fund (SPRFX) will reorganize into the American Beacon Sound Point Floating Rate Income Fund.

Effective October 28, 2015, Victory Fund for Income became Victory INCORE Fund for Income. Presumably because the audience arose, applauding and calling “incore! incore!” Victory Investment Grade Convertible Fund was also rechristened Victory INCORE Investment Grade Convertible Fund.

And, too, Victory renamed all of its recently-acquired Compass EMP funds. The new names will all begin Victory CEMP. So, for example, in testing the hypothesis that no name is too long and obscure to be attractive, Compass EMP Ultra Short-Term Fixed Income Fund (COFAX) will become Victory CEMP Ultra Short Term Fixed Income Fund.

Voya Growth Opportunities Fund changed its name to Voya Large-Cap Growth Fund.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

3D Printing, Robotics and Technology Fund (TDPNX) will liquidate on November 13, 2015. In less than two years, the managers lost 39% for their investors while the average tech fund rose 20%. The Board blamed “market conditions and economic factors” rather than taking responsibility for a fatally-flawed conception. Reaction on the Observer’s discussion board was limited to a single word: “surprised?”

Not to worry, 3D printing fans! The ETF industry has rushed in to fill the (non-existent) gap with the pending launch of the ARK 3D Printing ETF.

Acadian Emerging Markets Debt Fund (AEMDX) has closed and will liquidate on November 20, 2015. It’s a $36 million institutional fund that’s had one good year in five; otherwise, it trailed 70-98% of its peers. Performance seems to have entirely fallen off a cliff in 2015.

AllianzGI NFJ All-Cap Value Fund (PNFAX) is slated for liquidation on December 11, 2015. Their International Managed Volatility (PNIAX) and U.S. Managed Volatility (NGWAX) funds will follow on March 2, 2016. The theory says that managed volatility funds should be competitive with their benchmarks over the long term by limiting losses during downturns. The latter two funds suffered because they couldn’t consistently manage that feat.

Carne Hedged Equity Fund (CRNEX) was a small, decent long/short fund for four years. Then the recent past happened; the fund went from well above average through December 2013 to well below average since. Finally, the last week of October 2015 happened. Here’s the baffling picture:

Right: 23% loss over four days in a flat market. No word on the cause, though the liquidation filing does refer to a large redemption and anticipated future redemptions. (Ya think?) So now it’s belatedly becoming “a former fund.” Graveside services will be conducted December 30, 2015.

Forward continues … in reverse? To take one step Forward and two back? Forward Global Dividend Fund (FFLRX) will liquidate on November 17^th and the liquidation of Forward Select EM Dividend Fund will occur on December 15, 2015. Those appear to be Forward’s fifth and sixth liquidations in 2015, and the fourth since being acquired by Salient this summer.

In order “to optimize the Goldman Sachs Funds and eliminate overlap,” Goldman Sachs has (insightfully) decided to merge Goldman Sachs International Small Cap Fund (GISAX) into Goldman Sachs International Small Cap Insights Fund (GISAX). The target date is February, 2016. That’s a pretty clean win for shareholders. GISAX is, by far, the larger, stronger and cheaper option.

GuideMark® Global Real Return Fund has been liquidated and terminated and, for those of you who haven’t yet gotten the clue, “shares of the Fund are no longer available for purchase or exchange.”

JPMorgan U.S. Research Equity Plus Fund (JEPAX) liquidated after fairly short notice on October 28, 2015. It was a long/short fund of the 130/30 variety: it had a leveraged long position and a short portfolio which together equaled 100% long exposure. That’s an expensive proposition whose success relies on your ability to get three or four things (extent of leverage, target market exposure, long and short security selection) consistently and repeatedly right. Lipper helpfully classifies it as a “Lipper Alternative Active Extension Fund.” It had a few good years rather precisely offset by bad years; in the end, the fund charged a lot (2.32% despite a mystifying Morningstar report of 1.25%), churned the portfolio (178% per year) but provided nothing special (its returns exactly matched the average 100% long large cap fund).

Larkin Point Equity Preservation Fund (LPAUX), a two-year-old long/short fund of funds, will neither preserve or persevere much longer. It has closed and expects to liquidate on November 16, 2015.

On October 16, 2015, Market Vectors got out of the Quality business as they bumped off the MSCI International Quality, MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Dividend, MSCI International Quality Dividend and MSCI Emerging Markets Quality ETFs.

The Board of Trustees of The Royce Fund recently approved the fund reorganizations effective in the first half of 2016. In the first half of 2016, Royce International Premier (RIPN) will eat two of its siblings: European Small Cap (RESNX) and Global Value (RGVIX). Why does it make sense for a $9 million fund with no star rating to absorb its $22 million and $62 million siblings? Of course, Royce is burying a one-star fund that’s trailed 90% of its peers over the past five years. And, too, a one-star fund that’s trailed 100% in the same period. Yikes. Global Value averaged 0.8% annually over the past five years; its average peer pumped out ten times as much.

While they were at it, Royce’s Board of Trustees approved a plan of liquidation for Royce Micro-Cap Discovery Fund (RYDFX), to be effective on December 8, 2015. The $5 million fund is being liquidated “primarily because it has not attracted and maintained assets at a sufficient level for it to be viable.” That suggests that International Micro Cap (ROIMX) with lower returns, two stars and $6 million in assets might be next in line.

Salient MLP Fund (SAMCX) will liquidate on December 1, 2015. Investors will continue to be able to access the management team’s skills through Salient MLP & Energy Infrastructure Fund II (SMAPX) which has over a billion in assets. It’s not a particularly good fund, but it is better than SAMCX.

Schroder Global Multi-Cap Equity Fund (SQQJX) liquidated on October 27, 2015, just days short of its fifth anniversary.

Sirios Focus Fund (SFDIX) underwent “final liquidation” on Halloween, 2015. It’s another fund abandoned after two years of operation.

Tygh Capital Management has recommended the liquidation of its TCM Small-Mid Cap Growth Fund (TCMMX). That will occur just after Thanksgiving.

Touchstone Growth Allocation Fund (TGQAX) is getting absorbed by Touchstone Moderate Growth Allocation Fund (TSMAX) just before Thanksgiving. Both have pretty sad records, but Growth has the sadder of the two. At the same time, Moderate Growth brings in managers Nathan Palmer and Anthony Wicklund from Wilshire Associates. Wilshire replaces Ibbotson Associates (a Morningstar company) as the fund’s advisor. Both are funds-of-mostly-Touchstone funds. After the repositioning, Moderate Growth will offer 40% non-US exposure with 45-75% of its assets in equities. Currently Growth is entirely equities.

UBS Multi-Asset Income Fund (MAIAX) will liquidate on or about December 3, 2015.

The Virtus Disciplined Equity Style (VDEAX), Virtus Disciplined Select Bond (VDBAX) and Virtus Disciplined Select Country (VDCAX) funds will close on November 20^th and will liquidate by December 2, 2015. They share about $7 million in assets and a record of consistent underperformance.

Virtus Dynamic Trend Fund (EMNAX) will merge into Virtus Equity Trend Fund (VAPAX), they’re hoping sometime in the first quarter of 2016. I have no idea of why, since EMNAX has $600 million and a better record than VAPAX.

In Closing . . .

In a good year, nearly 40% of our Amazon revenue is generated in November and December. That’s in part because I endlessly nag people about how ridiculously simple, painless and useful it is to bookmark our Amazon link or set it as one of your tabs that opens whenever you start your favorite browser.

Please don’t make me go find some cute nagging-related image to illustrate this point. Just bookmark our Amazon link or set it as an opening tab. That would help so me. Here’s the link http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=mutufundobse-20. Alternatively, you can click on the banner.

A quick tip of the cap to folks who made tax-deductible contributions to the Observer this month: regular subscribers, Greg and Deb; PayPal contributors, Beatrice and David; and those who preferred to mail checks, Marjorie, Tom G. and the folks at Ultimus Fund Solutions. We’re grateful to all of you.

The fund managers I’ve spoken with are nearly unanimous in their loathing of Schwab. Words like “arrogant, high-handed and extortionate” capture the spirit of their remarks. I hadn’t dealt with the folks at Schwab until now, so mostly I nodded sympathetically. I now nod more vigorously.

It’s likely that we’ll be in the vicinity of, but not at, the Schwab IMPACT conference in November. We requested press credentials and were ignored for a good while. Then after poking a couple more times, we were reminded of how rare and precious they were and were asked to submit examples of prior conference coverage. We did, on September 28^th. That’s the last we heard from them so we’ll take that as a “we’re Schwab. Go away, little man.” Drop us a note if you’re going to be there and would like to chat at some nearby coffee shop.

We’ll look for you.

Dear friends,

Welcome to fall. Welcome to October, the time of pumpkins.

October’s a month of surprises, from the first morning that you see frost on the grass to the appearance of ghosts and ghouls at month’s end. (Also sports mascots. Don’t ask.) It’s a month famous of market crashes – 1929, 1987, 2008 – and for being the least hospitable to stocks. And it has the prospect of setting new records for political silliness and outbreaks of foot-in-mouth disease.

It’s the month of golden leaves, apple cider, backyard fires and weekend football.  (I’m a bit torn. Sam Frasco, Augie’s quarterback, broke Ken Anderson’s school record for total offense – 469 yards in a game – and lost. In the next week, he broke his own record – 575 – and lost again.) 

It’s the month where we discover that Oktoberfest actually takes place in September, and we’ve missed it. 

In short, it’s a good month to be alive and to share with you.

Leuthold: a cyclical bear has commenced

As folks on our mailing list know, the Leuthold Group has concluded that a cyclical bear market has begun. They make the argument in the lead section of Perception for the Professional, their monthly report for paying research clients (and us). It’s pretty current, with data through September 8th. A late September update of that essay, posted on the Leuthold Group’s website, reiterates the conclusion: “We strongly suspect the decline from the September 17th intraday highs is the bear market’s second downleg, and we’d expect all major U.S. indexes to undercut their late August lows before this leg is complete.” While declines during the 3^rd quarter took some of the edge off the market’s extreme valuation, they note with concern the buoyant optimism of the “buy the dips” crowd.

Who are they?

The Leuthold Group was founded in 1981 by Steve Leuthold, who is now mostly retired to Bar Harbor, Maine. (I’m intensely jealous.) They’re an independent firm that produces financial research for institutional investors. They do unparalleled quantitative work deeply informed by historical studies that other firms simply don’t attempt. They write well and thoughtfully.

Why pay any attention?

They write well and thoughtfully. Hadn’t I mentioned? Quite beyond that, they put their research into practice through the Leuthold Core (LCORX) and Leuthold Global (GLBLX) funds. Core was a distinguished “world allocation” fund before the term existed. $10,000 entrusted to Leuthold in 1995 would have grown to $53,000 today (10/01/2015). Over that same period, an investment in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX) would have growth to $46,000 while the average tactical allocation manager would have managed to grow it to $26,000. All of which is to say, they’re not some ivory tower assemblage of perma-bears peddling esoteric strategies to the rubes.

What’s their argument?

The bottom line is that a cyclical bear began in August and it’s got a ways to go. Their bear market targets for the S&P 500 – based on a variety of different bear patterns – are in the range of 1500-1600; it began October at about 1940. The cluster of the Russell 2000 is around 1000; the October 1 open was 1100. 

The S&P target was a composite drawn from the levels necessary to achieve:

1. a reversion to 1957-present median valuations
2. 50% retracement of gains from the October 2011 low
3. the October 2007 peak
4. the median decline in a postwar bear
5. the March 2000 secular bull market peak
6. 50% retracement of the gain from the March 2009 low
7. April 2011 market peak

Each of those represents what some technicians see as a “support level” in a typical cyclical bear. Since Leuthold recognizes that it’s not possible to be both precise and meaningful, they look for clustered values. Most of the ones about lie between 1525 and 1615, so …

They address some of the self-justificatory blather (“it’s the most hated bull market in history,” to which they reply that sales of leveraged bull market funds and equity exposure by market-timing newsletters were at records for 2014 and much of 2015 which some might think of as showin’ some lovin’), then make two arguments:

1. Market internals have been breaking down all summer.
2. After the August declines, the market’s forward P/E ratio was still higher than it was at the peaks of the last three bull markets.

In their tactical portfolios, they’ve dropped their equity exposure to 35%. Their early September asset allocation in the portfolios (such as Leuthold Core LCORX and Leuthold Global GLBLX) was:

52% long equities

21% equity hedge a/k/a short for a net long of 31%

4% EM equities, which are in addition to the long position above

20% fixed income, with both EM and TIPS eliminated in August. The rest is relatively short and higher quality.

3% cash

They seem especially chary of energy stocks and modestly positive toward consumer discretionary and health care ones.

They are torn on the emerging markets. They argue that “there must be serious fundamental problems with any asset class that commands a Normalized P/E of only 13x at the peak (in May 2015) of one of the greatest liquidity-driven bull markets in history. We now expect EM valuations will undercut their 2008 lows before the current market decline has run its course. That washout might also serve up the best stock market bargains in many years…” (emphasis in original) Valuations are already so low that they’ve discussed overriding their own models but will not abandon their discipline in favor of their guts.

The turmoil in the emerging markets has struck down saints and sinners alike. The two emerging markets funds in my personal account, Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX) and Grandeur Peak Emerging Opportunities (GPEOX, closed) are down about 18% from their late May highs while the EM group as a whole has declined by just over 20%. As Ed Studzinski notes, below, those declines were occasioned by a panic over Chinese stocks which triggered a trillion dollar capital flight and a liquidity crisis.

Seafarer and Grandeur Peak both have splendid records, exceptional managers and success in managing through turmoil. Given the advice that we offered readers last month – briefly put, the worst time to fix a leaky roof is in a storm – I was struck by manager Andrew Foster’s thoughtful articulation of that same perspective in the context of the emerging markets. He made the argument in a September video, in which he and Kate Jaquet discussed risk and risk management in an emerging markets portfolio.

Once a crisis begins to unfold, there’s very little we can do amid the crisis to really change how we manage the fund to somehow dampen down the risk or the exposure the fund has. .. The best way to control risk within the fund is preventative… to try and put in place a portfolio construction that anticipates different kinds of market conditions well ahead of time such that when the crisis unfolds or the volatility ensues that you’re at least reasonably well positioned for it.

The reason why it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to react substantially during a crisis is because most financial crises stem from liquidity panics or some sort of liquidity shortage. And so if you try and trade your portfolio or restructure it radically in the middle of such an event, you’re inevitably trading right into a liquidity panic. What you want to sell will be difficult to sell and you won’t realize efficient prices. What you want to buy – the stuff that might seem safe or might be able to steer you through the crisis – will inevitably be overpriced or expensive … [prices] tend to be at extremes. You’re going to manifest the risk in a more pronounced way and crystallize the loss you’re trying to avoid.

The solution he propounds is the same one you should adopt: Build an all-weather portfolio that manages to be “strong and happy” in good markets and “reasonably resilient” in bad ones.

A more striking response was offered by the good folks at Vulcan Value Partners whose Vulcan Value Partners Small Cap (VVPSX, closed) we profiled four years ago. Vulcan Value Partners does really good work (“all of our investment strategies are ranked in the top 1% of our peers since inception and both Large Cap and Focus are literally the best performing investment programs among their peers”), part and parcel of which is being really thoughtful about the risks they’re asking their partners to face. Their most recent shareholder letter is bracing:

In Small Cap, we have sold a number of positions at our estimate of fair value but have been unable to redeploy capital back into replacements at prices that provide us with a margin of safety. Consequently, cash levels are rising, and price to value ratios in the companies we do own are not as low as in Large Cap. Our investment philosophy tends to keep us fully invested most of the time. However, at extremes, cash levels can rise. We will not compromise on quality, and we will not pay fair value for anything. .. We encourage our Small Cap partners to reduce their small cap exposure in general and with us if they have better alternatives. At the very least, we strongly ask you to not add to your Small Cap allocation with us. There will be a day when we write the opposite of what we are writing today. We look forward to writing that letter, but for the time being Small Cap risks are rising and potential returns are falling. (Thanks for Press, one of the stalwarts of MFO’s discussion board, for bringing the letter to my attention.)

The Field Guide to Bears

Financial professionals tend to distinguish “cyclical” markets from “secular” ones. A secular bear market is a long-term decline that might last a decade or more. Such markets aren’t steady declines; rather, it’s an ongoing decline that’s punctuated by furious short-term market rallies – called “cyclical bulls” – that fizzle out. “Short term” is relative, of course. A short-term rally might roll on for 12-18 months before investors capitulate and the market crashes once again. As Barry Ritzholtz pointed out earlier this year, “Knowing one from the other isn’t always easy.”

There’s an old hiker’s joke that plays with the same challenge of knowing which sort of bear you’re facing:

Park visitors are advised to wear little bells on their clothes to make noise when hiking. The bell noise allows the bears to hear the hiker coming from a distance and not be startled by a hiker accidently sneaking up on them. This might cause a bear to charge. Hikers should also carry pepper spray in case they encounter a bear. Spraying the pepper in the air will irritate a bear’s sensitive nose and it will run away.

It also a good idea to keep an eye out for fresh bear scat so you’ll know if there are bears in the area. People should be able to tell the difference between black bear scat and grizzly bear scat. Black bear scat is smaller and will be fibrous, with berry seeds and sometimes grass in it. Grizzly bear scat will have bells in it and smell like pepper spray.

Some Morningstar ETF Conference Observations

Overcast and drizzling in Chicago on the day Morningstar’s annual ETF Conference opened September 29, the 6^th such event, with over 600 attendees. The US AUM is $2 trillion across 1780 predominately passive exchange traded products, or about 14% of total ETF and mutual fund assets. The ten largest ETFs , which include SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI), account more for nearly $570B, or about 30% of US AUM.  Here is a link to Morningstar’s running summary of conference highlights.

Joe Davis, Vanguard’s global head of investment strategy group, gave a similarly overcast and drizzling forecast of financial markets at his opening key note, entitled “Perspectives on a low growth world.” Vanguard believes GDP growth for next 50 years will be about half that of past 50 years, because of lack of levered investment, supply constraints, and weak global demand. That said, the US economy appears “resilient” compared to rest of world because of the “blood -letting” or deleveraging after the financial crisis. Corporate balances sheets have never been stronger. Banks are well capitalized.

US employment environment has no slack, with less than 2 candidates available for every job versus more than 7 in 2008. Soon Vanguard predicts there will be just 1 candidate for every job, which is tightest environment since 1990s. The issue with employment market is that the jobs favor occupations that have been facilitated by the advent of computer and information technology. Joe believes that situation contributes to economic disparity and “return on education has never been higher.”

Vanguard believes that the real threat to global economy is China, which is entering a period of slower growth, and attendant fall-out with emerging markets. He believes though China is both motivated and has proven its ability to have a “soft landing” that relies more on sustainable growth, if slower, as it transitions to more of a consumer-based economy.

Given the fragility of the global economy, Vanguard does not see interest rates being raised above 1% for the foreseeable future. End of the day, it estimates investors can earn 3-6% return next five year via a 60/40 balanced fund.

J. Martijn Cremers and Antti Petajisto introduced a measure of active portfolio management in 2009, called Active Share, which represents the share of portfolio holdings that differ from the benchmark index holdings. A formal definition and explanation can be found here (scroll to bottom of page), extracted from their paper “How Active Is Your Fund Manager? A New Measure That Predicts Performance.”

Not everybody agrees that the measure “Predicts Performance.” AQR’s Andrea Frazzini, a principal on the firm’s Capital Management Global Stock Selection team, argued against the measure in his presentation “Deactivating Active Share.” While a useful risk measure, he states it “does not predict actual fund returns; within individual benchmarks, it is as likely to correlate positively with performance as it is to correlate negatively.” In other words, statistically indistinguishable.

AQR examined the same data as the original study and found the same quantitative result, but reached a different implication. Andrea believes the 2% higher returns versus the benchmark the original paper touted is not because of so-called high active share, but because the small cap active managers during the evaluation period happened to outperform their benchmarks. Once you break down the data by benchmark, he finds no convincing argument.

He does believe it represents a helpful risk measure. Specifically, he views it as a measure of activity.  In his view, high active share means concentrated portfolios that can have high over-performance or high under-performance, but it does not reliably predict which.

He also sees its value in helping flag closest index funds that charge high fees, since index funds by definition have zero active share.

Why is a large firm like AQR with $136B in AUM calling a couple professors to task on this measure? Andrea believes the industry moved too fast and went too far in relying on its significance.

The folks at AlphaArchitect offer up a more modest perspective and help frame the debate in their paper, ”The Active Share Debate: AQR versus the Academics.”

Charles Ellis, renowned author and founder of Greenwich Associates, gave the lunchtime keynote presentation. It was entitled “Falling Short: The Looming Problem with 401(k)s and How To Solve It.”

He started by saying he had “no intention to make an agreeable conversation,” since his topic addressed the “most important challenge to our investment world.”

The 401(k) plans, which he traces to John D. Rockefeller’s gift to his Standard Oil employees, are falling short of where they need to be to support an aging population whose life expectancy keeps increasing.

He states that $110K is the median 401(k) plus IRA value for 65 year olds, which is simply not enough to life off for 15 years, let alone 25.

The reasons for the shortfall include employers offering a “You’re in control” plan, when most people have never had experience with investing and inevitably made decisions badly. It’s too easy to opt out, for example, or make an early withdrawal.

The solution, if addressed early enough, is to recognize that 70 is the new 65. If folks delay drawing on social security from say age 62 to 70, that additional 8 years represents an increase of 76% benefit. He argues that folks should continue to work during those years to make up the shortfall, especially since normal expenses at that time tend to be decreasing.

He concluded with a passionate plea to “Help America get it right…take action soon!” His argument and recommendations are detailed in his new book with co-authors Alicia Munnell and Andrew Eschtruth, entitled “Falling Short: The Coming Retirement Crisis and What to Do About It.”

We Are Where We Are!

By Edward A. Studzinski

“Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth.”

Lillian Hellman

Current Events:

While we may be where we are, it is worth a few moments to talk about how we got here. In recent months the dichotomy between the news agendas of the U.S. financial press and the international press has become increasingly obvious. At the beginning of August, a headline on the front page of the Financial Times read, “One Trillion Dollars in Capital Flees Emerging Markets.” I looked in vain for a similar story in The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times. There were many stories about the next Federal Reserve meeting and whether they would raise rates, stories about Hillary Clinton’s email server, and stories about Apple’s new products to come, but nothing about that capital flight from the emerging markets.

We then had the Chinese currency devaluation with varying interpretations on the motivation. Let me run a theme by you that was making the rounds of institutional investors outside of the U.S. and was reported at that time. In July there was a meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Europe. One of the issues to be considered was whether or not China’s currency, the renminbi, would be included in the basket of currencies against which countries could have special drawing (borrowing) rights. This would effectively have given the Chinese currency the status of a reserve currency by the IMF. The IMF’s staff, whose response sounded like it could have been drafted by the U.S. Treasury, argued against including the renminbi. While the issue is not yet settled, the Executive Directors accepted the staff report and will recommend extending the lifespan of the current basket, now set to expire December 31, until at least September 2016. At the least, that would lock out the renminbi for another year. The story I heard about what happened next is curious but telling. The Chinese representative at the meeting is alleged to have said something like, “You won’t like what we are going to do next as a result of this.” Two weeks after the conclusion of the IMF meeting, we then had the devaluation of China’s currency, which in the minds of some triggered the increased volatility and market sell-offs that we have seen since then.

I know many of you are saying, “Pshaw, the Chinese would never do anything as irrational as that for such silly reasons.” And if you think that dear reader, you have yet to understand the concept of “Face” and the importance that it plays in the Asian world. You also do not understand the Chinese view of self – that they are a Great People and a Great Nation. And, that we disrespect them at our own peril. If you factor in a definition of long-term, measured in centuries, events become much more understandable.

One must read the world financial press regularly to truly get a picture of global events. I suggest the Financial Times as one easily accessible source. What is reported and considered front page news overseas is very different from what is reported here. It seems on occasion that the bobble-heads who used to write for Pravda have gotten jobs in public relations and journalism in Washington and Wall Street.

One example – this week the Financial Times reported the story that many of the sovereign wealth funds (those funds established by countries such as Kuwait, Norway, and Singapore to invest in stocks, bonds, and other assets, for pension, infrastructure or healthcare, among other things), have been liquidating investments. And in particular, they have been liquidating stocks, not bonds. Another story making the rounds in Europe is that the various “Quantitative Easing” programs that we have seen in the U.S., Europe, and Japan, are, surprise, having the effect of being deflationary. And in the United States, we have recently seen the three month U.S. Treasury Bill trading at negative yields, the ultimate deflationary sign. Another story that is making the rounds – the Chinese have been selling their U.S. Treasury holdings and at a fairly rapid clip. This may cause an unscripted rate rise not intended or dictated by the Federal Reserve, but rather caused by market forces as the U.S. Treasury continues to come to market with refinancing issues.

The collapse in commodity prices, especially oil, will sooner or later cause corporate bodies to float to the surface, especially in the energy sector. Counter-party (the other side of a trade) risk in hedging and lending will be a factor again, as banks start shrinking or pulling lines of credit. Liquidity, which was an issue long before this in the stock and bond markets (especially high yield), will be an even greater problem now.

The SEC, in response to warnings from the IMF and the Federal Reserve, has unanimously (which does not often happen) called for rules to prevent investors’ demands for redemptions in a market crisis from causing mutual funds to be driven out of business. Translation: don’t expect to get your money as quickly as you thought. I refer you to the SEC’s Proposal on Liquidity Risk Management Programs.

I mention that for the better of those who think that my repeated discussions of liquidity risk is “crying wolf.”

“It’s a Fine Kettle of Fish You’ve Gotten Us in, Ollie.”

I have a friend who is a retired partner from Wellington in Boston (actually I have a number of friends who are retired partners from there). Wellington is not unique in that, like Fidelity, it is very unusual for an analyst or money manager to stay much beyond the age of fifty-five.

So I asked him one day how he had his retirement investments structured, hoping I might get some perspective into thinking on the East Coast, as well as perhaps some insights into Vanguard’s products, given the close relationship between Vanguard and Wellington. His answer surprised me – “I have it all in index funds.” I asked if there were any particular index funds. Again the answer surprised me. “No bond funds, and actually only one index fund – the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund.” And when I asked for further color on that, the answer I got was that he was not in the business full time anymore, looking at markets and security valuations every day, so this was the best way to manage his retirement portfolio for the long-term at the lowest cost. Did he know that there were managers, that 10% or so, who consistently (or at least for a while, consistently) outperform the index? Yes, he was aware that such managers were out there. But at this juncture in his life he did not think that he either (a) had the time, interest, and energy to devote to researching and in effect “trading managers” by trading funds and (b) did not think he had any special skill set or insights that would add value in that process that would justify the time, the one resource he could not replace. Rather, he knew what equity exposure he wanted over the next twenty or thirty years (and he recognized that life expectancies keep lengthening). The index fund over that period of time would probably compound at 8% a year as it had historically with minimal transaction costs and minimal tax consequences. He could meet his needs for a diversified portfolio of equities at an expense ratio of five basis points. The rest of his assets would be in cash or cash equivalents (again, not bonds but rather insured certificates of deposit).

I have talked in the past about the need to focus on asset allocation as one gets older, and how index funds are the low cost way to achieve asset diversification. I have also talked about how your significant other may not have the same interest or ability in managing investments (trading funds) after you go on to your just reward. But I have not talked about the intangible benefits from investing in an index fund. They lessen or eliminate the danger of portfolio manager or analyst hubris blowing up a fund portfolio with a torpedo stock. They also eliminate the divergence of interests between the investment firm and investors that arises when the primary focus is running the investment business (gathering assets).

What goes into the index is determined not by the entity running the fund (although they can choose to create their own index, as some of the European banks have done, and charge fees close to 2.00%). There is no line drawn in the sand because a portfolio manager has staked his public reputation on his or her genius in investing in a particular entity. There is also no danger in an analyst recommending sale of an issue to lock in a bonus. There is no danger of an analyst recommending an investment to please someone in management with a different agenda. There is no danger of having a truncated universe of opportunities to invest in because the portfolio manager has a bias against investing in companies that have women chief executive officers. There is no danger of stock selection being tainted because a firm has changed its process by adding an undisclosed subjective screening mechanism before new ideas may be even considered. While firm insiders may know these things, it is a very difficult thing to learn them from the outside.

Is there a real life example here? I go back to the lunch I had at the time of the Morningstar Conference in June with the father-son team running a value fund out of Seattle. As is often the case, a subject that came up (not raised by me) was Washington Mutual (WaMu, a bank holding company that collapsed in 2008, trashing a bunch of mutual funds when it did). They opined how, by being in Seattle (a big small town), they had been able to observe up close and personally how the roll-up (which was what Washington Mutual was) had worked until it didn’t. Their observation was that the Old Guard, who had been at the firm from the beginning with the chair of the board/CEO had been able to remind him that he put his pants on one leg at a time. When that Old Guard retired over time, there was no one left who had the guts to perform that function, and ultimately the firm got too big relative to what had driven past success. Their assumption was that their Seattle presence gave them an edge in seeing that. Sadly, that was not necessarily the case. In the case of many an investment firm, Washington Mutual became their Stalingrad. Generally, less is more in investing. If it takes more than a few simple declarative sentences to explain why you are investing in a business, you probably should not be doing it. And when the rationale for investing changes and lengthens over time, it should serve as a warning.

I suspect many of you feel that the investment world is not this way in reality. For those who are willing to consider whether they should rein in their animal spirits, I commend to you an article entitled “Journey into the Whirlwind: Graham-and-Doddsville Revisited” by Louis Lowenstein (2006) and published by The Center for Law and Economic Studies at Columbia Law School. (Lowenstein, father of Roger Lowenstein, looks at the antics of large growth managers and conclude, “Having attracted, not investors, but speculators trying to catch the next new thing, management got the shareholders they deserved.” Snowball). When I look at the investment management profession today, as well as its lobbying efforts to prevent the imposition of stricter fiduciary standards, I question whether what they really feel in their hearts is that the sin of Madoff was getting caught.

The End

Is there anything I am going to say this month that may be useful to the long-term investor? There is at present much fear abroad in the land about investing in emerging and frontier markets today, driven by what has happened in China and the attendant ripple effect.

The question I will pose for your consideration is this. What if five years from now it becomes compellingly obvious that China has become the dominant economic force in the world? Since economic power ultimately leads to political and military power, China wins. How should one be investing a slice of one’s assets (actively-managed of course) today if one even thinks that this is a remotely possible outcome? Should you be looking for a long-term oriented, China-centric fund?

There is one other investment suggestion I will make that may be useful to the long-term investor. David has raised it once already, and that is dedicating some assets into the micro-cap stock area. Focus on those investments that are in effect too small and extraordinarily illiquid in market capitalization for the big firms (or sovereign wealth funds) to invest in and distort the prices, both coming and going. Micro-cap investing is an area where it is possible to add value by active management, especially where the manager is prepared to cap the assets that it will take under management. Look for managers or funds where the strategy cannot be replicated or imitated by an exchange traded fund. Always remember, when the elephants start to dance, it is generally not pleasant for those who are not elephants.

Edward A. Studzinski

P.S. – Where Eagles Dare

The fearless financial writer for the New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson, wrote a piece in the Sunday Times (9/27/2015) about the asset management company First Eagle Investment Management. The article covered an action brought by the SEC for allegedly questionable marketing practices under the firm’s mutual funds’ 12b-1 Plan. Without confirming or denying the allegations, First Eagle settled the matter by paying $27M in disgorgement and interest, and $12.5M in fines. With approximately $100B in assets generating an estimated $900+M in revenues annually, one does not need to hold a Tag Day for the family-controlled firm. Others have written and will write more about this event than I will.

Of more interest is the fact that Blackstone Management Partners is reportedly purchasing a 25% stake in First Eagle that is being sold by T/A Associates of Boston, another private equity firm. As we have seen with Matthews in San Francisco, investments in investment management firms by private equity firms have generally not inured to the benefit of individual investors. It remains to be seen what the purpose is of this investment for Blackstone. Blackstone had had a right-time, right-strategy investment operation with its two previously-owned closed-end funds, The Asia Tigers Fund and The India Fund, both run by experienced teams. The funds were sold to Aberdeen Asset Management, ostensibly so Blackstone could concentrate on asset management in alternatives and private equity. With this action, they appear to be rethinking that.

Other private equity firms, like Oaktree, have recently launched their own specialist mutual funds. I would note however that while the First Eagle Funds have distinguished long-term records, they were generated by individuals now absent from the firm. There is also the question of asset bloat. One has to wonder if the investment strategy and methodology could not be replicated by a much lower cost (to investors) vehicle as the funds become more commodity-like.

Which leaves us with the issue of distribution – is a load-based product, going through a network of financial intermediaries, viable, especially given how the Millennials appear to make their financial decisions? It remains to be seen. I suggest an analogy worth considering is the problem of agency-driven insurance firms like Allstate. Allstate would clearly like to not have an agency distribution system, and would make the switch overnight if it could without losing business. It can’t, because too much of the book of business would leave. And yet, when one looks at the success of GEICO and Progressive in going the on-line or 1-800 route, one can see the competitive disadvantage, especially in automobile insurance, which is the far more profitable business to capture. It remains to be seen how distribution will evolve in the investment management world, especially as pertains to funds. As fiduciary requirements change, there is the danger of the entire industry model also changing.

Why Vanguard Will Take Over the World

By Sam Lee, principal of Severian Asset Management and former editor of Morningstar ETF Investor.

Vanguard is eating everything. It is the biggest fund company in the U.S., with over $3 trillion in assets under management as of June-end, and the second biggest asset manager in the world, after BlackRock. Size hasn’t hampered Vanguard’s growth. According to Morningstar, Vanguard took in an estimated $166 billion in U.S. ETF and mutual fund assets in the year-to-date ending in August, over three times the next closest company, BlackRock/iShares. Not only do I think Vanguard will eventually overtake BlackRock, it will eventually extend its lead to become by far the most dominant asset manager in the world.

With index funds, investors mostly care about having their desired exposure at the lowest all-in cost, the most visible component of which is the expense ratio. In other words, index funds are commodities. In a commodity industry with economies of scale, the lowest-cost producer crushes the competition. Vanguard is the lowest-cost producer. Not only that, it enjoys a first-mover advantage and possesses arguably the most trusted brand in asset management. These advantages all feed on each other in virtuous cycles.

It’s commonly known Vanguard is owned by its mutual funds, so everything is run “at cost.” (This is a bit of a fiction; some Vanguard funds subsidize others or outside ventures.) “Profits” flow back to the funds as lower expense ratios. There are no external shareholders to please, no quarterly earnings targets to hit. Many cite this as the main reason why Vanguard has been so successful. However, the mutual ownership structure has not always led to lower all-in costs or dominance in other industries, such as insurance, or even in asset management. Mutual ownership is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Vanguard’s success.

What separates Vanguard from other mutually owned firms is that it operates in a business that benefits from strong first-mover advantages. By being the first company to offer index funds widely, it achieved a critical mass of assets and name recognition before anyone else. Assets begot lower fees which begot even more assets, a cycle that still operates today.

While Vanguard locked up the index mutual fund market, it almost lost its leadership by being slow to launch exchange-traded funds. By the time Vanguard launched its first in 2001, State Street and Barclays already had big, widely traded ETFs covering most of the major asset classes. While CEO and later chairman of the board, founder Jack Bogle was opposed to launching ETFs. He thought the intraday trading ETFs allowed would be the rope by which investors hung themselves. From a pure growth perspective, this was a major unforced error. The mistake was reversed by his successor, Jack Brennan, after Bogle was effectively forced into retirement in 1999.

In ETFs, the first-movers not only enjoy economies of scale but also liquidity advantages that allows them to remain dominant even when their fees aren’t the lowest. When given the choice between a slightly cheaper ETF with low trading volume and a more expensive ETF with high trading volume, most investors go with the more traded fund. Because ETFs attract a lot of traders, the expense ratio is small in comparison to cost of trading. This makes it very difficult for new ETFs to gain traction when an established fund has ample trading volume. The first U.S. ETF, SPDR S&P 500 ETF SPY, remains the biggest and most widely traded. In general, the biggest ETFs were also the first to come out in their respective categories. The notable exceptions are where Vanguard ETFs managed to muscle their way to the top. Despite this late start, Vanguard has clawed its way up to become the second largest ETF sponsor in the U.S.

This feat deserves closer examination. If Vanguard’s success in this area was due to one-off factors such as the tactical cleverness of its managers or missteps by competitors, then we can’t be confident that Vanguard will overtake entrenched players in other parts of the money business. But if it was due to widely applicable advantages, then we can be more confident that Vanguard can make headway against entrenched businesses.

A one-off factor that allowed Vanguard to take on its competitors was its patented hub and spoke ETF structure, where the ETF is simply a share class of a mutual fund. By allowing fund investors to convert mutual fund shares into lower-cost ETF shares (but not the other way around), Vanguard created its own critical mass of assets and trading volume.

But even without the patent, Vanguard still would have clawed its way to the top, because Vanguard has one of the most powerful brands in investing. Whenever someone extols the virtues of index funds, they are also extoling Vanguard’s. The tight link was established by Vanguard’s early dominance of the industry and a culture that places the wellbeing of the investor at the apex. Sometimes this devotion to the investor manifests as a stifling paternalism, where hot funds are closed off and “needless” trading is discouraged by a system of fees and restrictions. But, overall, Vanguard’s culture of stewardship has created intense feelings of goodwill and loyalty to the brand. No other fund company has as many devotees, some of whom have gone as far as to create an Internet subculture named after Bogle.

Over time, Vanguard’s brand will grow even stronger. Among novice investors, Vanguard is slowly becoming the default option. Go to any random forum where investing novices ask how they should invest their savings.  Chances are good at least someone will say invest in passive funds, specifically ones from Vanguard.

Vanguard is putting its powerful brand to good use by establishing new lines of business in recent years. Among the most promising in the U.S. is Vanguard Personal Advisor Services, a hybrid robo-advisor that combines largely automated online advice with some human contact and intervention. VPAS is a bigger deal than Vanguard’s understated advertising would have you believe. VPAS effectively acts like an “index” for the financial advice business. Why go with some random Edward Jones or Raymond James schmuck who charges 1% or more when you can go with Vanguard and get advice that will almost guarantee a superior result over the long run?

VPAS’s growth has been explosive. After two years in beta, VPAS had over $10 billion by the end of 2014. By June-end it had around $22 billion, with about $10 billion of that  growth from the transfer of assets from Vanguard’s traditional financial advisory unit. This already makes Vanguard one of the biggest and fastest growing registered investment advisors in the nation. It dwarfs start-up robo-advisors Betterment and Wealthfront, which have around $2.5 billion and $2.6 billion in assets, respectively.

Abroad, Vanguard’s growth opportunities look even better. Passive management’s market share is still in the single digits in many markets and the margins from asset management are even fatter. Vanguard has established subsidiaries in Australia, Canada, Europe and Hong Kong. They are among the fastest-growing asset managers in their markets.

The arithmetic of active management means over time Vanguard’s passive funds will outperform active investors as a whole. Vanguard’s cost advantages are so big in some markets its funds are among the top performers.

Critics like James Grant, editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, think passive investing is too popular. Grant argues investing theories operate in cycles, where a good idea transforms into a fad that inevitably collapses under its own weight. But passive investing is special. Its capacity is practically unlimited. The theoretical limit is the point at which markets become so inefficient that price discovery is impaired and it becomes feasible for a large subset of skilled retail investors to outperform (the less skilled investors would lose even more money more quickly in such an environment—the arithmetic of active management demands it). However, passive investing can make markets more efficient if investors opting for index funds are largely novices rather than highly trained professionals. A poker game with fewer patsies means the pros have to compete with each other.

There are some problems with passive investing. Regularities in assets flows due to index-based buying and selling has created profit opportunities for clever traders. Stocks added to and deleted from the S&P 500 and Russell 2000 indexes experience huge volumes of price-insensitive trading driven by dumb, blind index funds. But these problems can be solved by smart fund management, better index construction (for example, total market indexes) or greater diversity in commonly followed indexes.

Why Vanguard May Not Take Over the World

I’m not imaginative or smart enough to think of all the reasons why Vanguard will fail in its global conquest, but a few risks pop out.

First is Vanguard’s relative weakness in institutional money management (I may be wrong on this point). BlackRock is still top dog thanks to its fantastic institutional business. Vanguard hasn’t ground BlackRock into dust because expense ratios for institutional passively managed portfolios approach zero. Successful asset gatherers offer ancillary services and are better at communicating with and servicing the key decision makers. BlackRock pays more and presumably has better salespeople. Vanguard is tight with money and so may not be willing or able to hire the best salespeople.

Second, Vanguard may make a series of strategic blunders under a bad CEO enabled by an incompetent and servile board. I have the greatest respect for Bill McNabb and Vanguard’s current board, but it’s possible his successors and future boards could be terrible.

Third, Vanguard may be corrupted by insiders. There is a long and sad history of well-meaning organizations that are transformed into personal piggybanks for the chief executive officer and his cronies. Signs of corruption include massive payouts to insiders and directors, a reversal of Vanguard’s long-standing pattern of lowering fees, expensive acquisitions or projects that fuel growth but do little to lower fees for current investors (for example, a huge ramp up in marketing expenditures), and actions that boost growth in the short-run at the expense of Vanguard’s brand.

Fourth, Vanguard may experience a severe operational failure, such as a cybersecurity hack, that damages its reputation or financial capacity.

Individually and in total, these risks seem manageable and remote to me. But I could be wrong.

Summary

• Vanguard’s rapid growth will continue for years as it benefits from three mutually reinforcing advantages: mutual ownership structure where profits flow back to fund investors in the form of lower expenses, first-mover advantage in index funds, and a powerful brand cultivated by a culture that places the investor first.
• Future growth markets are huge: Vanguard has subsidiaries in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and Europe. These markets are much less competitive than the U.S., have higher fees and lower penetration of passive investing. Arithmetic of active investing virtually guarantees Vanguard funds will have a superior performance record over time.
• Vanguard Personal Advisor Services VPAS stands a good chance of becoming the “index” for financial advice. Due to fee advantages and brand, VPAS may be able to replicate the runaway growth Vanguard is experiencing in ETFs.
• Limits to passive investing are overblown; Vanguard still has lots of runway.
• Vanguard may wreck its campaign of global domination through several ways, including lagging in institutional money management, incompetence, corruption, or operational failure.

Needles, haystacks and grails

By Leigh Walzer, principal of Trapezoid LLC.

The Holy Grail of mutual fund selection is predictive validity. In other words, does a positive rating today predict exceptional performance in the future? Jason Zweig of The Wall Street Journal recently cited an S&P study which found three quarters of active mutual funds fail to beat their benchmark over the long haul.

We believe it’s possible, with a reasonable degree of predictive validity, to identify the likelihood a manager will succeed in the future. Trapezoid’s Orthogonal Attribution Engine (OAE) searches for the proverbial needles in a haystack: portfolio managers who exhibit predictable skill, and particularly those who justify based on a statistical analysis paying the higher freight of an active fund. In today’s case only 1 fund has predictable skill, and none justify their expenses. In general fewer than 5% of funds meet our criteria.

One of our premises is that managers who made smart decisions in the past tend to continue and vice versa. We try to break out the different types of decisions that managers have to make (e.g., selecting individual securities, sectors to overweight or currency exposure to avoid). Our system works well based on “back testing;” that is, sitting here in 2015, constructing models of what funds looked like in the past and then seeing if we could predict forward. We have published the results of back-testing, available on our website. (Go to www.fundattribution.com, demo registration required, free to MFO readers.) Using data through July 2014, historical stock-picking skill predicted skill for the subsequent 12 months with 95% confidence. Performance over the past 5 years received the most weight but longer term results (when available) were also very important. We got similar results predicting sector-rotation skills. We repeated the tests using data through July 2013 and got nearly identical results.

We are also publishing forward looking predictions (for large blend funds) to demonstrate this point.

The hard part is measuring skill accurately. The key is to analyze portfolio weightings and characteristics over time. We derive this using both historic funds holdings data and regression/inference, supported by data on individual securities.

Here’s your challenge: you need to decide how high the chances of success need to be to justify choosing a higher-cost option in your portfolio. Should managers with great track records command a higher fee? Yes, with caveats. Although the statistical relationship is solid, skill predictions tend to be fairly conservative. This is a function of the inherent uncertainty about what the future will bring.

The confidence band around individual predictions is fairly wide. The noise level varies: some funds have longer and richer history, more consistent display of skill, longer manager tenure, better data, etc. The less certain we are the past will repeat, the less we should be willing to pay a manager with a great track record. In theory we might be willing to hire a manager if we have 51% confidence he will justify his fees, but investors may want a margin of safety.

Let’s look at some concrete examples of what that means. We are going to illustrate this month with utility funds. Readers who register at the FundAttribution website will be able to query individual funds and access other data. I do not own any of the funds discussed in this piece

Active utility funds are coming off a tough year. The average fund returned only 2.2% in the year ending July 31, 2015; that’s signaled by the “gross return” for the composite at the bottom of the fourth column. Expenses consumed more than half of that. This sector has faced heavy redemptions which may intensify as the Fed begins to taper.

FundAttribution tracks 15 active utility funds. (We also follow 2 rules-based funds and 30 active energy infrastructure funds.) We informally cluster them into three groups:

TABLE 1: Active Utility Funds. Data as of July 31, 2015

*”Predict” is our extrapolation of skill for the 12 months ending July 2016

The Conservative funds tend to stick to their knitting with 70-90% exposure to traditional utilities, <10% foreign exposure, and beta of under 60%. The Aggressive funds are the most adventurous in pursuing related industries and foreign stocks; their beta is 85% (boosted for Duff & Phelps by leverage).

Without being too technical, the OAE determines a target return for each fund each period based on all its characteristics. The difference between gross return and the target equals skill. Skill can be further decomposed into components (e.g. sector selection (sR) vs security selection (sS.) For today’s discussion skill will mean the combination of sR and sS. Here’s how to read the table above: the managers at Franklin Utilities – a huge Morningstar “gold” fund – did slightly better than a passive manager over the past year (before expenses) and underperformed for the past three and five years. We anticipate that they’re going to slightly underperform a passive alternative in the year ahead. That’s better than our system predicts for, say, Fidelity, Putnam or Gabelli but it’s still no reason to celebrate.

In the aggregate these funds have below average beta, moderate non-US exposure, value tilt and a slight midcap bias. The OAE’s target return for the sector over the last year is 6.3%, so the basket of active utility funds had skill of-3.7%. Only two of the 15 funds had positive skill. Negative overall skill means that investors could have chosen other sectors with similar characteristics which produced better returns.

The 2014 energy shock was a major contributing factor. These funds allocated on average only 60-70% to regulated electric and gas generation and distribution. Much of the balance went to Midstream Energy, Merchant Power, Exploration & Production, and Telecom. Those decisions explain most of the difference among funds. Funds which stayed close to home (Icon, Franklin, Rydex, and Putnam) navigated this environment best.

Security selection moved the needle at a few funds. Prudential Jennison stuck to S&P500 components but did a good job overweighting winners. Duff & Phelps had some dreadful performers in its non-utility portfolio.

Skill last year for the two Fidelity funds was impacted by volatile returns which may reflect increased risk-taking.

We use the historic skill to predict next year’s skill. Success over the past 5 years carries the most weight, but we look at managers’ track record, consistency, and trends over their entire tenure.

The predicted skill for next year falls within a relatively tight range: Prudential has the highest skill at 0.8%, Gabelli has the lowest at -1.4%. Either the difference between best and worst in this sector is not that great or our model is not sufficiently clairvoyant.

Either way, these findings don’t excite us to pay 120bps, which is the typical expense ratio in this sector. The OAE rates the probability a fund’s skill this year will justify the freight. Cost in the chart below is the differential between the expense ratio of a fund class and the ~15bp you would pay for a passive utility fund. This analysis varies by share class, the table below shows one representative class for each fund.

We look for funds with a probability of at least 60%, and (as shown in Table 2) none of the active funds here come close. Here’s how to read the table: our system predicts that Franklin Utilities will underperform by 0.2% over the next 12 years but that number is the center of a probable performance band that’s fairly wide, so it could outperform over the next year. Given its expenses of 60 basis points, how likely are they to pull it off? They have about a 40% chance of it to which we’d say, “not good enough.”

TABLE 2

The bottom line: We can’t recommend any of these funds. Franklin might be the least bad choice based on its low fees. Prudential Jennison (PCUFX) has shown flashes of replicable stock picking skill; they would be more competitive if they reduced fees.

Duff & Phelps (DPG) merits consideration. At press time this closed end fund trades at a 15% discount to NAV. This is arguably more than required to compensate investors for the high expenses. The fund is more growth-oriented than the peer group, runs leverage of 1.28x, and maintains significant foreign exposure. There is a 9% “dividend yield;” however, performance last year and over time was dreadful, the dividend does not appear sustainable, and the prospect of rising rates adds to the negative sentiment. So, the timing may not be right.

We show the Morningstar ratings of these funds for comparison. We don’t grade on a curve and from our perspective none of the funds deserve more than 3 stars. Investors looking for such exposure might improve their odds by buying and holding Vanguard Utilities ETF (VPU) with its 0.12% expense ratio or Utilities Select Sector SPDR (XLU)

It is hard for active utility funds to generate enough skill to justify their cost structure. The conservative funds have more or less matched passive indices, so why pay an extra 60 bps. The funds which took on more risk have a mixed record, and their fee structures tend to be even higher.

 Perhaps the industry has recognized this: outflows from actively-managed utility funds have accelerated to double digits over the past 2.5 years and the share of market held by passive funds has increased steadily. A number of industry players have repositioned their utility funds as dividend income funds or merged them into other strategies.

Next month: we will apply the same techniques to large blend funds where we hope to find a few active managers worthy of your attention

Investors who want a sneak preview (of the predicted skill by fund) can register at www.fundattribution.com and click the link near the bottom of the Dashboard page.

Your feedback is welcome at [email protected].

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, searchable, and filtered as never before. For the 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.

Orders

• In the first case brought under the agency’s distribution-in-guise initiative, the SEC charged First Eagle and its affiliated fund distributor with improperly using mutual fund assets to pay for the marketing and distribution of fund shares. (In re First Eagle Inv. Mgmt., LLC.)
• In the purported class action by direct investors in Northern Trust‘s securities lending program, the court struck defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice. (La. Firefighters’ Ret. Sys. v. N. Trust Invs., N.A.)
• Adopting a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, a court granted Nuveen‘s motion to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit regarding four closed-end bond funds affected by the 2008 collapse of the market for auction rate preferred securities. Defendants included the independent chair of the funds’ board. (Kastel v. Nuveen Invs. Inc.)

New Lawsuits

• Alleging the same fee claim but for a different damages period, plaintiffs filed a second “anniversary complaint” in the fee litigation regarding six Principal target-date funds. The litigation has previously survived defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Am. Chems. & Equip., Inc. 401(k) Ret. Plan v. Principal Mgmt. Corp.)
• Investment adviser Sterling Capital is among the defendants in a new ERISA class action that challenges the selection of proprietary funds for its parent company’s 401(k) plan. (Bowers v. BB&T Corp.)

Briefs

• Calamos filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss fee litigation regarding its Growth Fund. (Chill v. Calamos Advisors LLC.)
• In the ERISA class action regarding Fidelity‘s practices with respect to “float income” generated from transactions in retirement plan accounts, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief in the First Circuit, seeking to reverse the district court decision granting Fidelity’s motion to dismiss. The U.S. Secretary of Labor filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs, arguing that ERISA prohibits fiduciaries from using undisclosed float income obtained through plan administration for any purpose other than to benefit the ERISA-covered plan. (Kelley v. Fid. Mgmt. Trust Co.)

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and news from DailyAlts

I think it would be safe to say that most of us are happy to see the third quarter come to an end. While a variety of issues clearly remain on the horizon, it somehow feels like the potholes of the past six weeks are a bit more distant and the more joyous holiday season is closing in. Or, it could just be cognitive biases on my part.

Either way, the numbers are in. Here is a look at the 3rd Quarter performance for both traditional and alternative mutual fund categories as reported by Morningstar.

• Large Blend U.S. Equity: -7.50%
• Foreign Equity Large Blend: -10.37
• Intermediate Term Bond: 0.32%
• World Bond: -1.22%
• Moderate Allocation: -5.59%

Anything with emerging markets suffered even more. Now a look at the liquid alternative categories:

• Long/Short Equity: -4.44
• Non-Traditional Bonds: -1.96%
• Managed Futures: 0.38%
• Market Neutral: -0.26
• Multi-Alternative: -3.05
• Bear Market: 13.05%

And a few non-traditional asset classes:

• Commodities: -14.38%
• Multi-Currency: -3.35%
• Real Estate: 1.36%
• Master Limited Partnerships: -25.73%

While some media reports have questioned the performance of liquid alternatives over the past quarter, or during the August market decline, they actually have performed as expected. Long/short funds outperformed their long-only counterparts, managed futures generated positive performance (albeit fairly small), market neutral funds look fairly neutral with only a small loss on the quarter, and multi-alternative funds outperformed their moderate allocation counterparts.

The one area in question is the non-traditional bond category where these funds underperformed both traditional domestic and global bond funds. Long exposure to riskier fixed income asset would certainly have hurt many of these funds.

Declining energy prices zapped both the commodities and master limited partnerships categories, both of which had double-digit losses. Surprisingly, real estate held up well and there is even talk of developers looking to buy-back REITs due to their low valuations.

Let’s take a quick look at asset flows for August. Investors continued to pour money into managed futures funds and multi-alternative funds, the only two categories with positive inflows in every month of 2015. Volatility also got a boost in August as the CBOE Volatility Index spiked during the month. The final category to gather assets in August was commodities, surprisingly enough.

A few research papers of interest this past month:

PIMCO Examines How Liquid Alternatives Fit into Portfolios – this is a good primer on liquid alternatives with an explanation of how evaluated and use them in a portfolio.

The Path Forward for Women in Alternatives – this is an important paper that documents the success women have had in the alternative investment business. While there is much room for growth, having a study to outline the state of the current industry helps create more awareness and attention on the topic.

Investment Strategies for Tough Times – AQR provides a review of the 10 worst quarters for the market since 1972 and shows which investment strategies performed the best (and worst) in each of those quarters.

And finally, there were two regulatory topics that grabbed headlines this past month. The first was an investor alert issued by FINRA regarding “smart beta” product. Essentially, FINRA wanted to warn investors that not all smart beta products are alike, and that many different factors drive their returns. Essentially, buyer beware. The second was from the SEC who is proposing new liquidity rules for mutual funds and ETFs. One of the more pertinent rules is that having to do with maintain a three-day liquid asset minimum that would likely force many funds to hold more cash, or cash equivalents. This proposal is now in the 90-day comment period.

Have a great October and we will talk again (in this virtual way) just after Halloween! Let’s just hope the Fed doesn’t have any tricks up their sleeve in the meantime.

Elevator Talk: Michael Underhill, Capital Innovations Global Agri, Timber, Infrastructure Fund (INNAX)

Since the number of funds we can cover in-depth is smaller than the number of funds worthy of in-depth coverage, we have 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.

Michael Underhill manages INNAX, which launched at the end of September 2012. Mr. Underhill worked as a real asset portfolio manager for AllianceBernstein and INVESCO prior to founding Capital Innovations in 2007. He also manages about $170 million in this same strategy through separate accounts and four funds available only to Canadian investors.

Assets can be divided into two types: real and financial. Real assets are things you can touch: gold, oil, roads, bridges, soybeans, and lumber. Financial assets are intangible; stocks, for example, represent your hypothetical fractional ownership of a corporation and your theoretical claim to some portion of the value of future earnings.

Most individual portfolios are dominated by financial assets. Most institutional portfolios, however, hold a large slug of real assets and most academic research says that the slug should be even larger than it is.

Why so? Real assets possess four characteristics that are attractive and difficult to achieve.

They thrive in environments hostile to stocks and bonds. Real assets are positively correlated with inflation, stocks are weakly correlated with inflation and bonds are negatively correlated. That is, when inflation rises, bonds fall, stocks stall and real assets rise.

They are uncorrelated with the stock and bond markets. The correlation of returns for the various types of real assets hover somewhere just above or just below zero with relation to both the stock and bond market.

They are better long term prospects than stocks or bonds. Over the past 10- and 20-year periods, real assets have produced larger, steadier returns than either stocks or bonds. While it’s true that commodities have cratered of late, it’s possible to construct a real asset portfolio that’s not entirely driven by commodity prices.

A portfolio with real assets outperforms one without. The research here is conflicted. Almost everything we’ve read suggests that some allocation to real assets improves your risk-return profile. That is, a portfolio with real assets, stocks and bonds generates a greater return for each additional unit of risk than does a pure stock/bond portfolio. Various studies seem to suggest a more-or-less permanent real asset allocation of between 20-80% of your portfolio. I suspect that the research oversimplifies the situation since some of the returns were based on private or illiquid investments (that is, someone buying an entire forest) and the experience of such investments doesn’t perfectly mirror the performance of liquid, public investments.

Inflation is not an immediate threat but, as Mr. Underhill notes, “it’s a lot cheaper to buy an umbrella on a sunny day than it is once the rain starts.” Institutional investors, including government retirement plans and university endowments, seem to concur. Their stake in real assets is substantial (14-20% in many cases) and growing (their traditional stakes, like yours, were negligible).

INNAX has performed relatively well – in the top 20% of its natural resources peer group – over the past three years, aided by its lighter-than-normal energy stake. The fund is down about 5% since inception while its peers posted a 25% loss in the same period. The fund is fully invested, so its outperformance cannot be ascribed to sitting on the sidelines.

Here are Mr. Underhill’s 200 words on why you should add INNAX to your due-diligence list:

There was no question about what I wanted to invest in. The case for investing in real assets is compelling and well-established. I’m good at it and most investors are underexposed to these assets. So real asset management is all we do. We’re proud to say we’re an inch wide and a mile deep.

The only question was where I would be when I made those investments. I’ve spent the bulk of my career in very large asset management firms and I’d grown disillusioned with them. It was clear that large fund companies try to figure out what’s going to raise the most in terms of fees, and so what’s going to bring in the most fees. The strategies are often crafted by senior managers and marketing people who are concerned with getting something trendy up and out the door fast. You end up managing to a “product delivery specification” rather than managing for the best returns.

I launched Capital Innovations because I wanted the freedom and opportunity to serve clients and be truly innovative; we do that with global, all-cap portfolios that strive to avoid some of the pitfalls – overexposure to volatile commodity marketers, disastrous tax drags – that many natural resources funds fall prey to. We launched our fund at the request of some of our separate account clients who thought it would make a valuable strategy more broadly available.

Capital Innovations Global Agri, Timber, Infrastructure Fund has a $2500 minimum initial investment which is reduced to $500 for IRAs and other types of tax-advantaged accounts. Expenses are capped at 1.50% on the investor shares and 1.25% for institutional shares, with a 2.0% redemption fee on shares sold within 90 days. There’s a 5.75% front load that’s waived on some of the online platforms (e.g., Schwab). The fund has about gathered about $7 million in assets since its September 2012 launch. Here’s the fund’s homepage. It’s understandably thin on content yet but there’s some fairly rich analysis on the Capital Innovations page devoted to the underlying strategy. Our friends at DailyAlts.com interviewed Mr. Underhill in December 2014, and he laid out the case for real assets there. An exceptionally good overview of the case for real asset investing comes from Brookfield Asset Management, in Real Assets: The New Essential (2013) though everyone from TIAA-CREF to NACUBO have white papers on the subject.

My retirement portfolio has a small but permanent niche for real assets, which T. Rowe Price Real Assets (PRAFX) and Fidelity Strategic Real Return (FSRRX) filling that slot.

Launch Alert: Thornburg Better World

Earlier this summer, we argued that “doing good” and “doing well” were no longer incompatible goals, if they ever were. A host of academic and professional research has demonstrated that sustainable (or ESG) investing does not pose a drag on portfolio performance. That means that investors who would themselves never sell cigarettes or knowing pollute the environment can, with confidence, choose investing vehicles that honor those principles.

The roster of options expanded by one on October 1, with the launch of Thornburg Better World International Fund (TBWAX).  The fund will target “high-quality, attractively priced companies making a positive impact on the world.” That differs from traditional socially-responsible investments which focused mostly on negative screens; that is, they worked to exclude evil-doers rather than seeking out firms that will have a positive impact.

They’ll examine a number of characteristics in assessing a firm’s sustainability: “environmental impact, carbon footprint, senior management diversity, regulatory and compliance track record, board independence, capital allocation decisions, relationships with communities and customers, product safety, labor and employee development practices, relationships with vendors, workplace safety, and regulatory compliance, among others.”

The fund is managed by Rolf Kelly, CFA, portfolio manager of Thornburg’s Socially Screened International Equity Strategy (SMA). The portfolio will have 30-60 names. The initial expense ratio is 1.83%. The minimum initial investment is $5000.

Funds in Registration

There are seven new funds in registration this month. Funds in registration with the SEC are not available for sale to the public and the advisors are not permitted to talk about them, but a careful reading of the filed prospectuses gives you a good idea of what interesting (and occasionally appalling) options are in the pipeline. Funds currently in registration will generally be available for purchase in December.

While the number is small, many of them represent new offerings from “A” tier shops: DoubleLine Global Bond, Matthews Asia Value and two dividend-oriented international index funds from Vanguard

Manager Changes

Give or take Gary Black’s departure from Calamos, there were about 46 mostly low-visibility shifts in teams.

Thinking outside the model is hazardous to one’s wealth…

The title comes from the AlphaArchitect’s DIY Investing site, which is led by Wesley Gray. We profiled the firm’s flagship ValueShares US Quantitative Value ETF (QVAL) last December. Wes, along with Jack Vogel and David Foulke, recently published the Wiley Finance Series book, “DIY Finanical Advisor – A Simple Solution to Build and Protect Your Wealth.” It’s a great read.

It represents a solid answer to the so-called “return gap” problem described by Jason Hsu of Research Associates during Morningstar’s ETF Conference yesterday. Similar to and inspired by Morningstar’s “Investor Return” metric, Jason argues that investors’ bad decisions based on performance chasing and bad timing account for a 2% annualized short-fall between a mutual fund’s long-term performance and what investors actually receive. (He was kind enough to share his briefing with us, as well as his background position paper.)

“Investors know value funds achieve a premium, but they are too undisciplined to stay the course once the value fund underperforms the market.” It’s not just retail investors, Jason argues the poor behavior has actually been institutionalized and at some level may be worse for institutional investors, since their jobs are often based on short-term performance results.

DIY Financial Advisor opens by questioning society’s reliance on “expert opinion,” citing painful experiences of Victor Niederhoffer, Meredith Whitney, and Jon Corzine. It attempts to explain why financial experts often fail, due various biases, overconfidence, and story versus evidence-based decisions. The book challenges so-called investor myths, like…

• Buffett’s famous advice: “It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at the wonderful price.”
• Economic growth drives stock returns.
• Payout superstition, where observers predict that lower-dividend payout ratios imply higher earnings growth.

In order to be good investors, the book suggests that we need to appreciate our natural preference for coherent stories over evidence that conflicts with the stories. Don’t be the pigeon doing a “pellet voodoo dance.”

It advocates adoption of simple and systematic investment approaches that can be implemented by normal folks without financial background. The approaches may not be perfect, but they have been empirically validated, like the capture of value and momentum premiums, to work “for a large group of investors seeking to preserve capital and capture some upside.”

Wes details how and why Harry Markowitz, who won the Nobel Prize in 1990 for his groundbreaking work in portfolio selection and modern portfolio theory, used a simple equal-weight 50/50 allocation between bond and equities when investing his own money.

The book alerts us to fear, greed, complexity, and fear tactics employed by some advisors and highlights need for DIY investors to examine fees, access/liquidity, complexity, and taxes when considering investment vehicles.

It concludes by stating that “as long as we are disciplined and committed to a thoughtful process that meets our goals, we will be successful as investors. Go forth and be one of the few, one of the proud, one of the DIY investors who took control of their hard-earned wealth. You won’t regret the decision.”

As with Wes’ previous book, Quantitative Value: A Practitioner’s Guide to Automating Intelligent Investment and Eliminating Behavioral Errors, DIY Financial Advisor is chock full of both anecdotes and analytical results. He and his team at AlphaArchitect continue to fight the good fight and we investors remain the beneficiaries.

Briefly Noted . . .

I hardly know how to talk about this one. Gary Black is “no longer a member of the investment team managing any of the series of the Calamos Investment Trust other than the Calamos Long/Short Fund … all references to Mr. Black’s position of Global Co-CIO and his involvement with all other series of the Calamos Investment Trust except for the Calamos Long/Short Fund shall be deemed deleted from the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectuses, and Statement of Additional Information of the Calamos Investment Trust.” In addition, Mr. Black ceased managing the fund that he brought to the firm, Calamos Long/Short (CALSX), on September 30, 2015. Mr. Black’s fund had about $100 million in assets and perfectly reasonable performance. The announcement of Mr. Black’s change of status was “effectively immediately,” which has rather a different feel than “effective in eight weeks after a transition period” or something similar.

Mr. Black came to Calamos after a tumultuous stint at the Janus Funds. Crain’s Chicago Business reports that Mr. Black “expanded the Calamos investment team by 50 percent, adding 25 investment professionals, and launched four funds,” but was not necessarily winning over skeptical investors.  The firm had $23.2 billion in assets under management at the end of August, 2015. That’s down from $33.4 billion on June 30, 2012, just before his hiring.

He leaves after three years, a Calamos rep explained, because he “completed the work he was hired to do. With John’s direction, he helped expand the investment teams and create specialized teams. During the past 18 months, performance has improved, signaling the evolution of the investment team is working.” Calamos, like PIMCO, is moving to a multiple CIO model. When asked if the experience of PIMCO after Gross informed their decision, Calamos reported that “We’ve extensively researched the industry overall and believe this is the best structure for a firm our size.”

“Mr. Black’s future plans,” we’ve been told, “are undecided.”

Toroso Newfound Tactical Allocation Fund (TNTAX) is a small, expensive, underperforming fund-of-ETFs. Not surprisingly, it was scheduled for liquidation. Quite surprisingly, at the investment advisor’s recommendation, the fund’s board reversed that decision and reopened the fund to new investors.  No idea of why.

Thanks, as always, to The Shadow for his help in tracking publicly announced but often little-noticed developments in the fund industry. Especially in month’s like the one just passed, it’s literally true that we couldn’t do it without his assistance. Cheers, big guy!

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Artisan Global Value Fund (ARTGX) reopened to new investors on October 1, 2015. I’m not quite sure what to make of it. Start with the obvious: it’s a splendid fund. Five stars. A Morningstar “Silver” fund. A Great Owl. Our profiles of the fund all ended with the same conclusion: “Bottom Line: We reiterate our conclusion from 2008, 2011 and 2012: ‘there are few better offerings in the global fund realm.’” That having been said, the fund is reopening with $1.6 billion in assets. If Morningstar’s report is to be trusted, assets grew by $700 million in the past 30 days. The fund is just one manifestation of Artisan’s Global Value strategy so one possible explanation is that Artisan is shifting assets around inside the $16 billion strategy, moving money from separate accounts into the fund. And given market volatility, the managers might well see richer opportunities – or might anticipate richer opportunities in the months ahead.

Effective September 15, 2015, the Westcore International Small-Cap Fund (the “Fund”) will reopen to new investors.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Effective September 30, 361 Managed Futures Strategy Fund (AMFQX) closed to new investors.  It’s got about a billion in assets and a record that’s dramatically better than its peers’.

Artisan International Fund (ARTIX) will soft-close on January 29, 2016. The fund is having a tough year but has been a splendid performer for decades. The key is that it has tripled in size, to $18 billion, in the past four years, driven by a series of top-tier performances.

As of the close of business on October 31, 2015, Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Fund (HFXAX) will close to “substantially all” new investors.

Glenmede Small Cap Equity Portfolio (GTCSX) closed to new investors on September 30^th, on short notice. The closure also appears to affect current shareholders who purchased the fund through fund supermarkets.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Aberdeen U.S. Equity Fund

Effective October 31, 2015, the name of the Aberdeen U.S. Equity Fund will change to the Aberdeen U.S. Multi-Cap Equity Fund.

Ashmore Emerging Markets Debt Fund will change its name to Ashmore Emerging Markets Hard Currency Debt Fund on or about November 8, 2015

Columbia Marsico Global Fund (COGAX) is jettisoning Marsico (that happens a lot) and getting renamed Columbia Select Global Growth Fund.

Destra Preferred and Income Securities Fund (DPIAX) has been renamed Destra Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred and Income Fund.

Dividend Plus+ Income Fund (DIVPX) has changed its name to MAI Managed Volatility Fund.

Forward Dynamic Income Fund (FDYAX) and Forward Commodity Long/Short Strategy Fund (FCOMX) have both decided to change their principal investment strategies, risks, benchmark and management team, effective November 3.

KKM U.S. Equity ARMOR Fund (UMRAX) terminated Equity Armor’s advisory contract. KKM Financial will manage the fund, now called KKM Enhanced U.S. Equity Fund (KKMAX) on its own

Effective September 10, 2015, the Pinnacle Tactical Allocation Fund change its name to the Pinnacle Sherman Tactical Allocation Fund (PTAFX).

At an August meeting, the Boards of the Wells Fargo Advantage Funds approved removing the word “Advantage” from its name, effective December 15, 2015.

Royce 100 Fund (RYOHX) was renamed Royce Small-Cap Leaders Fund on September 15, 2015. The new investment strategy is to select “securities of ‘leading’ companies—those that in its view are trading at attractive valuations that also have excellent business strengths, strong balance sheets, and/or improved prospects for growth, as well as those with the potential for improvement in cash flow levels and internal rates of return.” Chuck Royce has run the fund since 2003. It was fine through the financial crisis, and then began stumbling during the protracted bull run and trails 98% of its peers over the past five years.

Effective November 20, 2015, Worthington Value Line Equity Advantage Fund (WVLEX) becomes Worthington Value Line Dynamic Opportunity Fund. The fund invests, so far with no success, mostly in closed-end funds. It’s down about 10% since its launch in late January and the pass-through expenses of the CEFs it holds pushes the fund’s e.r. to nearly 2.5%. At that point its investment objective becomes the pursuit of “capital appreciation and current income” (income used to be “secondary”) and Liane Rosenberg gets added as a second manager joining Cindy Starke. Rosenberg is a member of the teams that manage Value Line’s other funds and, presumably, she brings fixed-income expertise to the table. The CEF universe is a strange and wonderful place, and part of the fund’s wretched performance so far (it’s lost more than twice as much since launch than the average large cap fund) might be attributed to a stretch of irrational pricing in the CEF market. Through the end of August, equity CEFs were down 12% YTD in part because their discounts steadily widened. WVLEX was also handicapped by an international stake (21%) that was five times larger than their peers. That having been said, it’s still not clear how the changes just announced will make a difference.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

AB Market Neutral Strategy-U.S. (AMUAX) has closed and will liquidate on December 2, 2015. The fund has, since inception, bounced a lot and earned nothing: $10,000 at inception became $9,800 five years later.

Aberdeen High Yield Fund (AUYAX) is yielding to reality – it is trailing 90% of its peers and no one, including its trustees and two of its four managers, wanted to invest in it – and liquidating on October 22, 2015.

Ashmore Emerging Markets Currency Fund (ECAX), which is surely right now a lot like the “Pour Molten Lava on my Chest Fund (PMLCX), will pass from this vale of tears on October 9, 2015.

The small-and-dull, but not really bad, ASTON/TAMRO Diversified Equity Fund (ATLVX) crosses into the Great Unknown on Halloween. It’s a curious development since the same two managers run the half billion dollar Small Cap Fund (ATASX) that’s earned Morningstar’s Silver rating.

BlackRock Ultra-Short Obligations Fund (BBUSX): “On or about November 30, 2015,all of the assets of the Fund will be liquidated completely.” It’s a perfectly respectable ultra-short bond fund, with negligible volatility and average returns, that only drew $30 million. For a giant like BlackRock, that’s beneath notice.

At the recommendation of the fund’s interim investment adviser, Cavalier Traditional Fixed Income Fund (CTRNX) will be liquidated on October 5, 2015. Uhhh … yikes!

Dreyfus International Value Fund (DVLAX) is being merged into Dreyfus International Equity Fund (DIEAX). On whole, that’s a pretty clean win for the DVLAX shareholders.

Eaton Vance Global Natural Resources Fund (ENRAX) has closed and will liquidate on or about Halloween.  $4 million dollars in a portfolio that’s dropped 41% since launch, bad even by the standards of funds held hostage to commodity prices.

Shareholders have been asked to approve liquidation of EGA Frontier Diversified Core Fund (FMCR), a closed-end interval fund. Not sure how quickly the dirty deed with be done.

Fallen Angels Value Fund (FAVLX) joins the angels on October 16, 2015.

The termination and liquidation the Franklin Global Allocation Fund (FGAAX), which was scheduled to occur on or about October 23, 2015, has again been delayed due to foreign regulatory restrictions that prohibit the fund from selling one of its portfolio securities. The new liquidation target is January 14, 2016.

The $7 million Gateway International Fund (GAIAX) will liquidate on November 12, 2015. It’s an international version of the $7.7 billion, options-based Gateway Fund (GATEX) and is run by the same team. GAIAX has lost money since launch, and in two of the three years it’s been around, and trails 90% of its peers. Frankly, I’ve always been a bit puzzled by the worshipful attention that Gateway receives and this doesn’t really clear it up for me.

Inflation Hedges Strategy Fund (INHAX) has closed and will liquidate on October 22, 2015.

Janus Preservation Series – Global (JGSAX) will be unpreserved as of December 11, 2015.

Shareholders are being asked to merge John Hancock Fundamental Large Cap Core Fund (JFLAX) into John Hancock Large Cap Equity Fund TAGRX). The question will be put to them at the end of October. They should vote “yes.”

MFS Global Leaders (GLOAX) will liquidate on November 18, 2015.

Riverside Frontier Markets Fund ceased to exist on September 25, 2015 but the board assures us that the liquidation was “orderly.”

Salient Global Equity Fund (SGEAX) will liquidate around October 26, 2015.

Transamerica is proposing a rare reorganization of a closed-end fund (Transamerica Income Shares, Inc.) into one of their open-end funds, Transamerica Flexible Income (IDITX). The proposal goes before shareholders in early November.

MFO Switches To Lipper Database

In weeks ahead, MFO will begin using a Lipper provided database to compute mutual fund risk and return metrics found on our legacy Search Tools page and on the MFO Premium beta site.

Specifically, the monthly Lipper DataFeed Service provides comprehensive fund overview details, expenses, assets, and performance data for US mutual funds, ETFs, and money market funds (approximately 29,000 fund share classes).

Lipper, part of Thomson Reuters since 1998, has been providing “accurate, insightful, and timely collection and analysis of fund data” for more than 40 years. Its database extends back to 1960.

The methodologies MFO uses to compute its Great Owl funds, Three Alarm and Honor Roll designations, and Fund Dashboard of profiled funds will remain the same. The legacy search tool site will continue to be updated quarterly, while the premium site will be updated monthly.

Changes MFO readers can expect will be 1) quicker posting of updates, typically within first week of month, 2) more information on fund holdings, like allocation, turnover, market cap, and bond quality, and 3) Lipper fund classifications instead of the Morningstar categories currently used.

A summary of the Lipper classifications or categories can be found here. The more than 150 categories are organized under two main types: Equity Funds and Fixed Income Funds.

The Equity Funds have the following sub-types: US Domestic, Global, International, Specialized, Sector, and Mixed Asset. The Fixed Income Funds have: Short/Intermediate-Term U.S. Treasury and Government, Short/Intermediate-Term Corporate, General Domestic, World, Municipal Short/Intermediate, and Municipal General.

The folks at Lipper have been a pleasure to work with while evaluating the datafeed and during the transition. The new service supports all current search tools and provides opportunity for content expansion. The MFO Premium beta site in particular features:

• Selectable evaluation periods (lifetime, 20, 10, 5, 3, and 1 year, plus full, down, and up market cycles) for all risk and performance metrics, better enabling direct comparison.
• All share classes, not just oldest.
• More than twenty search criteria can be selected simultaneously, like Category, Bear Decile, and Return Group, plus sub-criteria. For example, up to nine individual categories may be selected, along with multiple risk and age characteristics.
• Compact, sortable, exportable search table outputs.
• Expanded metrics, including Peer Count, Recovery Time, and comparisons with category averages.

Planned content includes: fund rankings beyond those based on Martin ratio, including absolute return, Sharpe and Sortino ratios; fund category metrics; fund house performance ratings; and rolling period fund performance.

In Closing . . .

The Shadow is again leading the effort on MFO’s discussion board to begin cataloging capital gain’s announcements. Ten firms had year-end estimates out as of October 1. Last year’s tally on the board reached 160 funds. Mark Wilson’s Cap Gains Valet site is still hibernating. If Mark returns to the fray, we’ll surely let you know.

It’s hard to remember but, in any given month, 7000-8000 people read the Observer for the first time. Some will flee in horror, others will settle in. That’s my excuse for repeating the exhortation to bookmark MFO’s link to Amazon.com!  While we are hopeful that our impending addition of a premium site will generate a sustainable income stream to help cover the costs of our new data feed and all, Amazon still provides the bulk of our revenue. That makes our September 2015 returns, the lowest in more than two years, a bit worrisome.

The system is simple: (1) bookmark our link to Amazon. Better yet, set it as one of your browser’s “open at launch” tabs. (2) When you want to shop at Amazon, click on that link or use that tab.  You do not have to come to MFO and click on the link on your way to Amazon. You go straight there. On your address bar, you’ll see a bit of coding (encoding=UTF8&tag=mutufundobse-20) that lets Amazon know you’re using our link. (3) Amazon then contributes an amount equivalent to 5% or so of your purchase to MFO. You’re charged nothing since it’s part of their marketing budget. And we get the few hundred a month that allows us to cover our “hard” expenses.

I’m not allowed to use the link myself, so my impending purchases of Halloween candy (Tootsie Rolls and Ring Pops, mostly) and a coloring book (don’t ask), will benefit the music program at my son’s school.

Thanks especially to the folks who made contributions to the Observer this month.  That includes a cheerful wave to our subscribers, Greg and Deb, to the good folks at Cook & Bynum and at Focused Finances, to Eric E. and Sunil, both esteemed repeat offenders, as well as to Linda Who We’ve Never Met Before and Richard. To one and all, thanks! You made it a lot easier to have the confidence to sign the data agreement with Lipper.

We’ll look for you.

Dear friends,

We really hope you enjoy the extra start-of-summer profundity that we’ve larded (excuse the expression) into this issue. We took advantage of the extra time afforded by the June 30^th leap second and the extra light generated that night by the once-in-two-millennia conjunction of Venus and Jupiter to squeeze in a family-sized portion of insight into this month’s issue.

And it all started with Morningstar.

Mania at the McCormick!

Morningstar’s annual investor conference is always a bit of a zoo. Two thousand people jam together in a building the size of a shopping mall, driven by a long schedule and alternating doses of caffeine (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and alcohol (thereafter). There are some dozens of presentations, ranging from enormously provocative to freakish, mostly by folks who have something to sell but, for the sake of decorum, are trying not to mention that fact.

Okay: the damned thing’s a lot bigger than any shopping mall except the Mall of America. MoA has about 4.2 million square feet total, McCormick is around 3.4 million. We were in the West Building, whose main ballroom alone runs to 100,000 square feet. 500,000 square feet of exhibition space, 250,000 of meeting space, with something like 60 meeting rooms. That building alone cost about $900 million, and McCormick has three others.

What follows are three sets of idiosyncratic observations: mine, Charles and Ed’s. I’ve linked to Morningstar’s video, where available. The key is that their videos auto-launch, which can be mightily annoying. Be ready for it.

Jeremy Grantham: The World Will End, You’ve Just Got to be Patient for a Bit

Grantham, one of the cofounders of GMO, a highly respected institutional investment firm originally named Grantham, Mayo, van Otterloo, is regularly caricatured as a perma-bear. He responds to the charge by asserting “I’m not a pessimist. You’re simply optimists.”

Grantham argues that we’re heading for a massive stock market crash (something on the order of a 60% fall), just not for a while yet. GMO’s study of asset bubbles found that asset prices regularly become detached from reality but they’re not subject to crashing until they exceed their normal levels by about two standard deviations.  Roughly speaking, that translates to asset prices that are higher than they are 95% of the time. Right now, we’re about 1.5 standard deviations above average. If current trends continue – and Grantham does expect stocks to follow the path of least resistance, higher – then we’ll reach the two standard deviation mark around the time of the presidential election.

Merely being wildly overvalued doesn’t automatically trigger a crash (in the UK, home prices reached a three standard deviation peak – 99.7% – before imploding) but it’s extremely rare for such a market not to find a reason to crash. And when the crash comes, the market typically falls at about twice the rate that it rose.

As an aside, Grantham also notes that no stock market crash has occurred until after average investors have been dragged into the party’s frenzied last hours, too late to make much money but just in time to have their portfolios gutted (again). While optimism, measured by various investor attitude surveys, is high, it’s not manic. Yet.

So, we’ve got a bit to savor ill-garnered gains and to reassure ourselves that this time we’ll be sharp, discerning and well on our way to safety ere the crash occurs.

Oddly, Grantham expects a crash because capitalism does work, but regulation (mostly) does not. Under capitalism, capital flows to the area of greatest opportunity: if your lemonade stand is able to draw a million in revenue today, you can be pretty much guaranteed that there will be a dozen really cool lemonade stands in your neighborhood within the week. As a result, your profit will decline. More stands will be built, and profits will continue declining, until capitalists conclude that there’s nothing special in the lemonade stand biz and they resume the search for great opportunities. Today’s record corporate profit margins must draw new competitors in to drive those excess profits down, or capitalism is failing.

Grantham argues that capitalism is failing for now. He blames the rise of “stock option culture” and a complicit U.S. fed for the problem. Up to 80% of executive compensation now flows from stock options, which are tied to short-term performance of a company’s stock rather than long-term performance of the company. People respond to the incentives they’re given, so managers tend toward those actions which increase the value of their stock options. Investing in the company is slow, uncertain and risky, and so capital expenditures (“capex”) by publicly-traded firms is falling. Buying back stock (overpriced or not) and issuing dividends is quick, clean and safe, and so that sort of financial engineering expands. Interest rates at or near zero even encourage the issuance of debt to fund buybacks (“Peter, meet Paul”). It would be possible to constrain the exercise of options, but we choose not to. And so firms are not moving capital into new ventures or into improving existing capabilities which, in the short run, continues to underwrite record profit margins.

David Marcus: We’re in the Bottom of the Third

All value investing starts with fundamentally, sometimes appallingly, screwed-up companies that have the potential to do vastly better than they’ve been doing. The question is whether anything will unleash those potential gains. That’s not automatically true; 50 to a hundred publicly-traded companies go bankrupt each year as do something like 30,000 private ones.

On whole, investors would prefer that the firms they invest in not go belly up. In the U.S., they’ve got great leverage to encourage corporate restructurings – spinoffs, mergers, acquisitions, division closures – which might serve to release that locked-up potential. We also have a culture that, for better and worse, endorses the notion of maximizing shareholder (rather than stakeholder or community) value.

Traditionally the U.S. has been one of the few places that countenanced, much less encouraged, frequent corporate dislocations. Europeans encourage a stakeholder model focused on workers’ interests and Asians have a tradition of intricately interwoven corporate interests where corporations share a web of directorships and reciprocal investments in each other.

David Marcus manages Evermore Global Value (EVGBX) and tries to do so in the spirit of his mentor, Michael Price. As one of Price’s Mutual Series managers, he specialized in “special situations” investing, a term that describes the whole array of “rotten company teetering between damnation and salvation” thing. Later, as a private investor in Europe, he saw the beginnings of a change in corporate culture; the first intimations that European managers were willing to make tentative moves toward a shareholder-focused culture. In December 2009, he launched the Evermore funds to exploit that unrecognized change.

The first three years were trying: his flagship fund lost 10% over the period and trailed 95% of its peers. When we spoke several years ago, Mr. Marcus was frustrated but patient: he likened his portfolio to a spring that’s already been compressed a lot but, instead of releasing, was getting compressed even more. In the past three years, the spring rebounded: top third relative returns, 15% annualized ones, with two stretches at the very top of the global equity heap.

Mr. Marcus’s portfolio remains Euro-centric, about 66% against his peers’ 30%, but he foresees a rotation. The 2008 financial meltdown provided an opportunity for European corporate insiders to pursue a reform agenda. International members started appearing on corporate boards, for instance, and managers were given leeway to begin reducing inefficiency. ThyssenKrupp AG, a German conglomerate, had 27 separate IT departments operating with inconsistent policies and often incompatible software. They’ve whittled that down to five and are pursuing the crazy dream of just one IT department. Such moves create a certain momentum: at first, restructuring seems impossible, then a minor restructuring frees up a billion in capital and managers begin to imagine additional work that might reap another billion and a half. As the great Everett Dirksen once reflected, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” Mr. Marcus believes that Europeans are pursuing such reforms with greater vigor but without wasting capital “on crappy IPOs” that continue to dog the U.S. market.

A bigger change might be afoot in Asia and, in particular, in Japan. Corporate executives are, for the first time, beginning to unwind the complex web of cross-ownership which had traditionally been a one-way move: you invest in another corporation but never, ever sell your stake. Increasingly, managers see those investments as “cash cows,” the source of additional capital that might be put to better use.

Ironically, the same social forces that once held capital captive might now be working to free it. Several new Japanese stock indexes attempt to recognize firms that are good stewards of shareholder capital. The most visible is the Nikkei 400 ROE index, which tracks companies “with high appeal for investors, which meet requirements of global investment standards, such as efficient use of capital and investor-focused management perspectives.” Failure to qualify for inclusion has been deeply embarrassing for some management teams, which subsequently reoriented their capital allocations. Nomura Securities launched a competing index focusing on companies that use dormant cash to repurchase shares, though the effects of that are not yet known.

Mr. Marcus’s sense that the ground might be shifting is shared by several outstanding managers. Andrew Foster of Seafarer (SFGIX) has speculated that conditions favorable to value investing (primarily institutions that might serve as catalysts to unlock value) are evolving in the emerging markets. Messrs. Lee and Richyal at JOHCM International Select Fund (JOHAX) have directly invoked the significance of the Nikkei ROE Index in their Japan investing. Ralf Scherschmidt at Oberweis International Opportunities (OBIOX) has made a career of noticing that investors fail to react promptly to such changes; he tries to react to news promptly then wait patiently for others to begin believing that change is really. All three are five-star funds.

I’ll continue my reviews in August. For now, here are Charles’s quick takes.

Morningstar Investment Conference 2015 Notes

In contrast to the perfect pre-autumnal weather of last year’s ETF conference, Chicago was hot and muggy this past week, where some 2000 attendees gathered for Morningstar’s Investment Conference located at the massive, sprawling, and remote McCormick Place.

Morningstar does a great job of quickly publishing conference highlights and greatly facilitates press … large press room wired with high-speed internet, ample snacks and hot coffee, as well as adjacent media center where financial reporters can record fund managers and speakers then quickly post perspectives, like Chuck Jaffe’s good series of audio interviews.

On the MFO Discussion Board, David attempts to post nightly his impressions and linkster Ted relays newly published conference articles. To say the event is well covered would be a colossal understatement.

Nonetheless, some impressions for inclusion in this month’s commentary …

If you are a financial adviser not catering to women and millennials, your days are numbered.

On women. Per Sallie Krawcheck, former president of BAC’s Global Wealth division and currently chair of the Ellevate network, which is dedicated to economic engagement of women worldwide, women live six to eight years longer than men … 80% of men die married, while 80% of women die unmarried … 70% of widows leave their financial advisers within a year of their husband’s death.

While women will soon account for majority of US millionaires, most financials advisors don’t include spouses in the conversation. The issue extends to the buy side as well. In a pre-conference session entitled, “Do Women Investors Behave Differently Than Men,” panels cited that women control 51% investable wealth and currently account for 47% of high net worth individuals, yet professional women money managers account for only 5% of assets under management. How can that be?

The consequence of this lack of inclusion is “lack of diversification, higher risk, and money left on table.” Women, they state, value wealth preservation many times more than men. One panelist actually argues that women are better suited to handle the stress hormone cortisol since they need not suffer adverse consequences of interaction with testosterone.

While never said explicitly, I could not help but wonder if the message or perhaps question here is: If women played a greater role in financial institutions and at the Fed in years leading up to 2007, would we have avoided the financial or housing crises?  

On millennials. Per Joel Brukenstein of Financial Planning Magazine and creator of Technology Tools for Today website, explains that the days of financial advisors charging 1% annual fee for maintaining a client portfolios of four or five mutual funds are no longer sustainable … replaced with a proliferation of robo-advisors, like Schwab Intelligent Portfolios, which charges “no advisory fees, no account service fees, no commissions, period.”

Ditto, if your services are not available on a smart phone. Millennials are beyond internet savvy and mobile … all data/tools must be accessible via the cloud.

Mr. Brukenstein went so far as to suggest that financial advisors not offering services beyond portfolio management should consider exiting the business.

Keynote highlights. Jeremy Grantham, British-born co-founder of Boston-based asset management firm GMO, once again reiterated his belief that US stocks are 30 – 60% overvalued, still paying for overvaluation sins of our fathers … the great bull run of 1990, which started in 1987, finished in 2000, and was right on the heels of the great bull run of the 1980s. No matter that investors have suffered two 50% drawdowns the past 15 years with the S&P 500 and only received anemic returns, “it will take 25 years to get things right again.” So, 10 more years of suffering I’m afraid.

He blames Greenspan, Bernanke, and Yellen for distorting valuations, the capital markets, the zero interest rate policy … leading to artificially inflated equity prices and a stock-option culture that has resulted in making leaders of publically traded companies wealthy at the expense of capital investment, which would benefit the many. “No longer any room for city or community altruism in today’s capitalism … FDR’s social contract no more.”

All that said he does not see the equity bubble popping just yet … “no bubble peaks before abnormal buyers and deals come to market.” He predicts steady raise until perhaps coming presidential election.

Mr. Grantham is not a believer in efficient market theory. He views the cycles of equity expansion and contraction quite inefficiently driven by career risk (never be wrong on your own …), herding, momentum, extrapolation, excursions from replacement value, then finally, arbitrage and mean reversion at expense of client patience. Round and round it goes.

David Kelly, JP Morgan’s Chief Global Strategist whose quarterly “Guide To Markets” now reaches 169 thousand individuals in 25 countries, also does not see a bear market on horizon, which he believes would be triggered by one or more of these four events/conditions: recession, commodity spike, aggressive fed tightening, and/or extreme valuation. He sees none of these.

He sees current situation in Greece as a tragedy … Germany was too tough during recession. Fortunately, 80% of Greek debt is held by ECB, not Euro banks, so he sees no lasting domino effect if it defaults.

On the US economy, he sees it “not booming, but bouncing back.” Seven years into recovery, which represents the fourth longest expansion dating back to 1900. “Like a Yankees/Red Sox game … long because it is slow.”

He disputes Yellen’s position that there is slack in the economy, citing that last year 60 million people were hired … an extraordinary amount. (That is the gross number; subtract 57 million jobs left, for a net of 3 million.) The biggest threat to continued expansion is lack of labor force, given retiring baby boomers, 12.5% of population with felony convictions, scores addicted to drug, and restrictions on foreign nationals, which he calls the biggest tragedy: “We bring them in. They want to be here. We educate them. They are top of class. Then, we send them home. It’s crazy. We need immigration reform to allow skilled workers to stay.”

Like Grantham, he does see QE helping too much of the wrong thing at this point: “Fertilizer for weeds.”

On oil, which he views like potatoes – a classic commodity: “$110 is too much, but $40 is too low.” Since we have “genetically evolved to waste oil,” he believes now is good time to get in cause “prices have stabilized and will gradually go up.”

Like last fall, he continues to see EM cheap and good long term opportunity. Europe valuations ok … a mid-term opportunity.

He closed by reminding us that investors need courage during bear markets and brains during bull markets.

Breakout sessions. Wasatch’s Laura Geritz was stand-out panelist in break-out session “Are Frontier Markets Worth Pursuing?” She articulates her likes (“Active manager’s dream asset class … capital held dear by phenomenal FM management teams … investments by strong subsidiaries, like Nestle … China’s investment in FM … ”) and dislikes (“No practical index … current indices remain too correlated due to lack of diversification … lack of market liquidity …”). She views FM as strictly long-term investment proposition with lots of ups and downs, but ultimately compelling. If you have not listened to her interview with Chuck Jaffe, you should.

Another break-out session, panelists discussed the current increasing popularity of “ESG Investing.” (ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance. ESG funds, currently numbering more than 200, apply these criteria in their investments.) “Ignore increasingly at your own peril … especially given that women and millennials represent the biggest demographic on horizon.” Interestingly, data suggest such funds do just as well if not slightly better than the overall market.

Lengthening Noses

By Edward Studzinski

“A sign of celebrity is that his name is often worth more than his services.”

Daniel J. Boorstin

So the annual Morningstar Conference has come and gone again, with couple thousand attendees in town hoping to receive the benefit of some bit of investment or business wisdom. The theme of this year’s conference appears to have been that the world of investors now increasingly is populated by and belongs to “Gen X’ers” and “Millennials.” Baby Boomers such as yours truly, are a thing of the past in terms of influence as well as a group from whom assets are to be gathered. Indeed, according to my colleagues, advisors should be focused not on the current decision maker in a client family but rather the spouse (who statistically should outlive) or the children. And their process of decision making will most likely be very different than that of the patriarch. We can see that now, in terms of how they desire to communicate, which is increasingly less by the written word or in face to face meetings.

In year’s past, the conference had the flavor of being an investment conference. Now it has taken on the appearance of a marketing and asset allocation advice event. Many a person told me that they do not come to attend the conference and hear the speakers. Rather, they come because they have conveniently assembled in one place a large number of individuals that they have been interested either in meeting or catching up with. My friend Charles’ observation was that it was a conference of “suits” and “skirts” in the Exhibitors’ Hall. Unfortunately I have the benefit of these observations only second and third hand, as for the first part of the week I was in Massachusetts and did not get back to Chicago until late Wednesday evening. And while I could have made my way to events on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning, I have found it increasingly difficult to take the whole thing seriously as an investment information event (although it is obviously a tremendous cash cow for Morningstar). Given the tremendous success of the conference year in and year out, one increasingly wonders what the correct valuation metric is to be applied to Morningstar equity. Is it the Google of the investment and financial services world? Nonetheless, given the focus of many of the attendees on the highest margin opportunities in the investment business and the way to sustain an investment management franchise, I wonder if, notwithstanding how she said it, whether Senator Elizabeth Warren is correct when she says that “the game is rigged.”

Friday apparently saw two value-oriented investors in a small panel presenting and taking Q&A. One of those manages a fund with $20 Billion in assets, which is a larger amount of money than he historically has managed. Charging a 1% fee on that $20B, his firm is picking up $200 Million in revenue from that one fund alone, notwithstanding that they have other funds. Historically he has been more of a small-midcap manager, with a lot of special situations but not to worry, he’s finding lots of things to invest in, albeit with 40% or so in cash or cash equivalents. The other domestic manager runs two domestic funds as the lead manager, with slightly more than $24 Billion in assets, and for simplicity’s sake, let’s call it a blended rate of 90 basis points in fees. His firm is seeing than somewhat in excess of $216 Million in revenue from the two funds. Now let me point out that unless the assets collapse, these fees are recurring, so in five years, there has been a billion dollars in revenue generated at each firm, more than enough to purchase several yachts. The problem I have with this is it is not a serious discussion of the world we are in at present. Valuation metrics for stocks and bonds are at levels approaching if not beyond the two standard deviation warning bells. I suppose some of this is to be expected, as if is a rare manager who is going to tell you to keep your money. However, I would be hard pressed at this time if running a fund, to have it open. I am actually reminded of the situation where a friend sent me to her family’s restaurant in suburban Chicago, and her mother rattled off the specials of the evening, one of which was Bohemian style duck. I asked her to go ask the chef how the duck looked that night, and after a minute she came back and said, “Chef says the duck looks real good tonight.” At that point, one of the regulars at the bar started laughing and said, “What do you think? The chef’s going to say, oh, the duck looks like crap tonight?”

Now, if I could make a suggestion in Senator Warren’s ear, it would be that hearings should be held about what kind of compensation in the investment management field is excessive. When the dispersion between the lowest paid employee and the highest results in the highest compensated being paid two hundred times more than the lowest, it seems extreme. I suppose we will hear that not all of the compensation is compensation, but rather some reflects ownership and management responsibilities. The rub is that many times the so-called ownership interests are artificial or phantom.

It just strikes that this is an area ripe for reform, for something in the nature of an excess profits tax to be proposed. After all, nothing is really being created here that redounds to the benefit of the U.S. economy, or is creating jobs (and yes Virginia, carried interest for hedge funds as a tax advantage should also be eliminated).

We now face a world where the can increasingly looks like it cannot be kicked down the road financially for either Greece or Puerto Rico. And that doesn’t even consider the states like Illinois and Rhode Island that have serious underfunded pension issues, as well as crumbling infrastructures. So, I say again, there is a great deal of risk in the global financial system at present. One should focus, as an investor, in not putting any more at risk than one could afford to write off without compromising one’s standard of living. Low interest rates have done more harm than good, for both the U.S. economy and the global economy. And liquidity is increasingly a problem, especially in the fixed income markets but also in stocks. Be warned! Don’t be one of the investors who has caught the disease known as FOMO or “Fear of Missing Out.”

It’s finally easy being green

The most widely accepted solution to Americans’ “retirement crisis” – our lifelong refusal to forego the joy of stuff now in order to live comfortably later – is pursuing a second (or third or fifth) career after we’ve nominally retired. Some of us serve as school crossing guards, greeters, or directors of mutual fund boards, others as consultants, carpenters and writers. Honorable choices, all.

But what if you could make more money another way, by selling cigarettes directly to adolescents in poor countries?  There’s a booming market, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is working globally to be sure that folks keep smoking, and your customers do get addicted. A couple hours a day with a stand near a large elementary school or junior high and you’re golden.

Most of us would say “no.” Many of us would say “HELL NO.” The thought of imperiling the lives and health of others to prop up our own lifestyle just feels horribly wrong.

The question at hand, then, is “if you aren’t willing to participate directly in such actions, why are you willing to participate indirectly in them through your investments?” Your decision to invest in, for example, a tobacco company lowers their cost of capital, increases their financial strength and furthers their business. There’s no real dodging the fact: you become a part-owner of the corporation, underwrite its operations and expect to be well compensated for it.

And you are doing it. In the case of Phillip Morris International (PM), for example, 30% of the firm’s stock is owned by ten investment companies:

Capital World & Capital Research are the advisors to the American Funds. Barrow sub-advises funds for, among others, Vanguard and Touchstone.

That exercise can be repeated with a bunch of variations: what role would you like to play in The Sixth Great Extinction, the impending collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet, or the incineration of young people in footwear factories? In the past, many of us defaulted to one of two simple positions: I don’t have a choice or I can’t afford to be picky.

The days when socially-responsible investing was the domain of earnest clergy and tree-hugging professors are gone. How gone?  Here’s a quick quiz to help provide context: how many dollars are invested through socially-screened investment vehicles?

1. A few hundred million
2. A few billion
3. A few tens of billions
4. A few hundred billion
5. A few trillion
6. Just enough to form a really satisfying plug with which to muffle The Trump.

The answer is “E” (though I’d give credit, on principle, for “F”). ESG-screened investments now account for about one-sixth of all of the money invested in the U.S. —over $6.5 trillion— up by 76% since 2012. In the U.S. alone there are over 200 open-end funds and ETFs which apply some variety of environmental, social and governance screens on their investors’ behalf.

There are four reasons investors might have for pursuing, or avoiding, ESG-screened investments. They are, in brief:

1. It changes my returns. The traditional fear is that by imposing screening costs and limiting one’s investable universe, SRI funds were a financial drag on your portfolio. There have been over 1200 academic and professional studies published on the financial effects, and a dozen or so studies of the studies (called meta-analyses). The uniform conclusion of both academic and professional reviews is that SRI screens do not reduce portfolio returns. There’s some thin evidence of improved performance, but I wouldn’t invest based on that.
2. It changes my risk profile. The traditional hope is that responsible firms would be less subject to “headline risk” and less frequently involved in litigation, which might make them less risky investments. At least when examining SRI indexes, that’s not the case. TIAA-CREF examined a quarter century’s worth of volatility data for five widely used indexes (Calvert Social Index, Dow Jones Sustainability U.S. Index, FTSE4Good US Index, MSCI KLD 400 Social Index, and MSCI USA IMI ESG Index) and concluded that there were no systematic differences between ESG-screened indexes and “normal” ones.
3. It allows me to foster good in the world. The logic is simple: if people refuse to invest in a company, its cost of doing business rises, its products become less economically competitive and fewer people buy them. Conversely, if you give managers access to lots of capital, their cost of capital falls and they’re able to do more of whatever you want them to do. In some instances, called “impact investing,” you actually direct your manager to put money to work for the common ground through microfinance, underwriting housing construction in economically-challenged cities and so on.
4. It’s an expression of an important social value. In its simplest form, it’s captured by the phrase “I’m not giving my money to those bastards. Period.” Some critics of SRI have made convoluted arguments in favor of giving your money to the bastards on economic grounds and then giving other money to social causes or charities. The argument for investing in line with your beliefs seems to have resonated most strongly with Millennials (those born in the last two decades of the 20^th century) and with women. Huge majorities in both groups want to align their portfolio with their desires for a better world.

Our bottom line is this: you can invest honorably without weakening your future returns. There is no longer any credible doubt about it. The real problems you face are (1) sorting through the welter of funds which might impose both positive and negative screens on a conflicting collection of 20 different issues and (2) managing your investment costs.

We’ve screened our own data to help you get started. We divided funds into two groups: ESG Stalwarts, funds with long records and stable teams, and Most Intriguing New ESG Funds, those with shorter records, smaller asset bases and distinctly promising prospects. We derived those lists by looking for no-load options open to retail investors, then looking for folks with competitive returns, reasonable expenses and high Sharpe ratios over the full market cycle that began in October 2007.

In addition, we recommend that you consult the exceedingly cool, current table of SRI funds maintained by the Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment. The table, which is sadly not sortable, provides current performance data and screening criteria for nearly 200 SRI funds. In addition, it has a series of clear, concise summaries of each fund on the table.

ESG Stalwarts

Most intriguing new ESG funds

In the wings, socially responsible funds still in registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission which will be available by early autumn include:

Thornburg Better World Fund will seek long-term capital growth. The plan is to invest in international “companies that demonstrate one or more positive environmental, social and governance characteristics.” Details in this month’s Funds in Registration feature.

TIAA-CREF Social Choice International Equity Fund will seek a favorable long-term total return, reflected in the performance of ESG-screened international stocks. MSCI will provide the ESG screens and the fund will target developed international markets. This fund, and the next, will be managed by Philip James (Jim) Campagna and Lei Liao. The managers’ previous experience seems mostly to be in index funds.

TIAA-CREF Social Choice Low Carbon Equity Fund will seek a favorable long-term total return, reflected in the performance of ESG-screened US stocks. MSCI will provide the ESG screens, which will be supplemented by screens looking for firms with “demonstrate leadership in managing and mitigating their current carbon emissions and (2) have limited exposure to oil, gas, and coal reserves.”

Trillium All Cap Fund will seek long term capital appreciation by investing in an all-cap portfolio of “stocks with high quality characteristics and strong environmental, social, and governance records.” Up to 20% of the portfolio might be overseas. The fund will be managed by Elizabeth Levy and Stephanie Leighton of Trillium Asset Management. Levy managed Winslow Green Large Cap from 2009-11, Leighton managed ESG money at SunLife of Canada and Pioneer.

Trillium Small/Mid Cap Fund will seek long term capital appreciation by investing in a portfolio of small- to mid-cap “stocks with high quality characteristics and strong environmental, social, and governance records.” Small- to mid- is defined as stocks comparable in size to those in the S&P 1000, a composite of the S&P’s small and mid-cap indexes. Up to 20% of the portfolio might be overseas. The fund will be managed by Laura McGonagle and Matthew Patsky of Trillium Asset Management. Trillium oversees about $2.2 billion in assets. McGonagle was previously a research analyst at Adams, Harkness and Hill and is distantly related to Professor Minerva McGonagall. Patsky was Director of Equity Research for Adams, Harkness & Hill and a manager of the Winslow Green Solutions Fund.

We, now more than ever in human history, have a chance to make a difference. Indeed, we can’t avoid making a difference, for good or ill. In our daily lives, that might translate to helping our religious community, coaching youth sports, serving meals at a center for the marginally secure or turning our backs on that ever-so-manly Cadillac urban assault vehicle, the Escalade.

That’s all inconvenient, a bit limiting and utterly right, and so we do it. ESG advocates argue that we’ve reached the point where we can do the same things with our portfolios: we can make a difference, encourage good behavior and affirm important personal values, all with little or no cost to ourselves. It seems like a deal worth considering.

The league’s top rebounders

Even the best funds decline in value during either a correction or a bear market. Indeed, many of the best decline more dramatically than their peers because the high conviction, high independence portfolios that are signs of their distinction also can leave them exposed when things turn bad. The disastrous performance of the Dodge & Cox funds during the 2007-09 crash is a case in point.

The real question isn’t “will it fall?” We know the answer. The real question is “will the fall be so bad that I’ll get stupid and insist on selling at a painful loss (again), probably just before a rebound?” Two rarely discussed statistics address that question. The first is recovery time, which simply measures the number of months that it’s taken each fund to recover from its single worst drawdown. The second is the Ulcer Index, one of Charles’s favorite metrics if only because of the name, which was designed by Peter Martin to factor–in both the depth and duration of a fund’s drawdown.

For those casting about for tummy-calming options, we screened for funds that had been around for a full market cycle, then looked at funds which have the shortest recovery times and, separately, the lowest Ulcer Indexes over the current market cycle. That cycle started in October 2007 when the broad market peaked and includes both the subsequent brutal crash and ferocious rebound. Our general sense is that looking at performance across such a cycle is better than focusing on some arbitrary number of years (e.g., 5, 10 or 15 year results).

The first table highlights the funds with the fastest rebounders in each of six popular categories.

The rebound or recovery time doesn’t directly account for the depth of the drawdown. It’s possible, after all, for an utterly nerve-wracking fund to power dive then immediately rocket skyward again, leaving your stomach and sleep behind.  The Ulcer Index figures that in: two funds might each dive, swoop and recover in two months but the one dove least earned a better (that is, lower) Ulcer Index score.

Again, these calculations are looking at performance over the course of the current market cycle only.

How much difference does paying attention to risk make? Fully half of all international large cap funds are still underwater; 83 months after the onset of the crash, they have still not made their investors whole. That roster includes all of the funds indexed to the MSCI EAFE, the main index of large cap stocks in the developed world, as well as actively-managed managed funds from BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Janus, JPMorgan and others.

In domestic large caps, both the median fund on the list and all major market index funds took 57 months to recover.

Bottom Line: the best time to prepare for the rain is while the sun is still shining. While you might not feel that a portfolio heavy on cash or short-term bonds meets your needs, it makes sense for you to investigate – within whatever asset classes you choose to pursue – funds likely to inflict only manageable amounts of pain. Metrics like recovery time and Ulcer Index should help guide those explorations.

FPA Perennial: Time to Go.

FPA Perennial (FPPFX) closed to new investors on June 15, 2015. The fund that re-opens to new investors at the beginning of October will bear no resemblance to it. If you are a current Perennial shareholder, you should leave now.

Perennial and its siblings, FPA Paramount (FPRAX) and the closed-end Source Capital (SOR), were virtual clones, managed by Steve Geist and Eric Ende. While the rest of FPA were hard-core absolute value guys, G&E ran splendid small- to mid-cap growth funds, fully invested in very high-quality companies, negligible turnover, drifting between small and mid, growth and blend. Returns were consistent and solid. Greg Herr was added to the team several years ago.

In 2013, FPA made the same transition at Paramount that’s envisaged here: the managers left, a new strategy was imposed and the portfolio was liquidated. Domestic growth became global value. Only the name remained the same.

With Perennial, not even the name will remain.

1. All of the managers are going. Mr. Geist retired in 2014 and Ende, at age 70, is moving toward the door. Mr. Herr is leaving to focus on Paramount. They are being replaced by Greg Nathan. Mr. Nathan is described as “the longest serving analyst for the Contrarian Value Strategy, including FPA Crescent Fund (FPACX).”
2. The strategy is going. Geist and Ende were small- to mid-cap growth. The new fund will be all-cap value. It will be the US equity manifestation of the stock-picking strategy used in Crescent, Paramount and International Value. It is a perfectly sensible strategy, but it bears no resemblance to the one for which the fund is known.
3. The portfolio is going. FPA warns that the change “will result in significant long-term capital gains.” Take that warning seriously.  Morningstar calculates your potential capital gains exposure at 63%, that is, 63% of the fund’s NAV is a result of so far untaxed capital gains. If the portfolio is liquidated, you could see up to $36/share in taxable distributions.  

   How likely is a hit of that magnitude? We can compare Paramount’s portfolio before and after the 2013 transition. Of the 31 stocks in Paramount’s portfolio:

   27 positions were entirely eliminated
   2 positions (WABCO and Zebra Technologies) were dramatically reduced
   1 position (Aggreko plc) was dramatically expanded
   1 position (Maxim Integrated Products) remained roughly equal

   During that transition, the fund paid out about 40% of its NAV in taxable gains including two large distributions over the course of two weeks at year’s end.

   Certainly the tax hit will vary based on your cost basis, but if your cost basis is high – $35/share or more – you might be better getting out before the big tax hit comes.

4. The name is going. The new fund will be named FPA S. Value Fund.

I rather like FPA’s absolute value orientation and FPA U.S. Value may well prove itself to be an excellent fund in the long-term. In the short term, however, it’s likely to be a tax nightmare led in an entirely new direction by an inexperienced manager. If you bought FPPFX because you likely want what Geist & Ende did, you might want to look at Motley Fool Great America (TMFGX). It’s got a similar focus on quality growth, low turnover and small- to mid-cap domestic stocks. It’s small enough to be nimble and we’ve identified it as a Great Owl Fund for its consistently excellent risk-adjusted returns.

The mills of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.

The SEC this month announced sanctions against two funds for misdeeds that took place five to seven years ago while a third fund worked to get ahead of SEC concerns about its advisor.

On June 17, 2015, the SEC issued penalties to Commonwealth Capital Management and three former three independent members of its mutual fund board. The basic argument is that, between 2008 and 2010, the adviser fed crap to the board and they blindly gobbled it up. (Why does neither half of their equation surprise me?) The SEC’s exact argument is that the board provided misleading information about the fund to the directors and the independent directors failed to exercise reasonable diligence in examining the evidence before approving a new investment contract. The fund in question was small and bad; it quickly added “extinct” to its list of attributes.

On June 22, 2015, the Board of Trustees of the Vertical Capital Income Fund (VCAPX) terminated the investment advisory agreement with Vertical Capital Asset Management, LLC. The fund’s auditor has also resigned. The Board’s vaguely phrased concern is that VCAM “lacks sufficient resources to meet its obligations to the Fund, and failed to adequately monitor the actions of its affiliate Vertical Recovery Management in its duties as the servicing agent of the mortgage notes held by the Fund.”

On June 23, 2015, the SEC reached a settlement with Pekin Singer Strauss Asset Management (PSS), advisor to the Appleseed Fund (APPLX) and portfolio managers William Pekin and Joshua Strauss.  The SEC found “that the securities laws were violated in 2009 and 2010 when PSS did not conduct timely internal annual compliance reviews or implement and enforce certain policies and procedures.” PSS also failed to move clients from the higher-cost investor shares to the lower-cost institutional ones. No one admits or denies anything, though PSS were the ones who detected and corrected the share class issue on their own.

Morningstar, once a fan of the fund, has placed them “under review” as they sort out the implications. That’s got to sting since Appleseed so visibly positions itself as a socially-responsible fund.

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, searchable, and filtered as never before. For the 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.

Order

• The court gave its final approval to a $9.475 million settlement in the ERISA class action that challenged MassMutual‘s receipt of revenue-sharing payments from third-party mutual funds. (Golden Star, Inc. v. Mass Mut. Life Ins. Co.)

Briefs

• Calamos filed a motion to dismiss excessive-fee litigation regarding its Growth Fund. Brief: “Plaintiffs advance overwrought policy critiques of the entire mutual fund industry, legally inapt comparisons between services rendered to a retail mutual fund (such as the [Growth] Fund) and those provided to an institutional account or as sub-adviser, and conclusory assertions that the Fund grew over time but did not reduce its fees that are just the sort of allegations that courts in this Circuit have consistently dismissed for more than 30 years.” (Chill v. Calamos Advisors LLC.)
• Parties filed dueling motions for summary judgment in fee litigation regarding eight Hartford mutual funds. Plaintiffs’ section 36(b) claims, first filed in 2011, previously survived Hartford’s motion to dismiss. The summary judgment briefs are unavailable on PACER. (Kasilag v. Hartford Inv. Fin. Servs. LLC; Kasilag v. Hartford Funds Mgmt. Co.)
• New York Life filed a motion to dismiss excessive-fee litigation regarding four of its MainStay funds. Brief: Plaintiffs’ complaint “asserts in conclusory fashion that Defendant New York Life Investment Management LLC (‘NYLIM’) received excessive fees for management of four mutual funds, merely because NYLIM hired subadvisors to assist with its duties and paid them a portion of the total management fee. But NYLIM’s employment of this manager/subadvisor structure—widely utilized throughout the mutual fund industry and endorsed by NYLIM’s regulator—cannot itself constitute a breach of NYLIM’s fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act . . . .” (Redus-Tarchis v. N.Y. Life Inv. Mgmt., LLC.)

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and news from DailyAlts.

Survey Says…

The spring is the season for surveys and big opinion pieces. Perhaps it is the looming summer vacations of readers that prompt companies to survey the market for opinions and views on particular topics before everyone heads out of the office for a long break. Regardless, the survey results are in, the results have been tallied and in the world of liquid alternatives, it appears that the future looks good.

Two industry surveys that were completed recently are cited in the articles below. The first provides the results of a survey of financial advisors about their allocations to alternative investments, and notes that more than half of the financial advisors surveyed think that their clients should allocate between 6% and 15% to alternative investments – a significant increase from today’s levels.

The second report below provides big picture industry thinking from Citi’s Business Advisory Services unit, and projects the market for liquid alternatives to double over the next five years, increasing to more than $1.7 trillion in assets.

• Majority of Advisors Plan to Continue Recommending Alternatives
• Citi Sees Boom in Unconstrained Long, Smart Beta and Liquid Alts

While industry surveys and big picture industry reports can often over-project the optimism and growth of a particular product group, the directional trends are important to watch. And in this case, the trends continue to be further growth of the liquid alternatives market, both here in the U.S. and abroad.

Monthly Liquid Alternative Flows

Consistent with the reports above, investors continued to allocate to alternative mutual funds and ETFs in May of this year. Investors allocated a net total of $2 billion to the space in May, a healthy increase from April’s level of $723 million, and a return to levels we saw earlier in the year.

While only two categories had positive inflows last month, this month has four categories with positive inflows. Once again, multi-alternative funds that combine multiple styles of investing, and often multiple asset managers, all into a single fund had the most significant inflows. These funds pulled in $1.8 billion in net new assets. Managed futures are once again in second place with just over $520 million in new inflows.

While the outflows from long/short equity funds have moved closer to $0, they have yet to turn positive this year. With equity market conditions as they are, this has the potential to shift to net inflows over the coming months. Commodity funds continued to struggle in May, but investors kicked it up a notch and increased the net outflows to more than $1.5 billion, more than a double from April’s level.

Diversification and one stop shopping continue to be an important theme for investors. Multi-alternative fund and managed futures funds provide both. Expect asset flows to liquid alternatives to continue on their current course of strong single-digit to low double-digit growth. Should the current Greek debt crisis or other global events cause the markets to falter, investors will look to allocate more to liquid alternatives.

New Fund Launches

We have seen 66 new funds launched this year, up from 53 at the end of April. This includes alternative beta funds as well as non-traditional bond funds, both of which provide investors with differentiated sources of return. In May, we logged 13 new funds, with nearly half being alternative beta funds. The remaining funds cut across multi-alternative, non-traditional bonds and hedged equity.

Two of the funds that were launched in May were unconstrained bond funds, one of the more popular categories for asset inflows in 2014. This asset category is meant to shield investors from the potential rise in interest rates and the related negative impact of bond prices. Both Virtus and WisdomTree placed a bet on the space in May with their new funds that give the portfolio managers wide latitude to invest across nearly all areas of the global fixed income market on a long and short basis.

While significant assets have flowed into this category of funds over the past several years, the rise in interest rates has yet to occur. This may change come September, and at that point we will find out if the unconstrained nature of these funds is helpful.

For more details on new fund launches, you can visit our New Funds 2015 page.

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. 

Eventide Healthcare & Life Sciences (ETNHX): Morningstar’s 2015 conference included a laudatory panel celebrating “up and coming” funds, including the five star, $2 billion Eventide Gilead. At yet as I talked with the Eventide professionals the talk kept returning to the fund that has them more excited, Healthcare. The fund looks fascinating and profitable. Unfortunately, we need answers to two final questions before publishing the profile. We’re hopeful of having those answers in the first couple days of July; we’ll notify the 6000 members of our mailing list as soon as the profile goes live

Launch Alert

Thornburg Developing World (THDAX) is one of the two reasons for being excited about Artisan Developing World (ARTYX). Artisan’s record for finding and nurturing outstanding management teams is the other.

Lewis Kaufman managed Thornburg Developing World from inception through early 2015. During that time, he amassed a remarkable record for risk-sensitive performance.  A $10,000 investment at inception would have grown to $15,700 on the day of Mr. Kaufman’s departure, while his peers would have earned $11,300. Morningstar’s only Gold-rated emerging markets fund (American Funds New World Fund NEWFX) would have clocked in at $13,300, a gain about midway between mediocre and Mr. Kaufmann.

By all of the risk and risk/return measures we follow, he achieved those gains with lower volatility than did his peers.

Mr. Kaufman pursues a compact, primarily large-cap portfolio. He’s willing to invest in firms tied to, but not domiciled in, the emerging markets. And he has a special interest in self-funding companies; that is, firms that generate free cash flow sufficient to cover their operating and capital needs. That allows the firms insulate themselves from both the risk of international capital flight and dysfunctional capital markets that are almost a defining feature of the emerging markets. Andrew Foster of Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX) shares that preference for self-funding firms and it has been consistently rewarding.

There are, of course, two caveats. First, Thornburg launched after the conclusion of the 2007-09 market crisis. That means that it only dealt with one sharply down quarter (3Q2011) and it trailed the pack then. Second, Thornburg’s deep analyst core doubtless contributed to Mr. Kaufmann’s success. It’s unclear how reliance on a smaller team will affect him.

In general, Artisan’s new funds have performed exceptionally well (the current E.M. product, which wasn’t launched in the retail market, is the exception). Artisan professes only ever to hire “category killers,” then gives them both great support and great autonomy. That process has worked exceptionally well. I suggested on our discussion board “that immediately upon launch, our short-list of emerging markets funds quite worth your money’ will grow by one.” I’m pretty comfortable with that prediction.

Artisan Developing World (ARTYX) has a 1.5% initial expense ratio and a $1,000 investment minimum.

Funds in Registration

There are eight new funds in registration this month. Funds in registration with the SEC are not available for sale to the public and the advisors are not permitted to talk about them, but a careful reading of the filed prospectuses gives you a good idea of what interesting (and occasionally appalling) options are in the pipeline. Funds currently in registration will generally be available for purchase in September or early October.

Two funds sort of pop out:

RiverNorth Marketplace Lending Fund will invest in loans initiated by peer-to-peer lenders such as LendingClub and Prosper.com. It’s structured as a non-listed closed-end fund which will likely offer only periodic liquidity; that is, you might be able to get out just once a month or so. The portfolio’s characteristics should make it similar to high-yield bonds, offering the chance for some thrills and interest rate insulation plus high single-digit returns. It’s a small market; about $7 billion in loans were made last year, which makes it most appropriate to a specialist boutique firm like RiverNorth.

Thornburg Better World will be an international fund with strong ESG screens. Thornburg’s international funds are uniformly in the solid-to-outstanding range, though the departure of Lewis Kaufmann and some of his analysts for Artisan certainly make a dent. That said, Thornburg’s analyst core is large and well-respected and socially-responsible investing has established itself as an entirely mainstream strategy.

Manager Changes

This month there were only 38 funds reporting partial or complete changes in their management teams. This number is slightly inflated by the departure of Wayne Crumpler from eleven American Beacon funds. The most notable changes include Virginie Maisonneuve’s departure from another PIMCO fund, and Thomas Huber stepping down from T. Rowe Price Growth & Income. The good news is that he’s remaining at T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth where he’s had a longer record and more success.

Updates

In May we ran The Dry Powder Gang, a story highlighting successful funds that are currently holding exceptionally high levels of cash. After publication, we heard from two advisors who warned that their funds’ cash levels were dramatically lower than we’d reported: FMI International (FMIJX) and Tocqueville International Value (TIVFX).

The error came from, and remains in, the outputs from Morningstar’s online fund screener.  Here is Morningstar’s report of the most cash-heavy international funds, based on a June 30 2015 screening:

Cool, except for the fact the Brown is 9% cash, not 66%; FMI is 20%, not 62%; AQR is 7%, not 56% … down to Tocqueville which is 6%, not 38%.

Where do those lower numbers come from? Morningstar, of course, on the funds’ “quote” and “portfolio” pages.

We promptly corrected our misreport and contacted Morningstar. Alexa Auerbach, a kind and crafty wizard there, explained the difficulty: the cash levels reported in the screener are “long rescaled” numbers. If a fund has both long and short positions, which is common in international funds which are hedging their currency exposures, Morningstar recalculates the cash position as a percentage of the fund’s long portfolio. “So,” I asked, “if a fund was 99% short and 1% long, including a 0.3% cash position, the screener would report a 30% cash stake?” Yep.

When I mentioned that anomaly to John Rekenthaler, Morningstar’s resident thunderer and former head of research, he was visibly aroused. “Long-rescaled? I thought I’d killed that beast five years ago!” And, grabbing a cudgel, he headed off again in the direction of IT.

I’ll let you know how the quest goes. In the interim, we will, and you should be a bit vigilant in checking curious outputs from the software.

Trust but Verify

On December 9, 2014, BlackRock president Larry Fink told a Bloomberg TV interviewer, “I am absolutely convinced we will have a day, a week, two weeks where we will have a dysfunctional market. It’s going to create some sort of panic, create uncertainty again.” That’s pretty much the argument that Ed and I have made, in earlier months, about ongoing liquidity constraints and an eventual crisis. It’s a reasonably widespread topic of conversation about serious investment professionals, as well as the likes of us.

Fink’s solution was electronic bond trading and his fear was not the prospect of the market crisis but, rather, of regulators reacting inappropriately. In the interim, BlackRock applied for permission to do inter-fund lending: if one of their mutual funds needed cash to meet redemptions, they could take a short-term loan from a cash-rich BlackRock fund in lieu of borrowing from the banks or hastily selling part of the portfolio. It is a pretty common provision.

Which you’d never know from one gold bug’s conclusion that Fink sounded “BlackRock’s Warning: Get Your Money Out Of All Mutual Funds.” It’s the nature of the web that that same story, generally positioned as “What They Don’t Want You to Know,” appeared on a dozen other websites, some with remarkably innocuous names. Those stories stressed that the problem would last “days or even weeks,” which is not what Fink said.

Briefly Noted . . .

On June 4, 2015, John L. Keeley, Jr., the president and founder of Keeley Asset Management and a portfolio manager to several of the Keeley funds passed away at a still-young 75. He’s survived by his wife of 50+ years and a large family. His rich life, good works and premature departure remind us all of the need to embrace our lives while we can, rather than dully plodding through them.

Conestoga SMid Cap Fund (CCSMX) just gained, with shareholder approval, a 12(b)1 fee. (Shareholders are a potentially valuable source of lanolin.) Likewise, the Hennessy Funds are asking shareholders to raise their costs via a 12(b)1 fee on the Investor Class of the Hennessy Funds.

In the “let’s not be too overt about this” vein, Janus quietly added a co-manager to Janus Unconstrained Global Bond (JUCAX).  According to the WSJ, Janus bought the majority stake in an Australian bond firm, Kapstream Capital Pty Ltd., then appointed Kapstream’s founder to co-manage Unconstrained Bond.  Kumar Palghat, the co-manager in question, is a former PIMCO executive who managed a $22 billion bond portfolio for PIMCO’s Australian division. He resigned in 2006, reportedly to join a hedge fund.

It’s intriguing that Gross, who once managed $1.8 trillion, is struggling with one-tenth of one percent of that amount. Janus Unconstrained is volatile and underwater since launch. Its performance trails that of PIMCO Unconstrained (PFIUX), the BarCap Aggregate, its non-traditional bond peer group, and most other reasonable measures.

PIMCO has announced reverse share-splits of 2:1 or 3:1 for a series of its funds: PIMCO Commodity Real Return Strategy Fund (PCRAX), PIMCO RAE Fundamental Advantage PLUS Fund (PTFAX), PIMCO Real Estate Real Return Strategy Fund (PETAX) and PIMCO StocksPLUS Short Fund (PSSAX). Most of the funds have NAVs in the neighborhood of $2.50-4.00. At that level, daily NAV changes of under 0.25% don’t get reflected (they round down to zero) until a couple consecutive unreported changes pile up and trigger an unusually large one day move.

O Canada! Your home and native land!! Vanguard just noticed that Canada exists and that it is (who knew?) a developed market. As a result, the Vanguard Developed Markets Index Fund will now track the FTSE Developed All Cap ex US Index rather than the FTSE Developed ex North America Index. The board has also approved the addition of the Canadian market to the Fund’s investment objective. Welcome, o’ land of pines and maples, stalwart sons and gentle maidens!

Vanguard’s Emerging Markets, Pacific and European stock index funds will also get new indexes, some time late in 2015. Vanguard’s being intentionally vague on the timing of the transition to try to prevent front-running by hedge funds and others. In each case, the new index will include a greater number of small- to mid-cap names. The Emerging Markets index will, in addition, include Chinese “A” shares. One wonders if recent events are causing them to reconsider?

Villere Balanced Fund (VILLX) and Villere Equity Fund (VLEQX) may, effective immediately, lend securities – generally, that means “to short sellers” – “in order to generate return.”

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

AMG Yacktman (YACKX) and AMG Yacktman Focused (YAFFX) both reopened to new investors on June 22, 2015. The reopening engendered a lively debate on our discussion board. One camp pointed out that these are top 1% performers over the past 10- and 15-year periods. The other mentioned that they’re bottom 10% performers over the past 3- and 5-year periods. The question of asset bloat (about $20 billion between them) came up as did the noticeable outflows ($4 billion between them) in the last several years. There was a sense that the elder Mr. Yacktman was brilliant and a phenomenally decent man but, really, moving well into the “elder” ranks. Son Steve, who has been handling the funds’ day-to-day operations for 15 years is … hmmm, well, a piece of work.

The Barrow Funds, Barrow Value Opportunity Fund (BALAX/BALIX) and Barrow Long/Short Opportunity Fund (BFLSX/BFSLX) are converting from two share classes to one. The investor share class closed to new purchases on June 2 and merged into the institutional share class on June 30. At that same time, the minimum investment requirement for the institutional shares dropped from $250,000 to $2,500.  The net effect is that Barrow gets administrative simplicity and their investors, current and potential, get a price break.

Effective immediately, the name of the Hatteras Hedged Strategies Fund has changed to Hatteras Alternative Multi-Manager Fund (HHSIX).  Here’s the “small wins” part: they’ve sliced their minimum initial investment from $150 million to $1 million! Woo hoo! And here’s the tricky part: the fund has only $97 million in assets which implies that the exalted minimum was honored mostly in the breach.

The Royce Funds reduced their advisory fees for their European Smaller-Companies Fund, Global Value, International Smaller-Companies, International Micro-Cap and International Premier funds on July 1, 2015. The reductions are about 15 basis points, which translates to a drop in the funds’ expense ratios of about 10%.

Nota bene: the Royce Funds make me crazy. After a series of liquidations in April, there are 22 funds left which will drop to 21 in a couple of months. Of those, two have above average returns for the past five years while 16 trail at least 80% of their peers. The situation over the past decade is better, but not much. If you screen out the sucky, high risk and economically unviable Royce funds, you get down to about five: Global Financial Services and a bunch that existed before Legg Mason bought the firm and got them to start churning out new funds.

Effective June 1, 2015, the Schroder U.S. Opportunities Fund (SCUIX), which had been closed to new investors, will become available for purchase by investors generally. Actually with a $250,000 investment minimum, it “became available for purchase by really rich investors generally.”

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Effective as of the close of business on July 15, 2015, Brown Advisory Small-Cap Fundamental Value Fund (BIAUX) will stop accepting new purchases through most broker-dealer firms.

Eaton Vance Atlanta Capital Horizon Growth Fund (EXMCX) announced its plan to close to new investors on July 13, 2015. I wouldn’t run for your checkbook just yet. The fund has only $34 million in assets and has trailed pretty much everybody in its peer group, pretty much forever:

INTECH U.S. Core Fund (JDOAX) closed to new investors on June 30, 2015. Why, you ask? Good question. It’s a small fund that invests in large companies with a doggedly mediocre record. Not “bad,” “mediocre.” Over the past decade, it’s trailed the S&P 500 by 0.11% annually with no particular reduction of volatility. The official reason: “because Janus Capital and the Trustees believe continued sales are not in the best interests of the Fund.”

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

The Calvert Social Index Fund is now Calvert U.S. Large Cap Core Responsible Index Fund (CSXAX). At the same time, the adviser reduced the fund’s expense ratio by nearly one-third, from 0.75% down to 0.54% for “A” shares.  

Effective June 2, 2015, Columbia LifeGoal Growth Portfolio, a fund of funds, became Columbia Global Strategic Equity Fund (NLGIX). At the same time the principal investment strategies were revised (good plan! It trails 90% of its peers over the past 1, 3 and 5 years) to eliminate a lot of the clutter about how much goes into which Columbia fund. The proviso that the fund will invest at least “40% of its net assets in foreign currencies, and equity and debt securities” implies a currency-hedged portfolio.

FPA Perennial (FPPFX) has closed for a few months while it becomes an entirely different fund using the same name.

Effective immediately, the name of the Hatteras Hedged Strategies Fund has changed to Hatteras Alternative Multi-Manager Fund (HHSIX). 

On August 31, 2015: iShares MSCI USA ETF (EUSA) becomes iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF. We’ll leave it to you to figure out how they might be changing the portfolio.

Natixis Diversified Income Fund (IIDPX) becomes Loomis Sayles Multi-Asset Income Fund on August 31, 2015. The investment strategy gets tweaked accordingly.

-er, don’t panic! A handful of Royce funds have lost their –ers. On June 15, Royce International Smaller-Companies Fund became Royce International Small-Cap Fund (RYGSX), European Smaller-Companies Fund became European Small-Cap Fund (RISCX) and Royce Financial Services Fund became Royce Global Financial Services Fund (RYFSX). In the former two cases, the managers wanted to highlight the fact that they focused on a stock’s capitalization rather than the size of the underlying firm. In the latter case, RYFSX has about five times the international exposure of its peers. Given that excellent performance (top 2% over the past decade) and a distinctive portfolio (their market cap is one-twentieth of their peers) hasn’t drawn assets, I suppose they’re hoping that a new name will. At the very least, with eight funds – over a third of their lineup – renamed in the past three months, that’s the way they’re betting.

Oppenheimer Flexible Strategies Fund (QVOPX) becomes Oppenheimer Fundamental Alternatives Fund on August 3, 2015. There’s no change in the fund’s operation, so apparently “strategies” are “alternatives,” just not trendy alternatives.

On June 22, 2015, the Sterling Capital Strategic Allocation Conservative Fund (BCGAX) morphed into Sterling Capital Diversified Income Fund. Heretofore it’s been a fund of Sterling funds. With the new name comes the ability to invest in other funds as well.

In case you hadn’t noticed, on June 18, 2015, the letters “TDAM” were replaced by the word “Epoch” in the names of a bunch of funds: Epoch U.S. Equity Shareholder Yield Fund, Epoch U.S. Large Cap Core Equity Fund, Epoch Global Equity Shareholder Yield Fund, Epoch Global All Cap Fund, and Epoch U.S. Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund. The funds, mostly bad, have two share classes each and have authorization to launch eight additional share classes. Except for U.S. Small-Mid Cap, they have $3-6 million in assets.

Effective July 31, 2015 Virtus Global Dividend Fund (PGUAX), a perfectly respectable fund with lots of global infrastructure exposure, becomes Virtus Global Infrastructure Fund.

Effective August 28, 2015, the West Shore Real Return Income Fund (NWSFX) becomes West Shore Real Return Fund. They’re also changing their objective from “capital growth and current income” to “preserving purchasing power.” They’ve pretty much completely rewritten their “principal strategies” text so that it’s hard to know how exactly the portfolio will change, though the addition of a risk statement concerning the use of futures and other derivatives does offer a partial answer. I’ve been genially skeptical of the fund for a long while. Their performance chart doesn’t materially reduce that skepticism:

At a reader’s behest, I spoke at length with one of the managers whose answers seemed mostly circular and who was reluctant to share information about the fund. He claimed that they have a great record as a private strategy, that they’ve shown to the board, but that they’re not interested in sharing with others. His basic argument was: “we don’t intend to make information about the fund, our strategies or insights available on the web. Our website is just a pick-up point for the prospectus. We expect that people will either know us already or will follow our success and be drawn.” At the end of the call, he announced that he and co-manager James Rickards were mostly the public faces of the fund and that the actual work of managing it fell to the third member of the trio. Mr. Rickards has since left to resume his career as doom-sayer.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Aftershock Strategies Fund (SHKIX/SHKNX) has closed and will discontinue its operations effective July 6, 2015.

You’ll need to find an alternative to AMG FQ Global Alternatives Fund (MGAAX), which is in the process of liquidating. Apparently they’re liquidating (or solidifying?) cash:

Final shutdown should occur by the end of July.

Elessar SCV Fund has morphed into the Emerald Small Cap Value Fund (ELASX)

Franklin Templeton has delayed by a bit the liquidation of Franklin Global Allocation Fund (FGAAX). The original date of execution was June 30 but “due to delays in liquidating certain portfolio securities,” they anticipate waiting until October 23. That’s a fascinating announcement since it implies liquidity problems though that’s not listed as an investment risk in the prospectus.

Guggenheim Enhanced World Equity Fund “ceased operations, liquidated its assets, and distributed the liquidation proceeds to shareholders of record at the close of business on June 26, 2015.”

Salient recently bought the Forward Funds complex “in an effort to build scale in the rapidly growing liquid alternatives space.” The brilliance of the deal is debatable (Forward favors liquid alts investing, but only three of its 30 funds – Select Emerging Markets Dividend, Credit Analysis Long/Short (whose founding managers were sacked a year ago) and High Yield Bond – have outperformed their peers since inception). As it turns out, Forward Small Cap Equity Fund (FFSCX) and Forward Income & Growth Allocation Fund (AOIAX) fell into neither of those camps: good or alternative. Both are scheduled to be liquidated on August 12, 2015.

HSBC RMB Fixed Income Fund (HRMBX), an exceptionally strong EM bond fund with no investors, will be liquidated on or about July 21, 2015.

MainStay ICAP Global Fund (ICGLX) will be liquidated on or about September 30, 2015. Small, middling performer, culled from the herd.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Other times a picture leaves me speechless. Such is the case with the YTD price chart for Merk Currency Enhanced U.S. Equity Fund (MUSFX).

Yuh. That’s a one-day spike of about 60%, followed by a 60% fall the next day for a net loss of a third over two days, at which point the fund was no longer “pursuing its investment objective.” The fund is scheduled to be liquidated July 15.

Montibus Small Cap Growth Fund (SGWAX) joins the legion of the dearly departed on August 24, 2015.

Nationwide HighMark Balanced Fund (NWGDX) will, pending shareholder approval, vanish on or about October 23, 2015. At about the same time Nationwide HighMark Large Cap Growth (NWGLX) is slated to merge into Nationwide Large Cap Core Equity while Nationwide HighMark Value (NWGTX) gets swallowed by Nationwide Fund (NWFAX). The latter has been rallying after getting a new manager in 2013, so we’ll be hopeful that this is a gain for shareholders.

At the end of July, shareholders will vote on a proposal to merge the small and sad Royce Select Fund (RYSFX) into the much larger and sadder Royce 100 (RYOHX). The proxy assures investors that “the Funds have identical investment objectives, employ substantially similar principal investment strategies to pursue those investment objectives, and have the same portfolio managers,” which raises the question of why they launched Select in the first place.

The previously announced liquidation of the half million dollar Rx Tax Advantaged Fund (FMERX) has been delayed until July 31, 2015. 

On or about August 25, 2015, the Vantagepoint Model Portfolio All-Equity Growth Fund (VPAGX) becomes Vantagepoint Model Portfolio Global Equity Growth Fund and increases its equity exposure to non-U.S. securities by adding an international index fund to its collection. The fund has about a billion in assets. Who knew?

Relationships come and relationships go. One of the few proprieties that my students observe is, if you’ve actually met and gone out in person, you should be willing to break up in person. Breaking up by text is, they agreed, cruel and cowardly. I suspect that they’re unusually sympathetic with the managers of Wells Fargo Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond Fund (WLBAX) and Wells Fargo Advantage Emerging Markets Equity Select Fund (WEMTX). “At a telephonic meeting held on June 15, 2015, the Board of Trustees unanimously approved the liquidation of the Funds.” Cold, dude. If you’d like to extend your sympathies, best send the text before July 17, 2015.

Wilmington Mid-Cap Growth Fund (AMCRX) will liquidate on or about August 3, 2015. Being “not very good” (they’ve trailed two-thirds of their peers for the past five and ten years) didn’t stop them from accumulating a quarter billion in assets but somehow the combination wasn’t enough to keep them around. Wilmington Small-Cap Strategy Fund (WMSIX), a small institutional fund with a pretty solid record and stable management, goes into the vortex that same day.

In Closing . . .

Thank you, once again, to those whose support keeps the lights on at the Observer. To Diane & Tom, Allen & Cleo, Hjalmar, Ed (cool and mysterious email address, sir!): we appreciate you!  A great, big thanks to those who use the Observer’s Amazon link for all their Amazon purchases. Your consistency, and occasional exuberant purchase, continues to help us beat our normal pattern of declining revenue in the summer months. We’d also be remiss if we forgot to thank the faithful Deborah and Greg, our honorary subscribers and PayPal monthly contributors. Many thanks to you both.

Lots to do for August. We’ve been watching the folks at the Turner Funds thrash about, both in court and in the marketplace. We’ll try to give you some perspective on what some have called The Fall of the House of Turner. In addition, we’d like to look at the question, “where should you start out?” That is, if you or a young friend of yours is a 20-something with exceedingly modest cash flow but a determination to build a sensible, durable foundation, which funds might serve as your (or their) best first investment: conservative, affordable, sensible.

And, too, I’ve got to prepare for a couple presentations: a talk with some of the young analysts at Edward Jones in St. Louis and with the folks attending Ultimus Fund Solution’s client conference at the end of August and beginning of September. If I find something fun, you’ll be the second to know!

As ever,

Dear friends,

They’re gone. Five hundred and twenty-six Augie students who we’ve jollied, prodded, chided, praised, despaired of and delighted in for the past four years have been launched on the rest of you. They’re awfully bright-eyed, occasionally in reflection of the light coming from their cell phone screens. You might suspect that they’re not listening, but if you text them, they’ll perk right up.

This is usually the time for graduation pictures but I’ve never found those engaging since they reflect the dispersion of our small, close-knit community. I celebrate rather more the moments of our cohesion; the times when small and close were incredibly powerful.

Augie’s basketball team finished second in the nation in 2015, doing rather better in our division than the Kentucky Mildcats did in theirs, eh? We did not play in a grand arena but instead in a passionate one: Carver Gymnasium, home of the Carver Crazies. It was a place where the football team (the entire football team) jammed the sidelines of every game, generally shoulder to shoulder with the women’s basketball team and the choir, all shouting … hmmm, deprecations at opposing players.

When the team boarded buses at 5:00 a.m. for the trip east to compete in the Final Four, they were cheered off by hundreds of students and staff who stood in happy gaggles in the dark. A day later, hundreds more boarded buses and jammed in cars to follow them east. And when they came home, one win shy of a championship, they were greeted with the sound of trumpets and cheers.

And while the basketball players won’t go to the NBA, a fair number – over half of our juniors – will go to med school. And so perhaps we’ll yet meet the Kentuckians at an NBA contest as our guys patch together theirs.

I rather like kids, maddened though we make each other.

MFO on FOMO

No, FOMO is not that revolutionary white spray foam that’s guaranteed to remove the toughest pet stains from your carpet; neither is it a campaign rallying cry (“FOMO years! FOMO years!”).

FOMO is “fear of missing out” and it’s one of the more plausible explanations for the market’s persistent rise. There’s an almost-universal agreement that financial assets are, almost without exception, overpriced. Some (bonds) are more badly overpriced than others (small Japanese stocks), but that’s about the best defense that serious investors make of current conditions: they’re finding pockets of relative value rather than much by way of absolute value.

The question is: why are folks hanging around when they know this is going to end badly (again)? The surprising answer is, because everyone else is hanging around. It’s a logic reminiscent of those anxious moments back in our early high school years. We’d get invited to a party (surprise!), it would be great for a while then it would begin to drag. But really, you couldn’t be the first kid to leave. First off, everyone would notice and brand you as a wuss, or worse. Second, while it was late, all the cool kids were still around and that meant, you know, that something cool might happen.

And so you lingered until just after that kid from the football team threw up near the food, one of the girls used “the F word” kinda in your face and someone – no one knows who – knocked over the nice table lamp which really pissed off Emily’s dad. Then everyone was anxious to squeeze as quickly through the door as possible. On whole, the night would have been a lot better if you’d left just a little earlier but still …

It’s like that for professional investors, too. Reuters columnist James Saft points to research that shows professionals falling victim to the same pressures:  

Call it status anxiety, call it greed or just call it clever momentum trading, but the fear of missing out is an under-appreciated force in financial markets. No one likes to miss out on a good thing, especially when they see their friends, neighbors and rivals cashing in.

Much of this may be driven by concerns about relative wealth, or how much you have compared to those in your group, a force explored in a 2007 paper by Peter DeMarzo and Ilan Kramer of Stanford University and Ron Kaniel of Duke University. They found that even when traders understand that prices are too high they may stay in the market because they fear losing out as the overvaluation persists and extends.

Investors want to keep pace with their peers, and fear not having as much wealth. That raises, in a certain way, the risk of selling into a bubble. That status and group-motivated anxiety can blind investors towards other, seemingly obvious risks. (“The power of the fear of missing out,” 05/29/2015.)

You might think of it as a financial manifestation of Newton’s first law of motion: “unless acted upon by an outside force, an object in motion tends to stay in motion in the same direction and speed.” It’s sometimes called “the law of inertia.” One technical analyst, looking at the “pattern we have seen for much of 2015, namely choppy with a slight upward bias,” opined that despite “an increasing number of clouds gathering on the horizon  …  the path of least resistance likely remains to the upside.”

And so the smart money people remain, anxiously, present. Business Insider reporter Linette Lopez, covering the huge SALT Las Vegas hedge fund conference, observes that leading hedge fund strategists:

Across the board … believe asset prices are too high. Mostly bonds, sometimes stocks. Still, everyone is long the market. No one wants to be the first person out of the market as long as they’re making money. This is a huge issue on Wall Street, and everyone at this conference is now looking for a warning signal. (“We’ve already seen the beginning of the quake that could be coming,” 05/06/2015) – didn’t discuss h.f. fees (steadily rising) or h.f. performance (steadily lagging)…

In the same week that the hedgies were meeting in Las Vegas, the Buffett Believers gathered in Omaha. There renowned value investors, such as Jean-Marie Eveillard, now a senior advisor to First Eagle funds, fret that the market was overvalued, kept alive by artificial stimulus that’s coming to an end. Eveillard says investors don’t seem to be factoring that in. “Either everyone is thinking I will just keep dancing until the music stops, or they don’t see the risks that I do.” (“At Berkshire annual meeting, Warren Buffett hosts cautious investors,” 05/02/2015.)

In an interview with Reuters, Joel Tillinghast – one of Fidelity’s two best managers – captured the yin and yang of it:

“I think [the level of the financial markets are] colossally artificial, but I don’t see it ending. How long can we party with our bad selves?” Mr. Tillinghast asked. “You want to know so you can party on until five minutes before it ends.” (“Top Fidelity stockpicker: Financial markets are ‘colossally artificial,’” 05/26/2015)

We raised last month the notion of a “roach motel,” where getting in is easy and getting out is impossible. In the case of bugs, the problem is stickum. In the case of investors, it’s liquidity. At base, you may find that there’s no one willing to pay anything even vaguely like what you think your holdings are worth. Kevin Kinsella, president of a venture capital firm, notes that investors have been making 30% per quarter on privately traded shares, like Uber.

Given the various stratospheric private valuations some of these unicorn companies are reaching, there will be no trade buyers, and it is doubtful whether a sane investment bank would take such companies public at these market caps.

Investors historically delude themselves by concocting rationales as to why the insanity will continue, why it is completely reasonable and why an implosion won’t happen to them. They are always wrong. 

How will it end? When interest rates ultimately start to tick up and vast pools of capital begin to shift toward fixed income away from equities. It’s a historic cyclical shift. When the music stops and everyone needs to scramble for their chair, there will be a lot of fannies left hanging out there.

Predicting that this will happen is easy; predicting exactly when, not so easy. But my prediction is that it is not far off. (“Tech Boom 2015: What’s Driving Investor Insanity?” Forbes, 05/21/2015)

Michael Novogratz, head of the $67 billion Fortress hedge fund operation, shared that concern at the SALT gathering:

“I’m going to argue that I think something has fundamentally changed.” He is worried because even though managers know assets are expensive, they are still long. This is a recipe for a difficult exit once all they want to close their positions. The liquidity will disappear and assets will reprice. As legendary trader Stanley Druckenmiller said, assets need a lot of volume and money to go up and much less to crash.  (Michael Novogratz CEO of Fortress Investments Is Worried About The Markets)

The question is, what’s a fund investor to do? Five things come to mind:

1. Do a quick check on your asset allocation and risk exposure. Any idea of how long a core equity fund might remain underwater; that is, how many months it takes for a fund to rebound from a bad decline? I scanned MFO’s premium fund screener for large-cap core funds that had been around 10 years or more. The five best funds took, on average, over two years to rebound. The average large cap fund took 58 months, on average, to recover from their maximum drawdown. Here’s the test: look at your portfolio value today and ask whether you’re capable of waiting until April, 2020 to ever see a number that high again. That’s the worst case for a large cap stock portfolio. For a conservative asset allocation, the recovery time is a year or two. For a moderate portfolio, three or so years. At base, decide now how long you can wait and adjust accordingly.
2. Join the Dry Powder Gang. We profiled, last month, a couple dozen entirely admirable funds that are holding substantial cash stakes. Some have been badly punished for their caution, both by investors and raters, but all have strong, stable management teams, coherent strategies and a record of deploying cash when prices get juicy.
3. Allocate some to funds that have won in up and down markets. They’re rare. Daren Fonda at Barron’s recommends “[f]unds such as FPA Crescent (FPACX) and First Eagle Global (SGENX) have flexible strategies and defensive-minded managers.”  Charles identified a handful of long-term stalwarts in his April 2015 essay “Identifying Bear-Market Resistant Funds During Good Times.” Among the notable funds (not all open to new investors) he highlighted:
   
4. Cautiously approach the alt-fund space. There are some alt funds which have a plausible claim to thrive on volatility. We’ve profiled RiverPark Structural Alpha (RSAFX), for instance, and our colleagues at DailyAlts.com regularly highlight intriguing options.
5. Try to leave when everyone else heads out, too. The Latin word for those massive exits was “vomitaria” which would make you …

Liquidity Problem – What Liquidity Problem?

By Edward A. Studzinski

“Moon in a barrel: you never know just when the bottom will fall out.”

 Mabutsu

So as David Snowball mentioned in his May commentary, I have been thinking about the potential consequences of illiquidity in the fixed income market. Obviously, if you have a portfolio in U.S. Treasury issues, you assume you can turn it into cash overnight. If you can’t, that’s a potential problem. That appears to be a problem now – selling $10 or $20 million in Treasuries without moving the market is difficult. Part of the problem is there are not a lot of natural buyers, especially at these rates and prices. QE has given the Federal Reserve their fill of them. Banks have to hold them as part of the Dodd-Frank capital requirements, but are adding to their holdings only when growing their assets. And those people who always act in the best interests of the United States, namely the Chinese, have been liquidating their U.S. Treasury portfolio. Why? As they cut rates to stimulate their economy, they are trying to sterilize their currency from the effects of those rate cuts by selling our bonds, part of their foreign reserve holdings. Remember, the goal of China is to supplant, with their own currency, the dollar as a reserve currency, especially in Asia and the developing world. And our Russian friends have similarly been selling their Treasury holdings, but in that instance using the proceeds to purchase gold bullion to add to their reserves.

Who is there to buy bonds today? Bond funds? Not likely. If you are a fund manager and thought a Treasury bond was a cash equivalent, it is not. But if there are redemptions from your fund, there is a line of credit to use until you can sell securities to cover the redemptions, right? And it is a committed line of credit, so the bank has to lend on it, no worries! In the face of a full blown market panic, with the same half dozen banks in the business of providing lines of credit to the fund industry, where will your fund firm fall in the pecking order of mutual fund holding companies, all of whom have committed lines of credit? It now becomes more understandable why the mutual fund firms with a number of grey hairs still around, have been raising cash in their funds, not just because they are running out of things to invest in that meet their parameters. It also gives you a sense as to who understands their obligations to their shareholder investors.

We also saw this week, through an article in The Wall Street Journal, that there is a liquidity problem in the equity markets as well. There are trading volumes at the open. There are trading volumes, usually quite heavy, at the end of the day. The rest of the time – there is no volume and no liquidity. So if you thought you had protected yourself from another tsunami by having no position in your fund composed of more than three days average volume of a large or mega cap stock, surprise – you have again fought the last war. And heaven help you if you decide to still sell a position when the liquidity is limited and you trigger one or more parameters for the program and quant traders.

As Lenin asked, “What is to be done?” Jason Zweig, whom I regard as the Zen Philosopher King of financial columnists, wrote a piece in the WSJ on May 23, 2015 entitled “Lessons From A Buffett Believer.” It is a discussion about the annual meeting of Markel Corporation and the presentation given by its Chief Investment Officer, Tom Gayner. Gayner, an active manager, has compiled a wonderful long-term investment record. However, he also has a huge competitive advantage. Markel is a property and casualty company that consistently underwrites at a profitable combined ratio. Gayner is always (monthly) receiving additional capital to invest. He does not appear to trade his portfolio. So the investors in Markel have gotten a double compounding effect both at the level of the investment portfolio and at the corporation (book value growth). And it has happened in a tax-efficient manner and with an expense ratio in investing that Vanguard would be proud of in its index funds.

I recently was speaking with a friend in Japan, Alex Kinmont, who has compiled a very strong record as a deep value investor in the Japanese market, in particular the small cap end of the market. We were discussing the viability of a global value fund and whether it could successfully exist with an open-ended mutual fund as its vehicle. Alex reminded me of something that I know but have on occasion forgotten in semi-retirement, which is that our style of value can be out of favor for years. Given the increased fickleness today of mutual fund investors, the style may not fit the vehicle. Robert Sanborn used to say the same thing about those occasions when value was out of favor (think dot.com insanity). But Robert was an investment manager who was always willing to put the interests of his investors above the interests of the business.

Alex made another point which is more telling, which is that Warren Buffett has been able to do what is sensible in investing successfully because he has permanent capital. Not for him the fear of redemptions. Not for him the need to appear at noon on the Gong Show on cable to flog his investment in Bank America as a stroke of genius. Not for him the need to pander to colleagues or holding company managers more worried about their bonuses than their fiduciary obligations. Gayner at Markel has the same huge competitive advantage. Both of them can focus on the underlying business value of their investments over the long term without having to worry about short-term market pricing volatility.

What does this mean for the average fund investor? You have to be very careful, because what you think you are investing in is not always what you are getting. You can see the whole transformation of a fund organization if you look carefully at what Third Avenue was and how it invested ten years ago. And now look at what its portfolios are invested in with the departure of most of the old hands.

The annual Morningstar Conference happens in a few weeks here in Chicago. Steve Romick of FPA Advisors and the manager of FPA Crescent will be a speaker, both at Morningstar and at an Investment Analysts Society of Chicago event. Steve now has more than $20B in assets in Crescent. If I were in a position to ask questions, one of them would be to inquire about the consequences of style drift given the size of the fund. Another would be about fees, where the fee breakpoints are, and will they be adjusted as assets continue to be sought after.

I believe in 2010, Steve’s colleague Bob Rodriguez did a well-deserved victory lap as a keynote speaker at Morningstar and also as well at another Investment Analysts Society of Chicago meeting. And what I heard then, both in the presentation and in the q&a by myself and others then has made me wonder, “What’s changed?” Of course, this was just before Bob was going on a year’s sabbatical, leaving the business in the hands of others. But, he said we should not expect to see FPA doing conference calls, or having a large marketing effort. And since all of their funds at that time, with the exception of Crescent, were load funds I asked him why they kept them as load funds? Bob said that that distribution channel had been loyal to them and they needed to be loyal to it, especially since it encouraged the investors to be long term. Now all the FPA Funds are no load, and they have marketing events and conference calls up the wazoo. What I suspect you are seeing is the kind of generational shift that occurs at organizations when the founders die or leave, and the children or adopted children want to make it seem like the success of the organization and the investment brilliance is solely due to them. For those of us familiar with the history of Source Capital and FPA, and the involvement of Charlie Munger, Jim Gipson, and George Michaelis, this is to say the least, disappointing.

Does Your Fund Manager Consistently Beat the Stock Market?

I saw the headline at Morningstar and had two immediate thoughts: (1) uhh, no, and (2) why on earth would I care since “beating the stock market” is not one of my portfolio objectives?

Then I read the sub-title: “Probably not–but you shouldn’t much care.”

“Ah! Rekenthaler!” I thought. And I was right.

John recounts a column by Chuck Jaffe, lamenting the demise of the star fund manager.  Rekenthaler’s questions are (1) are they actually gone? And (2) should you care? The answers are “yes” and “no, not much,” respectively.

Morningstar researchers looked to determine how long “winning streaks” last; that is, for how many consecutive years might a fund manager beat his or her benchmark. Over the past 10 years, none of the 1000 U.S. stock funds have beaten the S&P500 for more than six years. Ten funds managed six year streaks, but four of those were NASDAQ 100 index funds. Worse yet, active managers performed worse than simple luck would dictate.

Outliers

“At the extreme outer edge of what is statistically plausible” is how Malcom Gladwell defines an outlier in his amazing book, Outliers: The Story of Success (2008).

The MFO Rating System ranks funds based on risk adjusted return within their respective categories across various evaluation periods. The rankings are by quintile. Those in the top 20 percentile are assigned a 5, while those in the bottom 20 percentile are assigned a 1.

The percentile is not determined from simple rank ordering. For example, say there are 100 funds in the Large Growth category. The 20 funds with the highest risk adjusted return may not necessarily all be given a 5. That’s because our methodology assumes fund performance will be normally distributed across the category, which means terms like category mean and standard deviation are taken into account.

It’s similar to grading tests in school using a bell curve and, rightly or wrongly, is in deference to the random nature of returns. While not perfect, this method produces more satisfactory ranking results than the simple rank order method because it ensures, for example, that the bottom quintile funds (Return Group 1) have returns that are so many standard deviations below the mean or average returning funds (Return Group 3). Similarly, top quintile funds (Return Group 5) will have returns that are so many standard deviations above the mean.

All said, there remain drawbacks. At times, returns can be anything but random or “normally” distributed, which was painfully observed when the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) collapsed in 1998. LTCM used quant models with normal distributions that underestimated the potential for extreme under performance. Such distributions can be skewed negatively, creating a so-called “left tail” perhaps driven by a market liquidity crunch, which means that the probability of extreme under-performance is higher than depicted on the left edge of the bell curve above.

Then there are outliers. Funds that over- or under-perform several standard deviations away from the mean. Depending on the number of funds in the category being ranked, these outliers can meaningfully alter the mean and standard deviation values themselves. For example, if a category has only 10 funds and one is an outlier, the resulting rankings could have the outlier assigned Return Group 5 and all others relegated to Return Group 1.

The MFO methodology removes outliers, anointing them if you will to bottom or top quintile, then recalculates rankings of remaining funds. It keeps track of the outliers across the evaluation periods ranked. Below please find a list of positive outliers, or extreme over-performers, based on the latest MFO Ratings of some 8700 funds, month ending April 2015.

The list contains some amazing funds and warrants a couple observations:

• Time mitigates outliers, which seems to be a manifestation of reversion to the mean, so no outliers are observed presently for periods beyond 205 or so months, or about 17 years.
• Outliers rarely repeat across different time frames, sad to say but certainly not unexpected as observed in In Search of Persistence.
• Outliers typically protect against drawdown, as evidenced by low Bear Decile score and Great Owl designations (highlighted in dark blue – Great Owls are assigned to funds that have earned top performance rank based on Martin for all evaluation periods 3 years or longer).

The following outliers have delivered extreme over-performance for periods 10 years and more (the tables depict 20 year or life metrics, as applicable):

Here are the outliers for periods 5 years and more (the tables depict 10 year or life metrics, as applicable):

Finally, the outliers for periods 3 years and more (the tables depict 5 year or life metrics, as applicable):

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, searchable, and filtered as never before. For the 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.

Order

The Tenth Circuit vacated a district court’s order that had granted class certification in the prospectus disclosure lawsuit regarding the Oppenheimer California Municipal Bond Fund, finding that “[t]he district court’s class certification order at issue here did not analyze either the Rule 23(a) or 23(b) factors.” Defendants include independent directors. (In re Cal. Mun. Fund.)

New Lawsuits

A new securities fraud class action targets four Virtus funds, alleging that defendants misrepresented the performance track record of the funds’ “AlphaSector” strategy (created by an unaffiliated sub-adviser). Defendants include independent directors. (Youngers v. Virtus Inv. Partners, Inc.)

A new antitrust lawsuit alleges that Waddell & Reed and Ivy Funds “financed and aided” Al Haymon’s illegal efforts to monopolize professional boxing. (Golden Boy Promotions LLC v. Haymon.)

Briefs

Davis filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss fee litigation regarding its New York Venture Fund. (In re Davis N.Y. Venture Fund Fee Litig.)

PIMCO filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss fee litigation regarding its Total Return Fund (Kenny v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co.)

Having lost in district court, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief defending their state-law claims regarding investments of Vanguard mutual fund assets in foreign gambling businesses. Defendants include independent directors. (Hartsel v. Vanguard Group, Inc.)

Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in fee litigation regarding four MainStay funds issued by New York Life. (Redus-Tarchis v. N.Y. Life Inv. Mgmt., LLC.)

Answer

Having lost on appeal, Putnam filed an answer to fraud and negligence claims, filed by the insurer of a swap transaction, regarding Putnam’s collateral management services to a CDO. (Fin. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co.)

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and news from DailyAlts

Every month Brian J. Haskin, founder, publisher and editor of DailyAlts shares news, perspective and commentary on the alt-space with the Observer’s readers. DailyAlts is the only website with a sole focus on liquid alternative investments.  They seek to provide a centralized source for high quality news, research and other information on one of the most dynamic and fastest growing segments of the investment industry. We’re always grateful for Brian’s commentary and he welcomes folks to drop by DailyAlts for more news in great depth. For now, the highlights:

The Access Revolution

There is an access revolution taking place in today’s investment world, especially with alternative investments. It started a number of years ago with platforms such as Kickstarter and Kiva, where everyday citizens could help others get their new idea off the ground. Today, individual investors can access a broad array of investments with just a few clicks of the mouse:

• Private equity via closed-end mutual funds
• Real estate lending and investing through crowdsourcing platforms
• Angel investing via online venture capital portals
• Private lending via online lending platforms

The list goes on, but the good news is that individual investors have far greater choice today than they did just a few years ago.

Much of the change taking place is due to changes in securities regulations that permit advertising and public promotion of private investment offerings. Other changes are driven by capital flowing to new technology-driven platforms and the broader use of existing investment vehicles.

Just this past month we had two new private equity offerings come to market in closed-end interval funds, one from Altegris / StepStone / KKR and the other from Pomona Capital / Voya:

• New Altegris Fund Gives Accredited Investors Exposure to Private Equity
• Pomona Capital and Voya Team Up on New Private Equity Fund

While these are not pure liquid alternatives (they don’t have daily liquidity, thankfully), they fall into the “near” liquid grouping. And furthermore, they give the mass-affluent access to investments that have never been available for as little as $25,000.

Expect to see more products such as these from the big name financial firms, as well as more access to alternatives through online investment portals. There is a revolution taking place.

Now, onto the liquid part of the alternatives market.

Monthly Liquid Alternative Flows

Investors allocated a total of $982 million to actively managed alternative mutual funds and ETFs in April, according to Morningstar’s most recent asset flows report, but pulled $259 million from passively managed alternative funds. Net flows totaled $723 million for the month, down from the healthy $2.8 billion of net new asset flows seen in March.

Interestingly, only two categories had positive flows in April: Multi-alternative funds and managed futures. Clearly a sign that advisors and investors are looking for either a one-stop shop for an alternatives allocation, or are looking to allocate to wholly uncorrelated strategies alongside equity and fixed income allocations. Managed futures strategies are generally expected to perform well during times of crisis, such as during the 2008 credit crisis, and when there are strong directional trends in markets, such as those we have seen in the past year with oil prices and the US dollar.

Last year was the year of non-traditional bonds, while 2015 is looking much stronger for several other strategies. Volatility based funds topped the charts for 12-month growth rates, with managed futures and multi-alternative funds not too far behind. And despite strong growth in 2014, non-traditional bond funds are only modestly keeping their head above water with a 12-month growth rate of 2.6%.

Based on growth rates and asset flows, diversification appears to be the primary focus of investors and allocators. In 2014, long/short equity fought against the $7.8 billion of outflows from the MainStay Marketfield Fund and still posted $6.4 billion of net inflows for the year. 2015 is looking quite different. Year-to-date, the long/short equity category is down $1.5 billion. While market neutral strategies can provide low levels of correlation with the equity markets, investors appear to be moving away from these strategies in favor of managed futures, volatility and multi-alternative funds.

Expect asset flows to liquid alternatives to continue on their current course of strong single-digit to low double-digit growth. Should markets falter, investors will look to allocate more to liquid alternatives.

New Fund Launches

We have seen 53 new funds launched this year, including alternative beta funds. In May, we logged 12 new funds, with nearly half being alternative beta funds. The remaining funds cut across multi-alternative, market neutral, non-traditional bonds, volatility and commodities. 

Two intriguing funds in the volatility space came to market in May:

• AccuShares Spot CBOE VIX Up Shares (VXUP)
• AccuShares Spot CBOE VIX Down Shares (VXDN)

These two funds are different because they provide direct exposure to the VIX Index, whereas other VIX related products are indexed to futures contracts on the VIX, and thus can have very high holding costs over the course of a month. Some time is needed on the new AccuShares ETFs, but if VIX is your game, these are worth keeping an eye on.

For more details, you can visit our New Funds 2015 page to see a full listing.

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.

JOHCM International Select II (JOHAX): it’s the single best performing international large growth fund in existence over the past 1, 3 and 5 years. It’s got five stars. It’s a Great Owl. You’ve probably never heard of it and it’s closing in mid-July. Now does any of that offer a compelling reason to add it to your portfolio?

Elevator Talk: Jon Angrist, Cognios Market Neutral Large Cap

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.

Market-neutral funds are, on whole, dumb investments. They’re funds with complex strategies, high expenses and low returns which provide questionable protection for their investors. By way of simple illustration, the average market-neutral fund charges 1.70% while returning 1.25% annually over the past five years. Right: 60% of the portfolio’s (modest) returns go to the adviser in the form of fees, 40% go to you.

About the best you can say for them is that, as a group, they lost only a little money in 2008: about 0.3%. The worst you can say is that they also lost a little money in 2009. And then a little more in 2010. And yet again in 2011 before their … uh, ferocious rebound led to a 0.18% gain in 2012.

Into the mess steps Jon Angrist, Brian J. Machtley and the folks at Cognios Capital. In 2008, Messrs. Angrist and Machtley co-founded Cognios (from the Latin for “to learn” or “to inquire”) which manages about $325 million, mostly for high net worth individuals. Mr. Angrist, the lead manager, has experience managing investments through limited partnerships (Helzberg Angrist Capital), private equity firms (Harvest Partners) and mutual funds (Buffalo Microcap Fund, now called Buffalo Emerging Opportunities BUFOX).

Cognios argues that most market-neutral managers misconstruct their portfolios. Most managers simply balance their short and long books: if 5% gets invested in an attractively valued car company then another 5% is devoted to shorting an unattractively valued car company. The problem is that an over-priced company might well be more volatile than an underpriced one, which means that the portfolio ceases to be market-neutral. The twist at Cognios, then, is to use quant tools to construct an attractive large cap portfolio while changing the relative sizes of the long and short books to neutralize beta. Cognios Market Neutral Large Cap describes itself as providing a “beta-adjusted market neutral” portfolio.

In a Beta-adjusted market neutral portfolio the size of the short book can be larger or smaller than the size of the long book. If the Beta of the long book is higher than the Beta of the short book, the short book needs to be larger than the size of the long book in order to remove all of the market’s broad movements (i.e., to remove the market’s Beta) … Even though the portfolio will be net short on an absolute dollar basis in [this] example (i.e., more shorts than longs) … [it] both would be market neutral on a Beta-adjusted basis.

So far, this seems to be a profitable strategy. Below is the comparative performance of Cognios (blue line) since inception, against its market neutral peer group.

Here are Jon’s 264 words on why this might become a standout strategy:

Brian and I have been working in value investing for most of our careers and about three years ago, as we looked at the mutual fund universe, we saw a huge gap in market neutral offerings for individual investors. Even today, there are less than 40 market neutral mutual funds (not share classes). In today’s market environment, I believe a market neutral allocation, beta market neutral in particular, is a critical diversification tool in an investor’s overall asset allocation as it is the only strategy that strives to remove the impact of the market and macro events from the return of the strategy. Unlike most market neutral strategies that target risk-free rates of return, our fund targets equity-like returns over full market cycles because, in my opinion, if an investor wants Treasury-like returns why wouldn’t he/she just buy Treasuries?

There was a real need in the market for which our strategy could provide a solution if packaged in a mutual fund wrapper and because we only invest in large, liquid companies in the S&P 500, we didn’t have to change our strategy in order to deploy it in a mutual fund. Investors and their advisors are looking for strategies that seek to reduce volatility, standard deviation and downside risk in a portfolio, which is the primary objective of our fund. This fund has made it possible for a wide range of investors to access the same strategy that we provide to our institutional clients in other structures. As investors in our own fund, we have a very strong conviction about what we are doing.

Cognios Market Neutral Large Cap (COGMX/COGIX) has a $1000 minimum initial investment for its retail class and $100,000 for the institutional class. Both are modest in comparison to the $25 million minimum for a separately managed account. Expenses are capped at 1.95% on the investor shares, at least through early 2016. The fund has about gathered about $16 million in assets since its December 2012 launch. More information can be found at the fund’s homepage. There’s also a quick slideshow on a third-party website that walks through the basics of the fund’s strategy.

Funds in Registration

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

Funds in registration this month are eligible to launch in July or August and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

This month our research associate David Welsch tracked down eight no-load retail funds in registration, which represents our core interest. Of those, four carry ESG screens (two from TIAA-CREF and two from Trillium) and three represent absolute value or absolute return strategies, while one is a short-term bond index. Interesting cluster of interests.

Manager Changes

This month 66 funds reported partial or complete changes in their management teams, a number slightly inflated by a dozen partial team changes in the AB (formerly AllianceBernstein) retirement date funds. The most striking were the imminent departures of PIMCO’s global equities CIO Virginie Maisonneuve plus several equity managers and analysts as PIMCO pulls back on their attempt to make a mark in pure equity investing. There was, in addition, announcement of the planned departure of Robert Mohn, Domestic Chief Investment Officer of Columbia Wanger Asset Management and Vice President of Wanger Advisors Trust who will step down in the fourth quarter of 2015. The change was announced for Wanger USA (WUSAX) but will presumably ripple through a series of Columbia Acorn funds eventually. In addition, Matt Paschke of the Leuthold Funds is taking a leave of absence to pursue personal interests for a bit. He’s a good and level-headed guy and we wish him well.

Updates

Andrew Foster, manager of Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX), was the guest on a sort-of video interview with Morningstar’s Jason Stipp in mid-May. The interview, entitled “Seeking Sustainable Growth in Emerging Markets,” covers much of the same ground as our recent conference call with Mr. Foster. One difference is that he spoke at greater length about China in his conversation with Mr. Stipp. I’ve designed it as a “sort of” video call because Jason was on-camera while Andrew was on a phone, with his picture superimposed on the screen.

Seafarer, with a three year record and five star rating, seems to have found its footing in the marketplace. The fund now boasts over a quarter billion in well-deserved assets.

Briefly Noted . . .

Ted, The Linkster and long-time stalwart of our discussion board, cheers for Dodge & Cox shareholders. He shared a USA Today story “3 AOL Investors Bag a Quick $200M” that calculates the gain to D&C shareholders from Verizon’s bid to acquire AOL. The Dodge & Cox funds own 15% of the outstanding shares of AOL, which netted them $95,000,000 in a single day. Sadly, the D&C funds are so big that AOL contributed just a fraction of a percent to returns that day. Iridian Asset Management and BlackRock finished second and third in total gains.

Ted also reports that the famously frugal Vanguard Group decided to chuck $200,000 at Bill Clinton in exchange for a 2012 speech for Vanguard’s institutional clients. That’s not an exceptional amount to hear from the former First Saxophonist; The Washington Post shows Bill pocketing $105 million for 542 speeches from the time he left the White House until the time Hilary Rodham-Clinton left the State Department. That comes to an average of $194,000 which suggests that Vanguard might have gotten just a bit flabby on their cost containment with this talk. The record might have been $300,000 paid by Dell that same year.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Hmmm … does “nothing really bad has happened yet” qualify as a win? Other than that, we’ve got the reopening of BlackRock Event Driven Equity Fund (BALPX) on or about July 27, 2015. Bad news: BALPX is tiny, expensive and sucks. Good news: they brought in a new manager in early May, 2015. Mark McKenna left Harvard’s endowment team and joined BlackRock last year to run an event-driven hedge fund. He’s now been moved here. The other bad news: Harvard’s performance was surprisingly poor during McKenna’s tenure, which doesn’t say McKenna was responsible for the poor performance, just that he didn’t live up to the vaunted Harvard standard. As a result, this is a small win.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

American Century Small Cap Value Fund sort of closed on May 1. In an increasingly common move, the adviser left the door open for those who invest directly with the fund and for “certain financial intermediaries selected by American Century.”

ASTON/River Road Dividend All Cap Value Fund (ARDEX) and ASTON/Fairpointe Mid Cap Fund (CHTTX) have each been soft-closed. Each management team has a second fund still open.

Effective June 12, 2015, $4.2 billion Diamond Hill Long-Short Fund (DIAMX) will close to most new investors. The fund has exceptional returns for an exceptional period. Its 3-, 5- and 10-year records cluster around the 25^th percentile of all long-short funds. Potential investors need to take two factors into consideration when deciding whether to jump in: (1) performance is driven primarily by the strength of its long portfolio and (2) the lead manager for the long portfolio, Chuck Bath, is stepping aside. He’ll remain as a sort of backup manager but wants to focus his attention on Diamond Hill Large Cap. There’s no easy way of guessing how much his reorientation will cost the fund, so proceed thoughtfully if at all.

Effective as of the close of business on July 15, 2015, the $2.8 billion, five-star JOHCM International Select Fund (JOHIX) will be soft-closed. As friend Marjorie Pannell points out, the fund is an MFO Great Owl with eye-popping performance:

1 year – top 1% – (1 out of 339 funds) 
3 year – top 1% – (1 out of 293 funds) 
5 year – top 1% – (1 out of 277 funds)

Vulcan Value Partners (VVLPX) closed on June 1, rather later than originally planned. Out of respect for manager C.T. Fitzpatrick’s excellent long-term record here and at the Longleaf Funds, we sent out a notice of the extended window of opportunity to the 6000 or so folks on our email list.The $14 billion T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund (PRHSX) closed to new investors on June 1, 2015. Morningstar covered the fund avidly until the departure of star manager Kris Jenner. Over 13 years, Jenner nearly doubled the annualized returns of his benchmark. He left with two analysts, leaving the remaining analyst to take the reins. There was about $6 billion in the fund when Jenner (and Morningstar) left. Since then the fund has been much more T. Rowe Price-like: it has converted consistent, modest outperformance and risk consciousness into a fine record under manager Taymour Tamaddon.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Barrow All-Cap Core Fund (BALAX) is now Barrow Value Opportunity Fund and Barrow All-Cap Long/Short Fund (BFLSX) has been renamed Barrow Long/Short Opportunity Fund. Morningstar hasn’t caught up with the change yet.

Brown Capital Management Mid-Cap Fund is now Brown Capital Management Mid Company Fund (BCSMX). Rather than investing in mid-cap stocks, the fund will target mid-sized companies: those with total operating revenues of $500 million to $10 billion.

Catalyst Absolute Total Return Fund, will undergo a name and objective change to Catalyst Intelligent Alternative Fund in July.

Over the course of the past month, The Hartford Emerging Markets Research Fund (HERAX) was … uhh, tweaked a bit so that it has a new investment mandate, lower management fee (though no break on the bottom line expense ratio), new manager (Cheryl Duckworth is out, David Elliott of Wellington is in) and new name, Hartford Emerging Markets Equity Fund. One striking element of the change was the introduction of a new “related accounts performance” table, which shows how Mr. Elliott’s other EM porfolios perform before and after deductions for Hartford’s sales charges and expenses. Since inception, Elliott’s portfolio has returned 6.9% which crushes his benchmark’s 3.6%. Deduct sales charges and expenses and investors would pocket only 3.9%. That is, 56% of the manager’s raw performance gets routed to The Hartford and 44% goes to his investors. Other than for that, it was pretty much status quo in Hartford.

Roxbury/Mar Vista Strategic Growth Fund was recently rechristened as the Mar Vista Strategic Growth Fund (MVSGX) while Roxbury/Hood River Small-Cap Growth Fund became Hood River Small-Cap Growth Fund (HRSMX). Both are tiny but have really solid records. Heck, in Hood River’s case, it has a top tier 3-, 5- and 10 year record

On July 1, 2015, the T. Rowe Price Strategic Income Fund (PRSNX) will change its name to the T. Rowe Price Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund.

Effective May 30, 2015, the name of Turner Spectrum Fund was changed to Turner Titan II Fund. . Under its new dispensation, the fund “invests primarily in equity securities of companies with large capitalization ranges across major industry sectors using a long/short strategy in seeking to capture alpha, reduce volatility, and preserve capital in declining markets.”

On May 1, 2015, the European Equity Fund (VEEEX) became the Global Strategic Income Fund. Morningstar continues its membership in the European equity peer group despite the fact that, well, it ain’t.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

It was a bad month for both alternative strategy and bond funds. Of the 23 funds that went extinct this month, five pursued alternative strategies, four were fixed-income funds – mostly international – and two were stock/bond hybrids.

361 Market Neutral Fund (ALSQX) underwent “termination, liquidation and dissolution” on May 29, 2015. The fund had an all-star management team, spotty record and trivial asset base.

As of March 9, 2015, AllianzGI Opportunity Fund merged into AllianzGI Small-Cap Blend Fund (AZBAX). The topic came up in a mid-May SEC filing, so I thought I’d mention.

Ancora Equity Fund (ANQIX) will be liquidated and dissolved on or about June 26, 2015.

Ave Maria Opportunity Fund (AVESX), a tiny small-value fund with a lot of faith in energy stocks, will merge into Ave Maria Catholic Values Fund (AVEMX) at the end of July.

Catalyst Event Arbitrage Fund (CEAAX), which was a good hedge fund and a bad mutual fund, will be liquidated on June 15, 2015.

Clear River Fund (CLRVX) will liquidate on June 30, 2015. No, I’ve never heard of it, either. The closest to a fun fact about the fund is that it never managed to finish any calendar year with above-average returns relative to its Morningstar peer group.

A new speed record: The Trustees of Context Capital Funds launched the Context Alternative Strategies Fund (CALTX) with two managers and seven sub-advisers in March, 2014. Performance started out as mediocre but by December turned ugly. Having been patient for more than a year(!), the Trustees dismissed their two managers on May 18, then filed a prospectus supplement on Friday, May 29, 2015 that announced the liquidation of the fund on the next business day, Monday, June 1, 2015. That liquidation leaves Context with one fund, Context Macro Opportunities (CMOTX), which nominally launched in December, hasn’t traded yet, has $100,000 in assets and a $1,000,000 minimum.

Encompass Fund (ENCPX) liquidated on May 27, 2015. They launched about seven years ago, convinced that it was time to focus on materials stocks. They were right, then they were very wrong; the fund tended to finish in the top 1% or the bottom 1% of its noticeably volatile natural resources peer group. At the end, they had $2 million in AUM and were dead last in their peer group. The managers and trustees, to their great credit if not to their personal gain, held about half of the fund’s total assets.

That said, the managers wrote a thoughtful and appropriate eulogy for the fund in their last letter to shareholders.

We want the shareholders to know that we resigned with a keen sense of disappointment. After posting exceptional returns in 2009 and 2010, we were optimistic that the Fund’s overweight in precious and industrial metals would continue to enable Encompass to excel. However, the last 4 years were difficult ones for resource companies and the Fund has underperformed. We did increase exposure to the energy sector in late 2013 and early 2014. Those stocks performed very well until oil prices shocked investors by declining more than 50% in the second half of 2014.

More recently we increased the Fund’s exposure to the health care, cybersecurity and airline industries with good results. However, the resource companies have continued to weigh on overall portfolio performance even though exposure to metals has been significantly reduced.

When we launched Encompass in mid-2006, we believed the time was right for a diversified mutual fund that emphasized resource companies. For several years we were proven right, but despite fundamentals that historically have been good for metals companies, the last few years have been very challenging. The Fund has not been able to grow and thus we came to the very difficult decision that we should resign as Manager. The Fund’s independent Trustees considered various alternatives and concluded that the Fund should be liquidated.

We have begun liquidating the Fund’s holdings, and intend to complete the process in the next couple of weeks. Of course, we are attempting to maximize the proceeds for the benefit of shareholders.

Guggenheim Enhanced World Equity Fund (GEEWX) will liquidate on June 26, 2015. $6 million in assets with a 600% annual turnover which, I presume, is the “enhancement” implied by the name.

Innealta Capital Global All Asset Opportunity Fund (ROMAX) will discontinue operations on June 19^th. The fund managed to rake in just about $3 million in its two years of high expense/high turnover/low returns operations.

In mid-July, Jamestown Balanced Fund (JAMBX) will ask its shareholders for permission to merge into Jamestown Equity Fund (JAMEX). The rationale is that the funds have “similar investment objectives, investment strategies and risk factors,” which is true give or take the nearly 50% higher volatility that investors in the equity fund experience over investors in the balanced one.

The trustees of the fund have authorized the liquidation of the Pioneer Emerging Markets Local Currency Debt Fund (LCEMX) which will occur on August 7, 2015. To put the decision in context: over the past couple years, investing in emerging markets bonds (the orange line) has been a bad idea, investing in EM bonds denominated in local currencies (green) has been a worse idea and investing in the Pioneer fund (blue) has been a thorough disaster.

On the upside, with only $10 million in assets, no one much was hurt. As of the last SAI, the manager hadn’t invested a single dinar, rupee or pataca in the fund so his portfolio was pretty much unscathed.

The Listed Private Equity Plus Fund become unlisted on May 18, 2015.

On May 15, 2015, the Loomis Sayles International Bond Fund was liquidated. A subsequent SEC filing helpfully notes: “The Fund no longer exists, and as a result, shares of the Fund are no longer available for purchase or exchange.”

PIMCO is retreating from the equity business with the liquidation of PIMCO Emerging Multi-Asset (PEAAX), PIMCO EqS^® Emerging Markets (PEQAX) and PIMCO EqS Pathfinder (PATHX) funds, all on July 14, 2015. Pathfinder, with nearly $900 million in assets, was supposed to be a vehicle to showcase the talents of two Franklin Mutual Series managers who defected to PIMCO. That didn’t play out during the fund’s five year history, arguably because it was better positioned for down markets than for rising ones. PEAAX was a small, sucky fund of PIMCO funds. PEQAX was a slightly less small, slightly less sucky fund that was supposed to be the star vehicle for an imported GSAM team. Oops.

Rx Tax Advantaged Fund (FMERX) will liquidate soon. It managed to parlay high expenses and a low-return asset class (muni bonds) into a tiny, money-losing proposition.

Templeton Constrained Bond Fund (FTCAX) goes the way of the dodo bird on August 27, 2015 which “may be delayed if unforeseen circumstances arise.” I can’t for the life of me figure out what the “constraint” in the fund name referred to. The prospectus announces:

Under normal market conditions, the Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in “bonds.” Bonds include debt obligations of any maturity, such as bonds, notes, bills and debentures.

The constraint is that the bond fund must buy “bonds”? The last portfolio report shows them at 90% cash in a $10 million portfolio.

Touchstone International Fixed Income Fund (TIFAX), in recognition of “its small size and limited growth potential,” will liquidate on July 21, 2015. “An overweight to peripheral and speculative issuers” helped performance, right up to the moment when it didn’t:

Okay, they really, really mean it this time: The Turner Funds determined to close and liquidate the Turner Titan Fund (TTLFX), effective on or about June 19, 2015. The Fund had previously been scheduled to close and liquidate on or about June 1, 2015. That’s followed its closure at the end of 2014 and previously announced plans to liquidate in mid-March and late April.

V2 Hedged Equity Fund (VVHEX/VVHIX), responding to “an anticipated decline in Fund assets,” liquidated in early May.

I appreciate thoroughness: “Effective April 30, 2015, the Virtus Global Commodities Stock Fund … was liquidated. The Fund has ceased to exist and is no longer available for sale. Accordingly, the prospectus and SAI are no longer valid.” Any questions?

In Closing . . .

Thanks, as always, to the folks who support the Observer. To Binod, greetings and good luck with the rising waters in Houston. We feel for you! Thanks to Joe for the thumbs-up on our continuing redesign of the Observer’s site; it’s always good to get an endorsement from a pro! Tom, thank you, we’re so glad that you find our site useful. Thanks, finally, to the folks who’ve bookmarked the Observer’s link to Amazon. Normally our Amazon revenue tails off dramatically at mid-year. So far this season, it’s held up reasonably well and we’re grateful.

We’ll look for you at Morningstar. I’ll be the one dressed like a small oak. It’s a ploy! John Rekenthaler (Bavarian for “thunder talker,” I think) recently mused “I don’t actually get invited to parties, but if I did, I’d be chatting with the potted plants.” I figure that with proper foliage I might lure the Great Man into amiable conversation.

If any of you would like to join Hedda, Jake, (maybe) Tadas and the good folks from the Queens Road funds (they’ve promised me fresh peanuts) in diverting my attention and saving John from my interminable prattle, please do drop us a note and we’ll set up a time to meet. The Observer folks should be around the conference from early Wednesday until well past its Friday close.

As always, we’ll post daily conference highlights on MFO’s discussion board. (No, I don’t tweet and you can’t make me.) If you miss them there, we’ll share them in our July issue. In addition, we have profiles of some new ESG/green funds – equity, income and hybrid – on tap. We’ll explain why in July!

As ever,

Dear friends,

It’s May, a sweet and anxious time at college. The End is tantalizingly close; just two weeks remain in the academic year and, for many, in their academic career.  Both the trees on the Quad and summer wardrobes are bursting out. The days remaining and the brain cells remaining shrink to a precious few. We all wonder where another year (my 31^st here) went, holding on to its black-robed closing days even as we long for the change of pace and breathing space that summer promises.

For investors too summer holds promise, for days away and for markets unhinged. Perhaps thinking a bit ahead while the hinges remain intact might be a prudent course and a helpful prologue to lazy, hazy and crazy.

The Dry Powder Crowd

A bunch of fundamentally solid funds have been hammered by their absolute value orientation; that is, their refusal to buy stocks when they believe that the stock’s valuations and the underlying corporation’s prospects simply do not offer a sufficient margin of safety for the risks they’re taking, much less compelling opportunities. The mere fact that a fund sports just one lonely star in the Morningstar system should not disqualify it from serious consideration. Many times a low star rating reflects the fact that a particular style or perspective is out-of-favor, but the managers were unwilling to surrender their discipline to play to what’s popular.

That strikes us as admirable.

Sometimes a fund ends up with a one-star rating simply because it’s too independent to fit into one of Morningstar’s or Lipper’s predetermined boxes.

We screened for one-star equity funds with over 20% cash. From that list we looked for solid, disciplined funds whose Morningstar ratings have taken a pounding. Those include:

Frankly, any one of the funds above has the potential to be the best performer in your portfolio over the next five years especially if interest rates and valuations begin to normalize.

The challenge of overcoming cash seems so titanic that it’s worth noting, especially, the funds whose managers have managed to marry substantial cash strong with ongoing strong absolute and relative returns. These funds all have at least 20% cash and four- or five-star ratings from Morningstar, as of April 2015.

Fans of large funds (or Goodhaven) might want to consult Morningstar’s recommended list of “Cash-Heavy Funds for the Cautious Investor” which includes five names:

It’s time for an upgrade

The story was all over the place on the morning of April 20^th:

• Reuters: “Carlyle to shutter its two mutual funds”
• Bloomberg: “Carlyle to close two mutual funds in liquid alts setback”
• Ignites: “Carlyle pulls plug on two mutual funds”
• ValueWalk: “Carlyle to liquidate a pair of mutual funds”
• Barron’s: “Carlyle closing funds, gold slips”
• MFWire dutifully linked to three of them in its morning link list

Business Insider gets it closest to right: “Private equity giant Carlyle Group is shutting down the two mutual funds it launched just a year ago,” including Carlyle Global Core Allocation Fund.

What’s my beef? 

1. Carlyle doesn’t have two mutual funds, they have one. They have authorization to launch the second fund, but never have. It’s like shuttering an unbuilt house. Reuters, nonetheless, solemnly notes that the second fund “never took off [and] will also be wound down,” implying that – despite Carlyle’s best efforts, it was just an undistinguished performer.
2. The fund they have isn’t the one named in the stories. There is no such fund as Carlyle Global Core Allocation Fund, a fund mentioned in every story. Its name is Carlyle Core Allocation Fund(CCAIX/CCANX). It’s rather like the Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund that, despite Janus’s insistence, didn’t exist at the point that Mr. Gross joined the team. “Global” is a description but not in the name.
3. The Carlyle fund is not newsworthy. It’s less than one year old, it has a trivial asset base ($50 million) and has not yet made a penny ($10,000 at inception is now $9930).

If folks wanted to find a story here, a good title might be “Another big name private investor trawls the fund space for assets, doesn’t receive immediate gratification and almost immediately loses interest.” I detest the practice of tossing a fund into the market then shutting it in its first year; it really speaks poorly of the adviser’s planning, understanding and commitment but it seems distressingly common.

What’s my solution?

Upgrade. Most news outlets are no longer capable of doing that for you; they simply don’t have the resources to do a better job or to separate press release from self-serving bilge from news so you need to do it for yourself.

Switch to Bloomberg TV from, you know, the screechy guys. If it’s not universally lauded, it does seem broadly recognized as the most thoughtful of the financial television channels.

Develop the habit of listening to Marketplace, online or on public radio. It’s a service of American Public Media and I love listening to Kai Ryssdal and crew for their broad, intelligent, insightful reporting on a wide range of topics in finance and money.

Read the Saturday Wall Street Journal, which contains more sensible content per inch than any other paper that lands on my desk. Jason Zweig’s column alone is worth the price of admission. His most recent weekend piece, “A History of Mutual-Fund Doors Opening and Closing,” is outstanding, if only because it quotes me.  About 90% of us would benefit from less saturation with the daily noise and more time to read pieces that offer a bit of perspective.

Reward yourself richly on any day when your child’s baseball score comes immediately to mind but you can honestly say you have no earthly clue what the score of the Dow Jones is. That’s not advice for casual investors, that’s advice for professionals: the last thing on earth that you want is a time horizon that’s measured in hours, days, weeks or months. On that scale the movement of markets is utterly unpredictable and focusing on those horizons will damage you more deeply and more consistently than any other bad habit you can develop.

Go read a good book and I don’t mean financial porn. If your competitive advantage is seeing things that other people (uhh, the herd) don’t see, then you’ve got to expose yourself to things other people don’t experience. In a world increasingly dominated by six inch screens, books – those things made from trees – fit the bill. Bill Gates recommends The Bully Pulpit, by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Goodwin “studies the lives of America’s 26th and 27th presidents to examine a question that fascinates me: How does social change happen?” That is, Teddy Roosevelt and William Taft. Power down your phone while you’re reading. The aforementioned Mr. Zweig fusses that “you can’t spend all day reading things that train your brain to twitch” and offers up Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow. Having something that you sip, rather than gulp, does help turn reading from an obligation to a calming ritual. Nina Kallen, a friend, insurance coverage lawyer in Boston and one of the sharpest people we know, declares Roger Fisher and William Ury’s Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In to be “life-changing.” In her judgment, it’s the one book that every 18-year-old should be handed as part of the process of becoming an adult. Chip and I have moved the book to the top of our joint reading list for the month ahead. Speaking of 18-year-olds, it wouldn’t hurt if your children actually saw you reading; perhaps if you tell them they wouldn’t like it, they’d insist on joining you.

How Good Is Your Fund Family? An Update…

Baseball season has started. MLB.TV actually plays more commercials than it used to, which sad to say I enjoy more than the silent “Commercial Break In Progress” screen, even if they are repetitive.

One commercial is for The Hartford Funds. The company launched a media campaign introducing a new tagline, “Our benchmark is the investor℠,” and its focus on “human-centric investing.”

Its website touts research they have done with MIT on aging, and its funds are actually sub-advised by Wellington Management.

A quick look shows 66 funds, each with some 6 share classes, and just under $100B AUM. Of the 66, most charge front loads up to 5.5% with an average annual expense ratio of just over 1%, including 12b-1 fee. And, 60 have been around for more than 3 years, averaging 15 years in fact.

How well have their funds performed over their lifetimes? Just average … a near even split between funds over-performing and under-performing their peers, including expenses.

We first started looking at fund family performance last year in the piece “How Good Is Your Fund Family?” Following much the same methodology, with all the same qualifications, below is a brief update. Shortly, we hope to publish an ongoing tally, or “Fund Family Score Card” if you will, because … during the next commercial break, while watching a fund family’s newest media campaign, we want to make it easier for you to gauge how well a fund family has performed against its peers.

The current playing field has about 6200 US funds packaged and usually marketed in 225 families. For our tally, each family includes at least 5 funds with ages 3 years or more. Oldest share class only, excluding money market, bear, trading, and specialized commodity funds. Though the numbers sound high, the field is actually dominated by just five families, as shown below:

It is interesting that while Vanguard represents the largest family by AUM, with nearly twice its nearest competitor, its average annual ER of 0.22% is less than one third either Fidelity or American Funds, at 0.79% and 0.71%, respectively. So, even without front loads, which both the latter use to excess, they are likely raking in much more in fees than Vanguard.

Ranking each of the 225 families based on number of funds that beat their category averages produces the following score card, by quintile, best to worst:

Of the five families, four are in top two quintiles: Vanguard, American Funds, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price.  In fact, of Vanguard’s 145 funds, 119 beat their peers. Extraordinary. But BlackRock is just average, like Hartford.

The difference in average total return between top and bottom fund families on score card is 3.1% per year!

The line-ups of some of the bottom quintile families include 100% under-performers, where every fund has returned less than its peers over their lifetimes: Commonwealth, Integrity, Lincoln, Oak Associates, Pacific Advisors, Pacific Financial, Praxis, STAAR. Do you think their investors know? Do the investors of Goldman Sachs know that their funds are bottom quintile … written-off to survivorship bias possibly?

Visiting the website of Oberweis, you don’t see that four of its six funds under-performed. Instead, you find: TWO FUNDS NAMED “BEST FUND” IN 2015 LIPPER AWARDS. Yes, its two over-performers.

While the line-ups of some top quintile families include 100% over-performers: Cambiar, Causeway, Dodge & Cox, First Eagle, Marsico, Mirae, Robeco, Tocqueville.

Here is a summary of some of the current best and worst:

While not meeting the “five funds” minimum, some other notables: Tweedy Browne has 4 of 4 over-performers, and Berwyn, FMI, Mairs & Power, Meridian, and PRIMECAP Odyssey all have 3 of 3.

(PRIMECAP is an interesting case. It actually advises 6 funds, but 3 are packaged as part of the Vanguard family. All 6 PRIMECAP advised funds are long-term overperformers … 3.4% per year across an average of 15 years! Similarly with OakTree. All four of its funds beat their peers, but only 2 under its own name.)

As well as younger families off to great starts: KP, 14 of 14 over-performers, Rothschild 7 of 7, Gotham 5 of 5, and Grandeur Peak 4 of 4. We will find a way to call attention to these funds too on the future “Fund Family Score Card.”

Ed is on assignment, staking out a possible roach motel

Our distinguished senior colleague Ed Studzinski is a deep-value investor; his impulse is to worry more about protecting his investors when times turn dark than in making them as rich as Croesus when the days are bright and sunny. He’s been meditating, of late, on the question of whether there’s anything a manager today might do that would reliably protect his investors in the case of a market crisis akin to 2008.

Ed is one of a growing number of investors who are fearful that we might be approaching a roach motel; that is, a situation where it’s easy to get into a particular security but where it might be impossible to get back out of it when you urgently want to.

Structural changes in the market and market regulations have, some fear, put us at risk for a liquidity crisis. In a liquidity crisis, the ability of market makers to absorb the volume of securities offered for sale and to efficiently match buyers and sellers disappears. A manager under pressure to sell a million dollars’ worth of corporate bonds might well find that there’s only a market for two-thirds of that amount, the remaining third could swiftly become illiquid – that is, unmarketable – securities.

David Sherman, president of Cohanzick Asset Management and manager of two RiverPark’s non-traditional bond funds addressed the issue in his most recent shareholder letter. I came away from it with two strong impressions:

There may be emerging structural problems in the investment-grade fixed-income market. At base, the unintended consequences of well-intended reforms may be draining liquidity from the market (the market makers have dramatically less cash and less skin in the game than they once did) and making it hard to market large fixed-income sales. An immediate manifestation is the problem in getting large bond issuances sold.

Things might get noticeably worse for folks managing large fixed-income portfolios. His argument is that given the challenges facing large bond issues, you really want a fund that can benefit from small bond issues. That means a small fund with commitments to looking beyond the investment-grade universe and to closing before size becomes a hindrance.

Some of his concerns are echoed on a news site tailored for portfolio managers, ninetwentynine.com. An article entitled “Have managers lost sight of liquidity risk?” argues:

A liquidity drought in the bond space is a real concern if the Fed starts raising rates, but as the Fed pushes off the expected date of its first hike, some managers may be losing sight of that danger. That’s according to Fed officials, who argue that if a rate hike catches too many managers off their feet, the least they can expect is a taper tantrum similar to 2013, reports Reuters. The worst-case-scenario is a full-blown liquidity crisis.

The most recent investor letter from the managers of Driehaus Active Income Fund (LCMAX) warns that recent structural changes in the market have made it increasingly fragile:

Since the end of the credit crisis, there have been a number of structural changes in the credit markets, including new regulations, a reduced size of broker dealer trading desks, changes in fund flows, and significant growth of larger index-based mutual funds and ETFs. The “new” market environment and players have impacted nearly all aspects of the market, including trading liquidity. The transfer of risk is not nearly as orderly as it once was and is now more expensive and volatile … one thing nearly everyone can agree on is that liquidity in the credit markets has decreased materially since the credit crisis.

The federal Office of Financial Research concurs: “Markets have become more brittle because liquidity may be less available in a downturn.” Ben Inker, head of GMO’s asset allocation group, just observed that “the liquidity in [corporate credit] markets has become shockingly poor.”

More and more money is being stashed in a handful of enormous fixed income funds, active and passive. In general, those might be incredibly regrettable places to be when liquidity becomes constrained:

Generally speaking, you’re going to need liquidity in your bond fund when the market is stressed. When the market is falling apart, the ETFs are the worst place to be, as evidenced by their underperformance to the index in 2008, 2011 and 2013. So yes, you will have liquidity, but it will be in something that is cratering.

What does this mean for you?

1. Formerly safe havens won’t necessarily remain safe.
2. You need to know what strategy your portfolio manager has for getting ahead of a liquidity crunch and for managing during it. The Driehaus folks list seven or eight sensible steps they’ve taken and Mr. Sherman walks through the structural elements of his portfolio that mitigate such risks.
3. If your manager pretend not to know what the concern is or suggests you shouldn’t worry your pretty little head about it, fire him.

In the interim, Mr. Studzinski is off worrying on your behalf, talking with other investors and looking for a safe(r) path forward. We’re hoping that he’ll return next month with word of what he’s found.

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 the 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.

Orders

• The SEC charged BlackRock Advisors with breaching its fiduciary duty by failing to disclose a conflict of interest created by the outside business activity of a top-performing portfolio manager. BlackRock agreed to settle the charges and pay a $12 million penalty.
• In a blow to Putnam, the Second Circuit reinstated fraud and negligence-based claims made by the insurer of a swap transaction. The insurer alleges that Putnam misrepresented the independence of its management of a collateralized debt obligation. (Fin. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co.)

New Appeals

• Plaintiffs have appealed the lower court’s dismissal of an ERISA class action regarding Fidelity‘s practices with respect to the so-called “float income” generated from plan participants’ account transactions. (In re Fid. ERISA Float Litig.)

Briefs

• Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Davis‘s motion to dismiss excessive-fee litigation regarding the New York Venture Fund. Brief: “Defendants’ investment advisory fee arrangements with the Davis New York Venture Fund . . . epitomize the conflicts of interest and potential for abuse that led Congress to enact § 36(b). Unconstrained by competitive pressures, Defendants charge the Fund advisory fees that are as much as 96% higher than the fees negotiated at arm’s length by other, independent mutual funds . . . for Davis’s investment [sub-]advisory services.” (In re Davis N.Y. Venture Fund Fee Litig.)
• Plaintiffs filed their opposition to PIMCO‘s motion to dismiss excessive-fee litigation regarding the Total Return Fund. Brief: “In 2013 alone, the PIMCO Defendants charged the shareholders of the PIMCO Total Return Fund $1.5 billion in fees, awarded Ex-head of PIMCO, Bill Gross, a $290 million bonus and his second-in-command a whopping $230 million, and ousted a Board member who dared challenge Gross’s compensation—all this despite the Fund’s dismal performance that trailed 70% of its peers.” (Kenny v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co.)
• In the purported class action regarding alleged deviations from two fundamental investment objectives by the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund, the Investment Company Institute and Independent Directors Council filed an amici brief in support of Schwab’s petition for rehearing (and rehearing en banc) of the Ninth Circuit’s 2-1 decision allowing the plaintiffs’ state-law claims to proceed. Brief: “The panel’s decision departs from long-standing law governing mutual funds and creates confusion and uncertainty nationwide.” Defendants include independent directors. (Northstar Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Invs.)

Amended Complaint

• Plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the fee litigation against New York Life, adding a fourth fund to the case: the MainStay High Yield Opportunities Fund. (Redus-Tarchis v. N.Y. Life Inv. Mgmt., LLC.)

Answer

• P. Morgan filed an answer in an excessive-fee lawsuit regarding three of its bond funds. (Goodman v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt., Inc.)

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and News from Daily Alts

The spring has brought new life into the liquid alternatives market with both March and April seeing robust activity in terms of new fund launches and registrations, as well as fund flows. Touching on new fund flows first, March saw more than $2 billion of new asset flow into alternative mutual funds and ETFs, while US equity mutual funds and ETFs had combined outflows of nearly $6 billion.

At the top of the inflow rankings were international equity and fixed income, which provides a clear indication that investors were seeking both potentially higher return equity markets (non-US equity) and shelter (fixed income and alternatives). With increased levels of volatility in the markets, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this cash flow trend continue on into April and May.

New Funds Launched in April

We logged eight new liquid alternative funds in April from firms such as Prudential, Waycross, PowerShares and LoCorr. No particular strategy stood out as being dominant among the eight funds as they ranged from long/short equity and alternative fixed income strategies, to global macro and multi-strategy. A couple highlights are as follows:

1) LoCorr Multi-Strategy Fund – To date, LoCorr has done a thoughtful job of brining high quality managers to the liquid alts market, and offers funds that cover managed futures, long/short commodities, long/short equity and alternative income strategies. In this new fund, they bring all of these together in a single offering, making it easier for investors to diversify with a single fund.

2) Exceed Structured Shield Index Strategies Fund – This is the first of three new mutual funds that provide investors with a structured product that is designed to protect downside volatility and provide a specific level of upside participation. The idea of a more defined outcome can be appealing to a lot of investors, and will also help advisors figure out where and how to use the fund in a portfolio.

New Funds Registered in April

Fund registrations are where we see what is coming a couple months down the road – a bit like going to the annual car show to see what the car manufacturers are going to be brining out in the new season. And at this point, it looks like June/July will be busy as we counted 9 new alternative fund registration in April. A couple interesting products are listed below:

1) Hatteras Market Neutral Fund – Hatteras has been around the liquid alts market for quite some time, and with this fund will be brining multiple managers in as sub-advisors. Market neutral strategies are appealing at times when investors are looking to take risk off the table yet generate returns that are better than cash. They can also serve as a fixed income substitute when the outlook is flat to negative for the fixed income market.

2) Franklin K2 Long Short Credit Fund – K2 is a leading fund of hedge fund manager that works with large institutional investors to invest in and manage portfolios of hedge funds. The firm was acquired by Franklin Templeton back in 2012 and has so far launched one alternative mutual fund. The fund will be managed by multiple sub-advisors and will allocate to several segments of the fixed income market. 

Debunking Active Share

High active share does not equal high alpha. I’ll say that again. High active share does not equal high alpha. This is the finding in a new AQR white paper that essentially proves false two of the key tenents of a 2009 research paper (How Active is Your Fund Manager? A New Measure That Predicts Performance) by Martijn Cremers and Antti Petajisto. These two tenents are:

1) Active Share predicts fund performance: funds with the highest Active Share significantly outperform their benchmarks, both before and after expenses, and they exhibit strong performance persistence.

2) Non-index funds with the lowest Active Share underperform their benchmarks.

AQR explains that other factors are in play, and those other factors actually explain the outperformance that Cremers and Petajisto found in their work. You can read more here: AQR Deactivates Active Share in New White Paper.

And finally, for anyone considering the old “Sell in May and Go Away” strategy this month, be sure to have a read of this article, or watch this video. Or, better yet, just make a strategic allocation to a few solid alternative funds that have some downside protection built into them.

Feel free to stop by DailyAlts.com for more coverage of liquid alternatives.

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.

Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX/SIGIX): Our contention has always been that Seafarer represents one of the best possible options for investors interested in approaching the emerging markets. A steadily deepening record and list of accomplishments suggests that we’re right.

Towle Deep Value Fund (TDVFX): This fund positions itself a “an absolute value fund with a strong preference for staying fully invested.” For the past 33 years, Mr. Towle & Co. have been consistently successful at turning over more rock – in under covered small caps and international stocks alike – to find enough deeply undervalued stocks to populate the portfolio and produce eye-catching results.

Conference Call Highlights: Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income

Here are some quick highlights from our April 16^th conversation with Andrew Foster of Seafarer.

Seafarer’s objective: Andrew’s hope is to outperform his benchmark (the MSCI EM index) “slowly but steadily over time.” He describes the approach as a “relative return strategy” which pursues growth that’s more sustainable than what’s typical in developing markets while remaining value conscious.

Here’s the strategy: you need to start by understanding that the capital markets in many EM nations are somewhere between “poorly developed” and “cruddy.” Both academics and professional investors assume that a country’s capital markets will function smoothly: banks will make loans to credit-worthy borrowers, corporations and governments will be able to access the bond market to finance longer-term projects and stocks will trade regularly, transparently and at rational expense.

None of that may safely be assumed in the case of emerging markets; indeed, that’s what might distinguish an “emerging” market from a developed one. The question becomes: what are the characteristics of companies that might thrive in such conditions.

The answer seems to be (1) firms that can grow their top line steadily in the 7-15% per annum range and (2) those that can finance their growth internally. The focus on the top line means looking for firms that can increase revenues by 7-15% without obsessing about similar growth in the bottom line. It’s almost inevitable that EM firms will have “stumbles” that might diminish earnings for one to three years; while you can’t ignore them, you also can’t let them drive your investing decisions. “If the top line grows,” Andrew argues, “the bottom line will follow.” The focus on internal financing means that the firms will be capable of funding their operations and plans without needing recourse to the unreliable external sources of capital.

Seafarer tries to marry that focus on sustainable moderate growth “with some current income, which is a key tool to understanding quality and valuation of growth.” Dividends are a means to an end; they don’t do anything magical all by themselves. Dividends have three functions. They are:

An essential albeit crude valuation tool – many valuation metrics cannot be meaningfully applied across borders and between regions; there’s simply too much complexity in the way different markets operate. Dividends are a universally applicable measure.

A way of identifying firms that will bounce less in adverse market conditions – firms with stable yields that are just “somewhat higher than average” tend to be resilient. Firms with very high dividend yields are often sending out distress signals. 

A key and under-appreciated signal for the liquidity and solvency of a company – EMs are constantly beset by liquidity and credit shocks and unreliable capital markets compound the challenge. Companies don’t survive those shocks as easily as people imagine. The effects of liquidity and credit crunches range from firms that completely miss their revenue and earnings forecasts to those that drown themselves in debt or simply shutter. Against such challenges dividends provide a clear and useful signal of liquidity and solvency.

It’s certainly true that perhaps 70% of the dispersion of returns over a 5-to-10 year period are driven by macro-economic factors (Putin invades-> the EU sanctions-> economies falter-> the price of oil drops-> interest rates fall) but that fact is not useful because such events are unforecastable and their macro-level impacts are incalculably complex (try “what effect will European reaction to Putin’s missile transfer offer have on shadow interest rates in China?”). 

Andrew believes he can make sense of the ways in which micro-economic factors, which drive the other 30% of dispersion, might impact individual firms. He tries to insulate his portfolio, and his investors, from excess volatility by diversifying away some of the risk, imagining a “three years to not quite forever” time horizon for his holdings and moving across a firm’s capital structure in pursuit of the best risk-return balance.

While Seafarer is classified as an emerging markets equity fund, common stocks have comprised between 70-85% of the portfolio. “There’s way too much attention given to whether a security is a stock or bond; all are cash flows from an issuer. They’re not completely different animals, they’re cousins. We sometimes find instruments trading with odd valuations, try to exploit that.” As of January 2015, 80% of the fund is invested directly in common stock; the remainder is invested in ADRs, hard- and local-currency convertibles, government bonds and cash. The cash stake is at a historic low of 1%.

Thinking about the fund’s performance: Seafarer is in the top 3% of EM stock funds since launch, returning a bit over 10% annually. With characteristic honesty and modesty, Andrew cautions against assuming that the fund’s top-tier rankings will persist in the next part of the cycle:

We’re proud of performance over the last few years. We have really benefited from the fact that our strategy was well-positioned for anemic growth environments. Three or four years ago a lot of people were buying the story of vibrant growth in the emerging markets, and many were willing to overpay for it. As we know, that growth did not materialize. There are signs that the deceleration of growth is over even if it’s not clear when the acceleration of growth might begin. A major source of return for our fund over 10 years is beta. We’re here to harness beta and hope for a little alpha.

That said, he does believe that flaws in the construction of EM indexes makes it more likely that passive strategies will underperform:

I’m actually a fan of passive investing if costs are low, churn is low, and the benchmark is soundly constructed. The main EM benchmark is disconnected from the market. The MSCI EM index imposes filters for scalability and replicability in pursuit of an index that’s easily tradable by major investors. That leads it to being not a really good benchmark. The emerging markets have $14 trillion in market capitalization; the MSCI Core index captures only $3.8 trillion of that amount and the Total Market index captures just $4.2 trillion. In the US, the Total Stock Market indexes capture 80% of the market. The comparable EM index captures barely 25%.

Highlights from the questions:

As a practical matter, a 4-5% position is “huge for us” though he has learned to let his winners run a little longer than he used to, so the occasional 6% position wouldn’t be surprising.

A focus on dividend payers does not imply a focus on large cap stocks. There are a lot of very stable dividend-payers in the mid- to small-cap range; Seafarer ranges about 15-20% small cap and 35-50% midcap.

The fundamental reason to consider investing in emerging markets is because “they are really in dismal shape, sometimes the horrible things you read about them are true but there’s an incredibly powerful drive to give your kids a better life and to improve your life. People will move mountains to make things better. I followed the story of one family who were able to move from a farmhouse with a dirt floor to a comfortable, modern townhouse in one lifetime. It’s incredibly inspiring, but it’s also incredibly powerful.”

With special reference to holdings in Eastern Europe, you need to avoid high-growth, high-expectation companies that are going to get shell-shocked by political turmoil and currency devaluation. It’s important to find companies that have already been hit and that have proved that they can survive the shock.

Bottom line: Andrew has a great track record built around winning by not losing. His funds have posted great relative returns in bad markets and very respectable absolute returns in frothy ones. While he is doubtless correct in saying that the fund was unique well-suited to the current market and that it won’t always be a market leader, it’s equally correct to say that this is one of the most consistently risk-conscious, more consistently shareholder-sensitive and most consistently rewarding EM funds available. Those are patterns that I’ve found compelling.

We’ve also updated our featured fund page for Seafarer.

Funds in Registration

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

Funds in registration this month are eligible to launch in late June and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

This month our research associate David Welsch tracked down 14 no-load retail funds in registration, which represents our core interest. By far the most interest was stirred by the announcement of three new Grandeur Peak funds:

• Global Micro Cap
• International Stalwarts
• Global Stalwarts

The launch of Global Micro Cap has been anticipated for a long time. Grandeur Peak announced two things early on: (1) that they had a firm wide strategy capacity of around $3 billion, and (2) they had seven funds in the works, including Global Micro, which were each allocated a set part of that capacity. Two of the seven projected funds (US Opportunities and Global Value) remain on the drawing board. President Eric Huefner remarks that “Remaining nimble is critical for a small/micro cap manager to be world-class,” hence “we are terribly passionate about asset capping across the firm.” 

The surprise comes with the launch of the two Stalwarts funds, whose existence was previously unanticipated. Folks on our discussion board reacted with (thoughtful) alarm. Many of them are GP investors and they raised two concerns: (1) this might signal a change in corporate culture with the business managers ascendant over the asset managers, and (2) a move into larger capitalizations might move GP away from their core area of competence.

Because they’re in a quiet period, Eric was not able to speak about these concerns though he did affirm that they’re entirely understandable and that he’d be able to address them directly after launch of the new funds.

Mr. Gardiner, Guardian Manager, at work

While I am mightily amused by the title GUARDIAN MANAGER given to Robert Gardiner to explain his role with the new funds, I’m not immediately distressed by these developments. “Stalwarts” has always been a designation for one of the three sorts of stocks that the firm invests in, so presumably these are stocks that the team has already researched and invested in. Many small cap managers find an attraction in these “alumni” stocks, which they know well and have confidence in but which have outgrown their original fund. Such funds also offer a firm the ability to increase its strategy capacity without compromising its investment discipline. I’ll be interested in hearing from Mr. Heufner later this summer and, perhaps, in getting to tap of Mr. Gardiner’s shield.

Manager Changes

A lot of funds were liquidated this month, which means that a lot of managers changed from “employed” to “highly motivated investment professional seeking to make a difference.” Beyond that group, 43 funds reported partial or complete changes in their management teams. The most striking were:

• The departure of Independence Capital Asset Partners from LS Opportunity Fund, about which there’s more below.
• The departure of Robert Mohn from both Columbia Acorn Fund (ACRNX) and Columbia Acorn USA (AUSAX) and from his position as their Domestic CIO. Mr. Mohn joined the fund in late 2003 shortly after the retirement of the legendary Ralph Wanger. He initially comanaged the fund with John Park (now of Oakseed Opportunity SEEDX) and Chuck McQuaid (now manager of Columbia Thermostat (CTFAX). Mr. Mohn is being succeeded by Zachary Egan, President of the adviser, and the estimable Fritz Kaegi, one of the managers of Columbia Acorn Emerging Markets (CAGAX). They’ll join David Frank who remained on the fund.

Updates

Centaur Total Return (TILDX) celebrated its 10-year anniversary in March, so I wish we’d reported the fact back then. It’s an interesting creature. Centaur started life as Tilson Dividend, though Whitney Tilson never had a role in its management. Mr. Tilson thought of himself (likely “thinks of himself”) as a great value investor, but that claim didn’t play out in his Tilson Focus Fund so he sort of gave up and headed to hedge fund land. (Lately he’s been making headlines by accusing Lumber Liquidators, a company his firm has shorted, of deceptive sales practices.) Mr. Tilson left and the fund was rechristened as Centaur.

Centaur’s record is worth puzzling over.  Morningstar gives it a ten-year ranking of five stars, a three-year ranking of one star and three stars overall. Over its lifetime it has modestly better returns and vastly lower risks than its peers which give it a great risk-adjusted performance.

Mostly it has great down market protection and reasonable upmarket performance, which works well if the market has both ups and downs. When the market has a whole series of strong gains, conservative value investors end up looking bad … until they look prescient and brilliant all over again.

There’s an oddly contrarian indicator in the quick dismissal of funds like Centaur, whose managers have proven adept and disciplined. When the consensus is “one star, bunch of worthless cash in the portfolio, there’s nothing to see here,” there might well be reason to start thinking more seriously as folks with a bunch of …

In any case, best anniversary wishes to manager Zeke Ashton and his team.

Briefly Noted . . .

American Century Investments, adviser to the American Century Funds, has elected to support the America’s Best Communities competition, a $10 million project to stimulate economic revitalization in small towns and cities across the country. At this point, 50 communities have registered first round wins. The ultimate winner will receive a $3 million economic development grant from a consortium of American firms.

In the interim, American Century has “adopted” Wausau, Wisconsin, which styles itself “the Chicago of the north.” (I suspect many of you think of Chicago as “the Chicago of the north,” but that’s just because you’re winter wimps.) Wausau won $35,000 which will be used to develop a comprehensive plan for economic revival and cultural enrichment. American Century is voluntarily adding another $15,000 to Wausau’s award and will serve as a sort of consultant to the town as they work on preparing a plan. It’s a helpful gesture and worthy of recognition.

LS Opportunity Fund (LSOFX) is about to become … well, something else but we don’t know what. The fund has always been managed by Independence Capital Asset Partners in parallel with ICAP’s long/short hedge fund. On April 23, 2015, the fund’s board terminated ICAP’s contract because of “certain portfolio management changes expected to occur within the sub-adviser.” On April 30, the board named Prospector Partners LLC has the fund’s interim manager, presumably with the expectation that they’ll be confirmed in June as the permanent replacement for ICAP. Prospector is described as “an investment adviser registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission with its principal offices [in] Guilford, CT. Prospector currently provides investment advisory services to corporations, pooled investment vehicles, and retirement plans.” Though they don’t mention it, Prospector also serves as the adviser to two distinctly unexciting long-only mutual funds: Prospector Opportunity (POPFX) and Prospector Capital Appreciation (PCAFX). LSOFX is a rated by Morningstar as a four-star fund with $170 million in assets, which makes the change both consequential and perplexing. We’ll share more as soon as we can.

Northern Global Tactical Asset Allocation Fund (BBALX) has added hedging via derivatives to the list of its possible investments: “In addition, the Fund also may invest directly in derivatives, including but not limited to forward currency exchange contracts, futures contracts and options on futures contracts, for hedging purposes.”

Gargoyle is on the move. RiverPark Funds is in the process of transferring control of RiverPark Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund (RGHVX) to TCW where it will be renamed … wait for it … TCW/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund. It’s a solid five star fund with $73 million in assets. That latter number is what has occasioned the proposed move which shareholders will still need to ratify.

RiverPark CEO Morty Schaja notes that the strategy has spectacular long-term performance (it was a hedge fund before becoming a mutual fund) but that it’s devilishly hard to market. The fund uses two distinct strategies: a quantitatively driven relative value strategy for its stock portfolio and a defensive options overlay. While the options provide income and some downside protection, the fund does not pretend to being heavily hedged much less market neutral. As a result, it has a lot more downside volatility than the average long-short fund (it was down 34% in 2008, for example, compared with 15% for its peers) but also a more explosive upside (gaining 42% in 2009 against 10% for its peers). That’s not a common combination and RiverPark’s small marketing team has been having trouble finding investors who understand and value the combination. TCW is interested in developing a presence in “the liquid alts space” and has a sales force that’s large enough to find the investors that Gargoyle is seeking.

Expenses will be essentially unchanged, though the retail minimum will be substantially higher.

Zacks Small-Cap Core Fund (ZSCCX) has raised its upper market cap limit to $10.3 billion, which hardly sounds small cap at all.  That’s the range of stocks like Staples (SPLS) and L-3 Communications (LLL) which Morningstar classifies as mid-caps.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Touchstone Merger Arbitrage Fund (TMGAX) has reopened to a select subset of investors: RIAs, family offices, institutional consulting firms, bank trust departments and the like. It’s fine as market-neutral funds go but they don’t go very far: TMGAX has returned under 2% annually over the past three years.  On whole, I suspect that RiverPark Structural Alpha (RSAFX) remains the more-attractive choice.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Effective May 15, 2015, Janus Triton (JGMAX) and Janus Venture (JVTAX) are soft closing, albeit with a bunch of exceptions. Triton fans might consider Meridian Small Cap Growth, run by the team that put together Triton’s excellent record.

Effective at the close of business on May 29, 2015, MFS International Value Fund (MGIAX) will be closed to new investors

Effective June 1, 2015, the T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund (PRHSX) will be closed to new investors. 

Vulcan Value Partners (VVLPX) has closed to new investors. The firm closed its Small Cap strategy, including its small cap fund, in November of 2013, and closed its All Cap Program in early 2014. Vulcan closed, without advance notice, its Large Cap Programs – which include Large Cap, Focus and Focus Plus in late April. All five of Vulcan Value Partners’ investment strategies are ranked in the top 1% of their respective peer groups since inception.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective April 30, 2015, American Independence Risk-Managed Allocation Fund (AARMX) was renamed the American Independence JAForlines Risk-Managed Allocation Fund. The objective, strategies and ticker remained the same. Just to make it unsearchable, Morningstar abbreviates it as American Indep JAFrl Risk-Mgd Allc A.

Effective on June 26, 2015 Intrepid Small Cap Fund (ICMAX) becomes Intrepid Endurance Fund and will no longer to restricted to small cap investing. It’s an understandable move: the fund has an absolute value focus, there are durned few deeply discounted small cap stocks currently and so cash has built up to become 60% of the portfolio. By eliminating the market cap restriction, the managers are free to move further afield in search of places to deploy their cash stash.

Effective June 15, 2015, Invesco China Fund (AACFX) will change its name to Invesco Greater China Fund.

Effective June 1, 2015, Pioneer Long/Short Global Bond Fund (LSGAX) becomes Pioneer Long/Short Bond Fund. Since it’s nominally not “global,” it’s no longer forced to place at least 40% outside of the U.S. At the same time Pioneer Multi-Asset Real Return Fund (PMARX) will be renamed Pioneer Flexible Opportunities.

As of May 1, 2015 Royce Opportunity Select Fund (ROSFX) became Royce Micro-Cap Opportunity Fund. For their purposes, micro-caps have capitalizations up to $1 billion. The Fund will invest, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets in equity securities of companies with stock market capitalizations up to $1 billion. In addition, the Fund’s operating policies will prohibit it from engaging in short sale transactions, writing call options, or borrowing money for investment purposes.

At the same time, Royce Value Fund (RVVHX) will be renamed Royce Small-Cap Value Fund and will target stocks with capitalizations under $3 billion. Royce Value Plus Fund (RVPHX) will be renamed Royce Smaller-Companies Growth Fund with a maximum market cap at time of purchase of $7.5 billion.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

AlphaMark Small Cap Growth Fund (AMSCX) has been terminated; the gap between the announcement and the fund’s liquidation was three weeks. It wasn’t a bad fund at all, three stars from Morningstar, middling returns, modest risk, but wasn’t able to gain enough distinction to become economically viable. To their credit, the advisor stuck with the fund for nearly seven years before succumbing.

American Beacon Small Cap Value II Fund (ABBVX) will liquidate on May 12. The advisor cites a rare but not unique occurrence to explain the decision: “after a large redemption which is expected to occur in April 2015 that will substantially reduce the Fund’s asset size, it will no longer be practicable for the Manager to operate the Fund in an economically viable manner.”

Carlyle Core Allocation Fund (CCAIX) and Enhanced Commodity Real Return (no ticker) liquidate in mid-May.  

The Citi Market Pilot 2030 (CFTYX) and 2040 (CFTWX) funds each liquidated on about one week’s notice in mid-April; the decision was announced April 9 and the portfolio was liquidated April 17. They lasted just about one year.

The Trustees have voted to liquidate and terminate Context Alternative Strategies Fund (CALTX) on May 18, 2015.

Contravisory Strategic Equity Fund (CSEFX), a tiny low risk/low return stock fund, will liquidate in mid-May. 

Dreyfus TOBAM Emerging Markets Fund (DABQX) will be liquidated on or about June 30, 2015.

Franklin Templeton is thinning down. They merged away one of their closed-end funds in April. They plan to liquidate the $38 million Franklin Global Asset Allocation Fund (FGAAX) on June 30. Next the tiny Franklin Mutual Recovery Fund (FMRAX) is looking, with shareholder approval, to merge into the Franklin Mutual Quest Fund (TEQIX) likely around the end of August.

The Jordan Fund (JORDX) is merging into the Meridian Equity Income Fund (MRIEX), pending shareholder approval. The move is more sensible than it looks. Mr. Jordan has been running the fund for a decade but has little to show for it. He had five strong years followed by five lean ones and he still hasn’t accumulated enough assets to break even. Minyoung Sohn took over MRIEX last October but has only $26 million to invest; the JORDX acquisition will triple the fund’s size, move it toward financial equilibrium and will get JORDX investors a noticeable reduction in fees.

Leadsman Capital Strategic Income Fund (LEDRX) was liquidated on April 7, 2015, based on the advisor’s “representations of its inability to market the Fund and the Adviser’s indication that it does not desire to continue to support the Fund.” They lost interest in it? Okay, on the one hand there was only $400,005 in the fund. On the other hand, they launched it exactly six months before declaring failure and going home. I’m perpetually stunned by advisors who pull the plug after a few months or a year. I mean, really, what does that say about the quality of their business planning, much less their investment acumen?

I wonder if we should make advisers to new funds post bail? At launch the advisor must commit to running the fund for no less than a year (or two or three). They have to deposit some amount ($50,000? $100,000?) with an independent trustee. If they close early, they forfeit their bond to the fund’s investors. That might encourage more folks to invest in promising young funds by hedging against one of the risks they face and it might discourage “let’s toss it against the wall and see if anything sticks” fund launches.

Manning & Napier Inflation Focus Equity Series (MNIFX) will liquidate on May 11, 2015.

Merk Hard Currency ETF (formerly HRD) has liquidated. Hard currency funds are, at base, a bet against the falling value of the US dollar. Merk, for example, defines hard currencies as “currencies backed by sound monetary policy.” That’s really not been working out. Merk’s flagship no-load fund, Merk Hard Currency (MERKX), is still around but has been bleeding assets (from $280M to $160M in a year) and losing money (down 2.1% annually for the past five years). It’s been in the red in four of the past five years and five of the past ten. Here’s the three-year picture.

Presumably if investors stop fleeing to the safe haven of US Treasuries there will be a mighty reversal of fortunes. The question is whether investors can (or should) wait around until then. Can you say “Grexit”?

Effective May 1, 2015, Royce Select Fund I (RYSFX) will be closed to all purchases and all exchanges into the Fund in anticipation of the fund being absorbed into the one-star Royce 100 Fund (ROHHX). Mr. Royce co-manages both but it’s still odd that they buried a three-star small blend fund into a one-star one.

The Turner Funds will close and liquidate the Turner Titan Fund (TTLFX), effective on or about June 1, 2015. It’s a perfectly respectable long/short fund in which no one had any interest.

The two-star Voya Large Cap Growth Fund (ILCAX) is slated to be merged into the three-star Voya Growth Opportunities Fund (NLCAX). Same management team, same management fee, same performance: it’s pretty much a wash.

In Closing . . .

The first issue of the Observer appeared four years ago this month, May 2011. We resolved from the outset to try to build a thoughtful community here and to provide them with insights about opportunities and perspectives that they might never otherwise encounter. I’m not entirely sure of how well we did, but I can say that it’s been an adventure and a delight. We have a lot yet to accomplish and we’re deeply hopeful you’ll join us in the effort to help investors and independent managers alike. Each needs the other.

Thanks, as ever, to the folks – Linda, who celebrates our even temperament, Bill and James – who’ve clicked on our elegantly redesigned PayPal link. Thanks, most especially, to Deb and Greg who’ve been in it through thick and thin. It really helps.

A word of encouragement: if you haven’t already done so, please click now on our Amazon link and either bookmark it or set it as one of the start pages in your browser. We receive a rebate equivalent to 6-7% of the value of anything you purchase (books, music, used umbrellas, vitamins …) through that link. It costs you nothing since it’s part of Amazon’s marketing budget and if you bookmark it now, you’ll never have to think about it again.

We’re excited about the upcoming Morningstar conference. All four of us – Charles, Chip, Ed and I – will be around the conference and at least three of us will be there from beginning to end, and beyond. Highlights for me:

• The opportunity to dine with the other Observer folks at one of Ed’s carefully-vetted Chicago eateries.
• Two potentially excellent addresses – an opening talk by Jeremy Grantham and a colloquy between Bill Nygren and Steve Romick
• A panel presentation on what Morningstar considers off-the-radar funds: the five-star Mairs & Power Small Cap (MSCFX, which we profiled late in 2011), Meridian Small Cap Growth (MSGAX, which we profiled late in 2014) and the five-star Eventide Gilead Fund (ETAGX, which, at $1.6 billion, is a bit beyond our coverage universe).
• A frontier markets panel presented by some “A” list managers.
• The opportunity to meet and chat with you folks. If you’re going to be at Morningstar, as exhibitor or attendee, and would like a chance to chat with one or another of us, drop me a note and we’ll try hard to set something up. We’d love to see you.

As ever,

Dear friends,

What a difference a month makes. When I wrote to you last month, it was 18 degrees below zero. Right now it’s 90 … 100 degrees warmer … and my students have noticed. Not only is there spring finery on display, but attendance at late afternoon classes seems to be just a bit iffy. All for good reason, of course: horrible contagious hacking coughs, migraines, spontaneously-combusting roommates, all the usual signs of spring.

I admit to a profound ambivalence about the weather. I visited Lake Mead, the reservoir behind Boulder Dam, a couple weeks ago. The water level is 100’ below capacity and neither the recorded audio nor the tour guides really wanted to talk about why or what it might mean. As I flew home, I noticed mountains with virtually no snow pack. California today imposed the first statewide water restrictions in the state’s history as they faced the prospect of absolute rather than just relative shortage. Geologists have discovered rivers flowing under Antarctica’s “grounded ice” and oceanographers note that the Atlantic oceans currents are slowing.

I worry that all too many of us think something like, “the worst-case is too awful to imagine, so I’m not going to think about this stuff.” Meanwhile, members of the U.S. Congress excuse their refusal to take it seriously with the carefully-rehearsed excuse, “I’m not a scientist,” as if that had some meaning greater than “I don’t want to offend either donors or primary voters, so I think I’ve found a slick way to dodge my responsibilities.”

I worry, too, that my efforts (a garden that needs little by way of watering or chemicals, a carefully insulated house that sips electric, carbon offsets for my travel, a small car matched with a tendency to walk where I need to go) and the Observer’s (we’ve got a very small carbon footprint, in part because we use a “green” hosting service) are trivial. All of which puts me in a state to cry:

The End is coming! The End is coming!

Soon … er.

Or later. That is, the stock market is going to crash.

I don’t really know when. Okay, fine: I haven’t got an earthly clue. Then again, neither does anyone else. I looked back at the financial media in the months before the market crash in 2007. The Lexis-Nexis database contains around 800 stock market stories for the three months immediately before the worst collapse in three-quarters of a century. By limiting the search to U.S. sources, I got it down to a nearly-manageable 400 or so which I proceeded to scan.

Here’s what I discovered: almost without exception, the public statements of major financial media outlets, mutual fund managers and hedge fund managers were stunningly clueless. Almost without exception, the story was that other than for one or two little puffy clouds in the distance, the skies were clear, you should have a song in your heart and a buy order in your hands.

Kiplinger’s led that parade with “Why Stocks Will Keep Going Up” (July). BusinessWeek urged us, “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” (August 13). Money asked “Is This Bull Ready to Leave” (July) and concluded that the market was undervalued and that large cap growth stocks had “a strong outlook.” Fortune did some fortune-telling and found “A Sunny Second Half” (July 9); relying on “a hedge fund superstar,” they promised “This Bull Has Legs” (August 20). John Rogers of the Ariel Funds declared “Subprime Risks: Overblown … [it’s] time to buy” (September 17). Standard & Poor’s thought “equities could register nice gains by the end of the year” (September 20) as the result of a Fed-fueled breakout.

Only GMO’s Jeremy Grantham stood out:

Even if the credit crunch passes without a major catastrophe, the prices of stocks, bonds, and real estate have a long way to fall

Credit crises have always been painful and unpredictable. The current one is particularly hair-raising because it’s occurring amid the first truly global bubble in asset pricing. It is also accompanied by a plethora of new and ingenious financial instruments. These are designed overtly to spread risk around and to sell fee-bearing products that are in great demand. Inadvertently (to be generous), they have been constructed to hide risk and confuse buyers. How this credit crisis works out and what price we end up paying has to be largely unknowable, depending as it does on hundreds of interlocking and often novel factors and how they in turn affect animal spirits. In the end it is, of course, the management of animal spirits that makes and breaks credit crises. “Danger: Steep Drop Ahead” (Fortune, September 17).

My scan excludes results for The Wall Street Journal, since neither the Journal’s own archive search nor the Lexis database cover the Journal’s articles for the period so it’s possible that the clear-eyed Jason Zweig was standing on the parapet crying “beware!”

We do know that, in general, markets are more apt to fall when valuations get out of hand and the market encounters an exogenous shock. That is, some cataclysmic event outside of the market; for example, in 2013 Fed chair Ben Bernanke allowed that “we could take a step down in our pace of purchase” of Treasury securities. The subsequent “taper tantrum” saw US bond markets drop 3% in three months. Ummm … that would be a trillion dollar setback.

If we can’t know when the crash will come, can we at least figure out whether the market is overvalued?

Ummm … no, though heaven knows we’ve tried. Here’s a sampling:

• Morningstar suggests that the market is overvalued by 4% (as of 3/23), which seems modest until you notice that the market seems to correct when it hits 5% overvalued. It hit 5% in May 2011 and the market dropped about 19% by the beginning of August. The market reached 10-14% overvalued in late 2004 and 2005, during which time it surged 17%. Other than for that stretch, market overvaluation hasn’t exceeded 5-7% before correcting. Matt Coffina, StockInvestor editor, agrees that “we see little margin of safety and few opportunities in current stock prices… Investors in common stocks must have a long time horizon and the patience and discipline to ride out volatility.” He identified industrials, technology, health care, consumer defensive, and utilities as the most overvalued sectors. 
• Mark Hulbert argues that, “based on six well-known and time-tested indicators, equities are more overvalued today than they’ve been between 69% and 89% of the past century’s bull-market tops.”
• Doug Short, one of the guys behind Advisor Perspectives, worries that, “Based on the latest S&P 500 monthly data, the market is overvalued somewhere in the range of 64% to 98%, depending on the indicator, up from the previous month’s 60% to 94%.” He does allow that markets can remain overvalued for years, though today’s high valuations translate to tomorrow’s tepid returns.
• Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Wells Capital Management, finds that the median stock in the NYSE trades, based on its price/earnings and price/cash flow ratios, at post WW2 highs. Why look at the median? Because most stock indices are cap-weighted, the valuations of the few largest stocks can materially change the entire index’s weight; he admits the S&P500 appears “slightly above average but not excessive.” By looking at the median stock, he’s trying to gauge whether the market is broadly overvalued.
• Doug Ramsey, chief investment officer for the Leuthold Group and co-manager of the outstanding Leuthold Core Investment Fund (LCORX), in an email exchange, notes that “We have a composite Intrinsic Value reading for the stock market based on 25 different measures, with weightings based on the long-term correlation of each measure with subsequent 3-, 5- and 10-yr. total returns … The composite of our 25 measures finds U.S. stocks moderately overvalued, but the situation is different than peaks like 2000 and 2007 because we find the overvaluation to be very broad-based. In other words, valuation measures on the median or ‘typical’ U.S. stock are even higher than seen at 2000 or 2007. This phenomenon isn’t fully captured by valuation measures on the cap-weighted indexes.”

Even when high valuations aren’t followed by crashes, they tend to predict weak future returns. GMO’s forward-looking asset class forecast is among the glummest I’ve seen: they anticipate negative real returns over the next 5-7 years in nine of the 12 asset classes they track:

(3.5%) Int’l bonds (currency hedged)
(3.4%) US small cap
(2.4%) US large cap
(1.0%) US bonds
(0.5%) TIPs
(0.3%) Cash
(0.2%) Int’l small cap
(0.1%) US high quality
0.0% Int’l large cap
2.6% EM bonds
2.9% EM equity
5.4% Managed timber

AQR, a global investment management firm “built at the intersection of financial theory and practical application” advises the AQR funds and manages about $120 billion. Their projections for the next five to ten years, courtesy of our friends at DailyAlts.com, are more optimistic than Leuthold’s, but nothing it celebrate:

AQR’s current estimate of U.S. stocks’ long-term real (above inflation) returns is just 3.8%. European, Australian, Canadian, and emerging market stocks are all projected to outperform the U.S., with respective long-term real returns of 5.5%, 6.1%, 4.6%, and 6.6%. U.K. stocks are expected to generate long-term real returns of 6.2%, also besting the U.S.; while only Japanese stocks are expected to underperform American equities, with returns of 3.5% above inflation.

So, 3.8 – 6.6% real returns. That’s not far from Leuthold’s estimate: “For investors who’ve missed the entire bull market to this point, we’d advise strongly against jumping into stocks with both feet; long-term (5- to 10-yr.) total returns are almost assured to be depressed (on the order of 3 to 5%, we would estimate).”

At the other end, several recent analyses by serious investors have reached the opposite conclusion: that the market is no more than modestly pricey, if that. After warning folks not to base their conclusions on a single valuation measure, the estimable Barry Ritholtz identifies a single valuation measure (enterprise value to EBITDA) as the most probative and concludes from it that the market is modestly valued.

… what has been considered the best-performing measure of markets suggests that U.S. stocks are not expensive — are indeed priced fairly. This strongly suggests that the expected future returns for U.S. equities will be about their historic average.

Ritholtz’s faith in EV:EBITDA derives, in part, from research by Wesley Gray. We contacted Mr. Gray who was busily crunching numbers in response to Mr. Ritzholtz’s piece. In a mid-March essay, he too concluded that there was no cause for concern:

The metrics aren’t screaming “overvalued:” P/E, P/B, TEV/EBITDA, and TEV/GP are all in the 50-75 percentile; TEV/FCF is actually in the 2 to 25 percentile. In fact, adjusted for the current interest rate environment (much lower than it was in the past), the argument that the market is extremely overvalued is far-fetched.

Here’s where that leaves us: the stock market has recorded double-digit gains in five of the past six years, the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) is up 230% in six years (though, Charles hastens to remind us, only 4.6% annualized over the past 15 years dating back to the last days of the 1990s bubble), but we have no idea of whether a correction (or worse) is imminent nor even whether conditions are right for a major correction.

So what’s an investor to do? Your two most common reactions are:

1. Do nothing until the storm hits, utterly confident in your ability to diagnose and smoothly adjust to the storm when it comes (the technical term here is “delusional thinking”) or
2. Panic, needlessly churning your portfolio in hopes of finding The One Safe Spot.

As it turns out, we endorse neither. For almost every investor, success is the product of patience. And patience is the product of a carefully considered plan and a thorough understanding of the managers and funds that you’re entrusting to execute that plan.

To be plain: if you have only half a clue about what you’re invested in, and why, you have much less than half a chance of succeeding. That’s graphically illustrated in data on 20-year asset class and investor returns:

Some pundits, fearful that we don’t quite understand the significance of life on the far right of the chart clarify it for us:

The Observer tries to help. We’re one of the few places that treat risk-conscious managers with respect, even when sticking with their principles costs them dearly in relative performance and investor assets. We know that some of the funds we’ve profiled recently have not been at the top of the recent charts; in many cases, we view that as a very good thing. We explain how you might think about investing and give you the chance to speak directly with really good managers on our conference calls. Within the next few months we’ll make our fund screener more widely available; it’s distinguished by the fact that it focuses on risk as much as returns and on meaningful time periods (entire market cycles, as well as up- and down-market phases) rather than random periods (uhhh, “last week”? Why on earth would you care?).

We’re grateful for your support and we’d really like to encourage you to take more advantage of the rich archive and tools here. There’s a lot that can help, crash or no.

Identifying Bear-Market Resistant Funds During Good Times

It’s easy enough to look back at the last bear market to see which funds avoided massive drawdown. Unfortunately, portfolio construction of those same funds may not defend against the next bear, which may be driven by different instabilities.

Dodge & Cox Balanced Fund (DODBX) comes to mind. In the difficult period between August 2000 and September 2002, it only drew down 11.6% versus the S&P 500’s -44.7% and Vanguard’s Balanced Index VBINX -22.4%. Better yet, it actually delivered a healthy positive return versus a loss for most balanced funds.

Owners of that fund (like I was and remain) were disappointed then when during the next bear market from November 2007 to February 2009, DODBX performed miserably. Max drawdown of -45.8%, which took 41 months to recover, and underperformance of -6.9% per year versus peers. A value-oriented fund house, D&C avoided growth tech stocks during the 2000 bubble, but ran head-on into the financial bubble of 2008. Indeed, as the saying goes, not all bear markets are the same.

Similarly, funds may have avoided or tamed the last bear by being heavy cash, diversifying into uncorrelated assets, hedging or perhaps even going net short, only to underperform in the subsequent bull market. Many esteemed fund managers are in good company here, including Robert Arnott, John Hussman, Andrew Redleaf, Eric Cinnamond to name a few.

Morningstar actually defines a so-called “bear-market ranking,” although honestly this metric must be one of least maintained and least acknowledged on its website. “Bear-market rankings compare how funds have held up during market downturns over the past five years.” The metric looks at how funds have performed over the past five years relative to peers during down months. Applying the methodology over the past 50 years reveals just how many “bear-market months” investors have endured, as depicted in the following chart:

The long term average shows that equity funds experience a monthly drop below 3% about twice a year and fixed income funds experience a drop below 1% about three times every two years. There have been virtually no such drops this past year, which helps explain the five-year screening window.

The key question is whether a fund’s performance during these relatively scarce down months is a precursor to its performance during a genuine bear market, which is marked by a 20% drawdown from previous peak for equity funds.

Taking a cue from Morningstar’s methodology (but tailoring it somewhat), let’s define “bear market deviation (BMDEV)” as the downside deviation during bear-market months. Basically, BMDEV indicates the typical percentage decline based only on a fund’s performance during bear-market months. (See Ratings System Definitions and A Look at Risk Adjusted Returns.)

The bull market period preceding 2008 was just over five years, October 2002 through October 2007, setting up a good test case. Calculating BMDEV for the 3500 or so existing funds during that period, ranking them by decile within peer group, and then assessing subsequent bear market performance provides an encouraging result … funds with the lowest bear market deviation (BMDEV) well out-performed funds with the highest bear market deviation, as depicted below.

Comparing the same funds across the full cycle reveals comparable if not superior absolute return performance of funds with the lowest bear market deviation. A look at the individual funds includes some top performers:  

The correlation did not hold up in all cases, of course, but it is a reminder that the superior return often goes hand-in-hand with protecting the downside.

Posturing then for the future, which funds have the lowest bear-market deviation over the current bull market? Evaluating the 5500 or so existing funds since March 2009 produces a list of about 450 funds. Some notables are listed below and the full list can be downloaded here. (Note: The full list includes all funds with lowest decile BMDEV, regardless of load, manager change, expense ratio, availability, min purchase, etc., so please consider accordingly.)

All of the funds on the above list seem to make a habit of mitigating drawdown, experiencing a fraction of the market’s bear-market months. In fact, a backward look of the current group reveals similar over-performance during the financial crisis when compared to those funds with the highest BMDEV.

Also, scanning through the categories above, it appears quite possible to have some protection against downside without necessarily resorting to long/short, market neutral, tactical allocation, and other so-called alternative investments. Although granted, the time frame for many of the alternatives categories is rather limited.

In any case, perhaps there is something to be said for “bear-market rankings” after all. Certainly, it seems a worthy enough risk metric to be part of an investor’s due diligence. We will work to make available updates of bear-market rankings for all funds to MFO readers in the future.

There’s Got to be a Pony In This Room …….

By Edward Studzinski

“Life is an unbroken succession of false situations.”

                                     Thornton Wilder

Given my predilection to make reference to scenes from various movies, some of you may conclude I am a frustrated film critic. Since much that is being produced these days appears to be of questionable artistic merit, all I would say is that there would be lifetime employment (or the standards that exist for commercial success have declined). That said, an unusual Clint Eastwood movie came out in 1970. One of the more notable characters in the movie was Sergeant “Oddball” the tanker, played by Canadian actor Donald Sutherland. And one of the more memorable scenes and lines from that movie has the “Oddball” character saying  “Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves.”

Over the last several months, my comments could probably be viewed as taking a pessimistic view of the world and markets. Those who are familiar with my writings and thoughts over the years would not have been surprised by this, as I have always tended to be a “glass half-empty” person. As my former colleague Clyde McGregor once said of me, the glass was not only half-empty but broken and on the floor in little pieces. Some of this is a reflection of innate conservatism. Some of it is driven by having seen too many things “behind the curtain” over the years. In the world of the Mutual Fund Observer, there is a different set of rules by which we have to play, when comments are made “off the record” or a story cannot be verified from more than one source. So what may be seen as negativism or an excess of caution is driven by a journalistic inability to allow those of you would so desire, to paraphrase the New Testament, to “put your hands into the wounds.”  Underlying it all of course, as someone who finds himself firmly rooted in the camp of “value investor” is the need for a “margin of safety” in investments and adherence to Warren Buffett’s Rules Numbers One and Two for Investing. Rule Number One of course is “Don’t lose money.” Rule Number Two is “Don’t forget Rule Number One.”

So where does this leave us now? It is safe to say that it is not easy to find investments with a margin of safety currently, at least in the U.S. domestic markets. Stocks on various metrics do not seem especially undervalued. A number of commentators would argue that as a whole the U.S. market ranges from fully valued to over-valued. The domestic bond market, on historic measures does not look cheap either. Only when one looks at fixed income on a global basis does U.S. fixed income stand out when one has negative yields throughout much of Europe and parts of Asia starting to move in that direction. All of course is driven by central banks’ increasing fear of deflation. 

Thus, global capital is flowing into U.S. fixed income markets as they seem relatively attractive, assuming the strengthening U.S. currency is not an issue.  Overhanging that is the fear that later this year the Federal Reserve will begin raising rates, causing bond prices to tumble.  Unfortunately, the message from the Fed seems to be clearly mixed.  Will it be a while before rates really are increased in the U.S. , or,  will they start to raise rates in the second half of this year?  No one knows, nor should they.

As one who built portfolios on a stock by stock basis, rather than paying attention to index weightings, does this mean I could not put together a portfolio of undervalued stocks today?   I probably could but it would be a portfolio that would have a lot of energy-related and commodity-like issues in it.  And I would be looking for long-term investors who really meant it (were willing to lock up their money) for at least a five-year time horizon.  Since mutual funds can’t do that, it explains why many of the value-oriented investors are carrying a far greater amount of cash than they would like or is usual.  As an aside, let me say that in the last month, I have had more than one investment manager tell me that for the first time in their investing careers, they really were unsure as to how to deal with the current environment.

What I will leave you with are questions to ponder.  Over the years, Mr. Buffett and Mr. Munger have indicated that they would prefer to buy very good businesses at fair prices. And those businesses have traditionally been tilted towards those that did not require a lot of capital expenditures but rather threw off lots of cash with minimal capital investment requirements, and provided very high returns on invested capital. Or they had a built-in margin of safety, such as property and casualty insurance businesses where you were in effect buying a bond portfolio at a discount to book, had the benefit of investing the premium float, had a necessary product (automobile insurance) and again did not need a lot of capital investment. But now we see, with the Burlington Northern and utility company investments a different kettle of fish. These are businesses that will require continued capital investment going forward, albeit in oligopoly-like businesses with returns that may be fairly certain (in an uncertain world). Those investments will however not leave as much excess capital to be diverted into new portfolio investments as has historically been the case. There will be in effect required capital calls to sustain the returns from the current portfolio of businesses.  And, we see investments being made as joint ventures (Kraft, Heinz) with private equity managers (3G) with a very different mindset than U.S. private equity or investment banking firms. That is, 3G acquires companies to fix, improve, and run for the long term. This is not like your typical private equity firm here, which buys a company to put into a limited life fund which they will sell or take public again later.

So here are your questions to ponder?  Does this mean that the expectation for equity returns in the U.S. for the foreseeable future is at best in the low single digit range?  Are the days of the high single digit domestic long-term equity returns a thing of the past?   And, given how Buffett and Munger have positioned Berkshire now, what does this say about the investing environment?  And in a world of increased volatility (which value investors like as it presents opportunities) what does it say about the mutual fund model, with the requirement for daily pricing and liquidity?

Morningstar: one hit and one miss

Morningstar, like many effective monopolies, provides an essential service. The quality of that service varies rather more than you might suspect. Last month I suggested that the continued presence of their “buy the unloved” strategy has increasingly become a travesty. Likewise, the folks on our discussion board, for example, have been maddened by the prevalence of “stale data” in the site’s daily NAV reports. To their enduring credit, one of the folks from Morningstar actually waded into the discussion, albeit briefly and ankle-deep.

On the other hand, the Morningstar folks really do some very solid, actionable research. As a recent case in point, Russel Kinnel, directory of fund analysis, offered up Why You Should Invest With Managers Who Eat Their Own Cooking (3/31/15). While the metrics (Success Rate and Success Rate MRAR) could use a bit of clarification, his research continues to substantiate an important point: when your manager is deeply invested, your prospects for success – both in raw and risk-adjusted returns – climbs substantially. It’s one of the reasons why we report so consistently on manager ownership in our fund profiles. The data point that almost no one discusses but which turns out to be equally important, ownership of fund shares by the board’s trustees, is something we’ll pursue in the next couple months.

Now if only I could understand the logic of Morningstar’s grumbling about my portfolio. U.S. equities accounted for 36% of the total market capitalization of all equities markets worldwide on 10/21/14. In my portfolio, US equities account for 40% of all equity exposure. On face, that’s a slight underweight. Morningstar’s x-ray interpreter, however, insists on fretting that I have “a very large stake in foreign stocks” (no, I’m underweight), with special notes of my “extremely large” stake in Asia (“this is very risky”) and extremely small stake in Western Europe (which “probably isn’t a big deal”). I understand that most American investors have a substantial “home bias,” but I’m not sure that the bias should be reinforced in Morningstar’s portfolio analyzer.

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.

Orders

• The U.S. Supreme Court denied a certiorari petition in the section 36(b) lawsuit regarding BlackRock‘s securities lending practices with respect to iShares ETFs. The district court, affirmed on appeal, held that an SEC exemptive order (approving the challenged securities lending arrangements) constituted an exception to potential liability under section 36(b). Defendants included independent directors. (Laborers’ Local 265 Pension Fund v. iShares Trust.)
• The court denied BlackRock‘s motion to dismiss fee litigation regarding its Global Allocation and Equity Dividend Funds, stating that plaintiffs’ fee comparison (between the challenged fees and fees charged by BlackRock as sub-advisor to unaffiliated funds) “is appropriate.” (In re BlackRock Mut. Funds Advisory Fee Litig.)
• The court granted Fidelity‘s motion to dismiss an ERISA class action regarding Fidelity’s practices with respect to the “float income” generated from retirement plan redemptions, holding that “plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that float income is a plan asset” and that “Fidelity is not an ERISA fiduciary as to float.” (In re Fid. ERISA Float Litig.)
• The court denied J.P. Morgan‘s motion to dismiss fee litigation regarding three bond funds. The court cited allegations of “a notable disparity” between the fees obtained by J.P. Morgan for servicing those three funds and the fees obtained by J.P. Morgan for subadvising unaffiliated funds, notwithstanding that its services in each instance were allegedly “substantially the same.” (Goodman v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt., Inc.)
• The court preliminarily approved settlements totaling $60 million in a pair of class actions regarding Northern Trust‘s securities lending program. (Diebold v. N. Trust Invs., N.A.; La. Firefighters’ Ret. Sys. v. N. Trust Invs., N.A.)
• The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in consolidated litigation alleging bad prospectus disclosure for Oppenheimer‘s California Municipal Bond Fund. Plaintiffs’ claims are premised on a theory that the fund’s stated investment objectives and implied price volatility assurances were rendered materially misleading by the fund’s heavy investment in derivative instruments known as inverse floaters. Defendants include independent directors. (In re Cal. Mun. Fund.)
• The court granted Oppenheimer‘s motion to dismiss a breach-of-contract suit filed by assignees of claims purportedly held by the New Mexico boards that administered the state’s 529 college savings plans. (Lu v. OppenheimerFunds, Inc.)
• The court consolidated fee lawsuits regarding ten Russell funds. (In re Russell Inv. Co. Shareholder Litig.)
• In the long-running securities class action alleging that the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund deviated from two fundamental investment objectives adopted by a shareholder vote, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit allowed multiple state-law claims to proceed but declined to reach the question of whether any of those claims are barred by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (leaving that issue to the district court on remand). Schwab has filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Defendants include independent directors. (Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Invs.)
• In the class action alleging that TIAA-CREF failed to honor customer requests to pay out funds in a timely fashion, the court dismissed the state-law claims, holding that they were preempted by ERISA. (Cummings v. TIAA-CREF.)

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and news from DailyAlts.

Before we dive into the details of liquid alternatives, there are two important publications that were released this past month that have implications for nearly all investors.

The first is a paper from AQR that provides forward looking return projections for stocks, bonds and smart beta. This is the first return projection I have seen that includes smart beta (given that AQR offers smart beta products, they do have an incentive to include the strategy in their assumptions). The projections for stocks and bonds don’t look so rosy: 3.8% real return for US stocks and 0.60% for US 10-year government bonds. Multi-factor smart beta looks a bit better at 5.7% over inflation. Download a copy, have a look and re-calibrate your expectations: AQR Q1 2015 Alternative Thinking.

The second paper is from Howard Marks, founder and co-chairman of Oaktree Capital who released his quarterly memo that discussed, among other things, liquid alternatives. But more importantly, Marks made two important points that we, as investors, shouldn’t forget – especially in this era of liquidity and rising markets:

• “Liquidity is ephemeral: it can come and go.”
• “No investment vehicle should promise greater liquidity than is afforded by its underlying assets.”

In regard to point one, Marks reminds us that when we most want liquidity is when it is hard to find. The second point is a warning to investors – don’t expect something for nothing. The liquidity of an investment vehicle is only as good as its underlying investments in times of crisis. I would recommend you read the entire paper.

Now, jumping to a few highlights of flows and assets for liquid alternatives:

• February flows totaled $1.5 billion, which were interestingly split but active funds ($767 million) and passive funds $768 million)
• 1 year flows of $13.5 billion ($9.5 billion to active funds and $4.1 billion to passive funds)
• Total category assets of $204 billion
• 1 year organic growth rate of 6.9% based on Morningstar’s Alternative category classification

February Asset Flow Details

In February, multi-alternative and managed futures funds dominated the inflows, while investors soured on non-traditional bonds, market neutral and long/short equity funds.

Flows out of the long/short equity category continue to be dominated by outflows from the MainStay Marketfield Fund, which saw $941 million of outflows in January, bringing the 12-month total to $11.6 billion. Excluding Marketfield, the long/short equity category had $564 million of inflows in February.

With increased levels of volatility, a rising dollar and a potential bottoming of commodity prices, investors jumped into each of those categories in February, driving up assets in each by $$527 million (volatility), $389 million (currencies) and $657 million (commodities), respectively. In fact, have gathered almost $5 billion in assets in the first two months of 2015.

On a 1-year basis, non-traditional bonds and multi-alternative funds have dominated the inflows to alternative funds, gathering $11.2 billion and $9.4 billion, respectively. Non-traditional bond funds have filled the need for investors and advisors who have a concern about the potential negative impact of rising interest rates, as well as the need for higher levels of income.

At the same time, most investors looking to gain exposure to alternative investment strategies are looking to diversified alternative funds for that first time exposure. This is done with pre-packaged alternative funds that deliver exposure to a range of alternative strategies in a single fund. As the market matures, and investors become more comfortable with individual strategies, this trend may shift as it did in the institutional market.

New Funds

I will keep it short, but there were several new funds of interest that launched this month, most notably a long/short equity fund from Longboard, which we wrote about in a story titled Longboard Launches Second Alternative Mutual Fund and two new hedge fund replication ETFs from IndexIQ, both of which are detailed in New ETFs Allow Investors to Build their Own Hedge Fund Strategies.

Until next month, feel free to stop by DailyAlts.com for regular news and analysis of the liquid alts market.

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.

Queens Road Small Cap Value (QRSVX): in writing last month’s profile of Pinnacle Value, we used our risk-sensitive screener to screen for a bunch of measures over a bunch of time periods. We kept coming up with a very short, very consistent list of the best small cap value funds. That list might be described as “closed, closed, loaded, institutional, Pinnacle and Queens Road.”

Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility (VMVFX): at our colleague Ed’s behest, I spent a bit of time reading about VMVFX, reviewing Charles’s data and a lot of academic research on the “low volatility anomaly.” The combination of inquiries points to VMVFX as a potentially quite compelling core holding which quietly and economically exploits a durable anomaly.

Elevator Talk: Lee Kronzon, Gator Opportunities (GTOAX/GTOIX)

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.

Gator Opportunities Fund describes itself as “a concentrated, quality-driven, valuation-sensitive, small/midcap-focused mutual fund.” They’re a very Graham-and-Dodd kind of bunch, invoking maxims like

• Buy for the long-term
• Invest in high-quality growth businesses
• Purchase businesses we understand
• Invest with a margin of safety
• Concentrate!

They hold 36 stocks, more or less equally split between small caps and midcaps, at least as of March 2015. The fund has substantially more exposure to international markets, both developed and developing, than does its peers.

On face, it’s a pretty mainstream fund. What’s striking is that it’s produced distinctly non-mainstream returns. While Morningstar characterizes it as a mid-cap blend fund, its current portfolio leans a bit more toward smaller and growthier stocks. Regardless of which peer group you use, the results are striking. The fund (in blue) has substantially outperformed both midcap (orange) and small growth (green) Morningstar peer groups since launch.

Lee Kronzon manages the Gator Opportunities Fund (GTOAX/GTOIX), which launched in early November 2013. While this is his first stint managing a mutual fund, he’s had a interesting and varied career, and it appears that lots of serious people have reason to respect him. He came to Gator after more than a decade as an equity analyst and strategist with the Fundamental Equities Group at Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM). Earlier he cofounded Tower Hill Securities, a merchant bank that funded global emerging growth companies. Earlier still he taught at Princeton as a Faculty Lecturer at the Woodrow Wilson School. In that role he co-taught several courses in applied quantitative and economic analysis with Professors Ben Bernanke (subsequently chairman of the Federal Reserve) and Alan Krueger (chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors). Fortunately, he predated a rating at RateMyProfessors.com where Princeton professor and talking head Paul Krugman gets a pretty durn mediocre rating.

His celebration of the alligator gives you a sense of how he’s thinking: “The gator is a survivor, one of the planet’s oldest species and a remnant of the dinosaur era. He’s made it through all sorts of different climates and challenges. And his strategy just works: be still, wait patiently for an opportunity to present itself and then strike. Really, it’s a creature with no weaknesses!”

Here’s a lightly-edited version of Mr. Kronzon’s 200 words on why you should add GTOAX to your due-diligence list:

As a Warren Buffett disciple, I believe that growth and value investment disciplines are joined at the hip, and I try to provide investors the best of both worlds. Quality is the key indicator of business success, and that it ultimately separates investment winners from losers. The Fund focuses on quality by investing in firms with sizable and sustainable competitive advantages, best-in-class business models that generate attractive and predictable returns, and successful, shareholder-friendly management teams. My goal is to invest in such superior businesses when they are undiscovered, out of favor, or misunderstood; curiously, I often find them in dynamic sectors like Industrials and Technology.

Our strategy is to achieve the intersection of quality with growth and value by investing long-term in a concentrated set of public equities issued primarily by domestically-listed, small/mid-cap firms that I believe are high quality and have solid growth prospects yet are undervalued based on fundamental analysis with catalysts to close this valuation gap. We have a flexible mandate to invest across all sectors and regions, and a high active share since it is built bottom-up and not managed to track any benchmark. And I’m proud of the fact that the Fund has delivered robust returns since its launch in November 2013 to date.

Gator Opportunities (GTOAX) has a $5000 minimum initial investment which is reduced to $1000 for IRAs and other types of tax-advantaged accounts. Expenses are capped at 1.49% on the investor shares, at least through 2017. The fund has about gathered about $1 million in assets since its November 2013 launch. More information can be found at the fund’s homepage. Here’s a nice interview with Mr. Kronzon that Chuck Jaffe did in late March, 2015.

Conference Call Highlights: David Berkowitz, RiverPark Focused Value

David Berkowitz, manager of the newly-launched RiverPark Focused Value Fund, and Morty Schaja, RiverPark’s cofounder and CEO, chatted with me (and about 30 of you) for an hour in mid-March. It struck me as a pretty remarkable call, largely because of the clarity of Mr. Berkowitz’s answers. Here are what I take to be the highlights.

The snapshot: 20-25 stocks, likely all US-domiciled because he likes GAAP reporting standard (even where they’re weak, he knows where the weaknesses are and compensate for them), mostly north of$10 billion in market cap though some in the $5-9 billion range. Long only with individual positions capped at 10%. They have price targets for every stock they buy, so turnover is largely determined by how quickly a stock moves to its target. In general, higher turnover periods are likely to correspond with higher returns.

His background (and why it matters): Mr. Berkowitz was actually interested in becoming a chemist, but his dad pushed him into chemical engineering because “chemists don’t get jobs, engineers do.” He earned a B.A. and M.A. in chemical engineering at MIT and went to work first for Union Carbide, then for Amoco (Standard Oil of Indiana). While there he noticed how many of the people he worked with had MBAs and decided to get one, with the expectation of returning to run a chemical company. While working on his MBA at Harvard, he discovered invested and a new friend, Bill Ackman. Together they launched the Gotham Partners LP fund. Initially Gotham Partners used the same discipline in play at the RiverPark funds and he described their returns in the mid-90s as “spectacular.” They made what, in hindsight, was a strategic error in the late 1990s that led to Gotham’s closure: they decided to add illiquid securities to the portfolio. That was not a good mix; by 2002, they decided that the strategy was untenable and closed the hedge fund.

Takeaways: (1) the ways engineers are trained to think and act are directly relevant to his success as an investor. Engineers are charged with addressing complex problems while possessing only incomplete information. Their challenge is to build a resilient system with a substantial margin of safety; that is, a system which will have the largest possible chance of success with the smallest possible degree of system failure. As an investor, he thinks about portfolios in the same way. (2) He will never again get involved in illiquid investments, most especially not at the new mutual fund.

His process: as befits an engineer, he starts with hard data screens to sort through a 1000 stock universe. He’s looking for firms that have three characteristics:

• Durable predictable businesses, with many firms in highly-dynamic industries (think “fast fashion” or “chic restaurants,” as well as firms which will derive 80% of their profits five years hence from devices they haven’t even invented yet) as too hard to find reliable values for. Such firms get excluded.
• Shareholder oriented management, where the proof of shareholder orientation is what the managers do with their free cash flows. 
• Valuations which provide the opportunity for annual returns in the mid-teens over the next 3-5 years. This is where the question of “value” comes in. His arguments are that overpaying for a share of a business will certainly depress your future returns but that there’s no simple mechanical metric that lets you know when you’re overpaying. That is, he doesn’t look at exclusively p/e or p/b ratios, nor at a firm’s historic valuations, in order to determine whether it’s cheap. Each firm’s prospects are driven by a unique constellation of factors (for example, whether the industry is capital-intensive or not, whether its earnings are interest rate sensitive, what the barriers to entry are) and so you have to go through a painstaking process of disassembling and studying each as if it were a machine, with an eye to identifying its likely future performance and possible failure points.

Takeaways: (1) The fund will focus on larger cap names both because they offer substantial liquidity and they have the lowest degree of “existential risk.” At base, GE is far more likely to be here in a generation than is even a very fine small cap like John Wiley & Sons. (2) You should not expect the portfolio to embrace “the same tired old names” common in other LCV funds. It aims to identify value in spots that others overlook. Those spots are rare since the market is generally efficient and they can best be exploited by a relatively small, nimble fund.

Current ideas: He and his team have spent the past four months searching for compelling ideas, many of which might end up in the opening portfolio. Without committing to any of them, he gave examples of the best opportunities he’s come across: Helmerich & Payne (HP), the largest owner-operator of land rigs in the oil business, described as “fantastic operators, terrific capital allocators with the industry’s highest-quality equipment for which clients willingly pay a premium.” McDonald’s (MCD), which is coming out of “the seven lean years” with a new, exceedingly talented management team and a lot of capital; if they get the trends right “they can explode.” AutoZone (AZO), “guys buying brake pads” isn’t sexy but is extremely predictable and isn’t going anywhere. Western Digital (WDG), making PCs isn’t a good business because there’s so little opportunity to add value and build a moat, but supplying components like hard drives – where the industry has contracted and capital needs impose relatively high barriers to entry – is much more attractive. 

Even so, he describes this is “the most challenging period” he’s seen in a long while. If the fund were to open today, rather than at the end of April, he expects it would be only 80% invested. He won’t hesitate to hold cash in the absence of compelling opportunities (“we won’t buy just for the sake of buying”) but “we work really hard, turn over a lot of rocks and generally find a substantial number of names” that are worth close attention.

His track record: There is no public record of Mr. Berkowitz alone managing a long-only strategy. In lieu of that, he offers three thoughts. First, he’s sinking a lot of his own money – $10 million initially – into the fund, so his fortunes will be directly tied to his investors’. Second, “a substantial number of people who have direct and extensive knowledge of my work will invest a substantial amount of money in the fund.” Third, he believes he can earn investors’ trust in part by providing “a transparent, quantitative, rigorous, rational framework for everything we own. Investors will know what we’re doing and exactly why we’re doing it. If our process makes sense, then so will investing in the fund.” 

Finally, Mr. Schaja announced an interesting opportunity. For its first month of operation, RiverPark will waive the normal minimum investment on its institutional share class for investors who purchase directly from them. The institutional share class doesn’t carry a 12(b)1 fee, so those shares are 0.25% (25 bps) cheaper than retail: 1.00 rather than 1.25%. (Of course it’s a marketing ploy, but it’s a marketing ploy that might well benefit you in you’re interested in the fund.)

The fund will also be immediately available NTF at Fidelity, Schwab, TDAmeritrade, Vanguard and maybe Pershing. It will eventually be available on most of the commercial platforms. Institutional shares will be available at the same brokerages but will carry transaction fees.

Bottom Line

Mr. Berkowitz comes across as a smart guy and RiverPark’s offer to waive the institutional minimum is really attractive. At the same time, most investors will be proceeding mostly on faith since we can’t document Mr. B’s track record. We don’t know the overall picture, much less what has blown up (things always blow up) and how he’s recovered. A lot of smart, knowledgeable people seem excited at the opportunity. In general, if I were you I’d proceed with caution and after a fair number of additional inquiries (Morty, in particular, is famously available to RiverPark’s investors).

Here’s the link to the mp3 of the call.

Conference Call Upcoming

We’d like to invite you to join us for a conversation with Andrew Foster, manager of Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX/SIGIX) on Thursday, April 16, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern. Click, well “register” to register: 

Our contention has always been that Seafarer represents one of the best possible options for investors interested in approaching the emerging markets. There are two reasons for that conclusion.

1. He’s a superb investor. While Andrew is a very modest and unassuming guy, and I know that fortune is fleeting, it’s hard to ignore the pattern reflected in Morningstar’s report of where Seafarer stands in its peer group over a variety of trailing periods:
   
2. He’s a superb steward. Mr. Foster has produced consistently first-rate shareholder communications that are equally clear and honest about the fund’s successes and occasional lapses. And he’s been near-evangelical about reducing the fund’s expenses, often posting voluntary mid-year fee reductions as assets permit.

The first part of that judgment was substantiated in early March when Seafarer received its inaugural five-star rating from Morningstar. It is also a Great Owl fund, a designation which recognizes funds whose risk-adjusted returns have finished in the top 20% of their peers for all trailing periods. Our greater sensitivity to risk, based on the evidence that investors are far less risk-tolerant than they imagine, leads to some divergence between our results and Morningstar’s: five of their five-star EM funds are not Great Owls, for instance, while some one-star funds are.

Of 219 diversified EM funds currently tracked by Morningstar, 18 have a five-star rating (as of mid-March, 2015). 13 are Great Owls. Seafarer and nine others (representing 5% of the peer group) are both five-star and Great Owls.

As Andrew and I have talked about the call, he reflected on some of the topics that he thought folks should be thinking about:

• a brief (re) introduction to Seafarer’s strategy
• a discussion of why the strategy searches for growth, and why we make sure to marry that growth with some current income (dividends, bond coupons). Andrew’s made some interesting observations lately on whether “value investing” might finally be coming into play in the emerging markets.
• other key elements of Seafarer’s philosophy including his considerable skepticism about the construction of the various EM indexes, which leads to some confidence about his ability to add considerable value over what might be offered by passive products
• why the emerging markets (EM) have been so weak over the past few years and the implications of anemic growth in the EM, both in terms of economic output and corporate profits
• maybe some stuff on currency weakness and the decision of EM central banks to cut their rates while we raise ours
• Where do things go from here?
• And, of course, your questions.

By way of fair disclosure, I should note that I’ve owned shares of Seafarer in my personal account, pretty much since its inception, and also own shares of Matthews Asian Growth & Income (MACSX), which he managed (brilliantly) before leaving to found Seafarer.

HOW CAN YOU JOIN IN?

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

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

WOULD AN ADDITIONAL HEADS UP HELP?

Over four 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.

Emerging markets funds that might be worth your attention

We mentioned, above, that only ten funds have earned both our designation as Great Owls (meaning that they have top-tier risk-adjusted returns in every trailing time period longer than one year) and Morningstar’s five-star rating. Knowing that you were being eaten alive with curiosity, here’s the quick run-down.

Baron Emerging Markets (BEXFX) – $1.5 billion in AUM, 1.5% e.r., not quite five years old, large-growth with an Asian bias. The manager also runs Baron International Growth (BIGFX). “Big F”? Really? BIG F actually earns a BIG C-.

City National Rochdale Emerging Markets (RIMIX) – 90% invested in Asia, City National Bank, headquartered in Hollywood, bought the Rochdale Funds and agreed t in January 2015 to be bought by the Royal Bank of Canada. Interesting funds. No minimum investment but a 1.61% e.r. The EM fund acquires exposure to Indian stocks by investing in a wholly owned subsidiary domiciled in Mauritius. Hmmm.

Driehaus EM Small Cap Growth (DRESX) – a $600 million hedged fund (and former hedge fund) for which we have a profile and some fair enthusiasm. Expenses are 1.71%.

Federated EM Equity (FGLEX) – a $13 million institutional fund with a $1 million minimum, not quite five years old and a mostly mega cap portfolio. It seems to have had two really good years followed by two really soft ones.

HSBC Frontier Markets (HSFAX) – 5% front load, 2.2% e.r., $200 million in AUM, midcap bias and a huge overweight in Africa & the Middle East at the expense of Asia. Curious.

Harding Loevner Frontier EM (HLMOX) – modest overweight in Asia, huge overweight in Africa & the Middle East, far lower-than-average market cap, half a billion in assets, 2.2% e.r.

Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX) – $136 million in AUM, 1.4% e.r., small- to mid-cap bias, top 4% returns over its first three years of operation.

Thornburg Developing World (THDAX) – oopsie: lead manager Lewis Kaufman just jumped from the $3 billion ship to launch Artisan Developing World Fund this summer.

Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries (WAFMX) – $1.3 billion in AUM, 2.24% e.r. and closed to new investors

William Blair EM Small Cap Growth (WESNX) – $300 million in AUM, 1.65% e.r. and closed to new investors.

On face, the pattern seems to be that small works. The top tier of funds have lots of exposure to smaller firms and/or those located in smaller markets, even by EM standards. 

The other big is big works. Big funds charging big fees. If you’re looking for no-load funds that are open to retail investors and charge under 2%, your due-diligence list is reduced to four funds: Baron, City Rochdale, Driehaus and Seafarer.

SFGIX is the second-smallest fund in the whole five star/Great Owl group, which makes it all the more striking that it’s the least expensive of all. And it’s among the least risky of this elite group.

Funds in Registration

Funds in Registration focuses on no-load, retail funds. There are three funds outside of that range are currently in registration and are worth noting.

Fidelity has jumped on two bandwagons at once, passive management and low volatility, with the impending launch of Fidelity SAI U.S. Minimum Volatility Index Fund and Fidelity SAI International Minimum Volatility Index Fund. The key is that the funds are not available for purchase by the public, they’re only available to folks running Fido funds-of-funds and similar products. That said, they seem to support the attractiveness of the minimum volatility strategy, which we discuss in this month’s Vanguard profile.

Speaking of Vanguard, it’s making its second foray in the world of liquid alts (after Vanguard Market Neutral) with Vanguard Alternative Strategies Fund seeks to generate returns that have low correlation with the returns of the stock and bond markets, and that are less volatile than the overall U.S. stock market. Michael Roach, who also helps manage Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility (VMVFX) and Vanguard Market Neutral (VMNFX), will manage the fund. Expenses of 1.10% and a $250,000 minimum, which manages the Market Neutral Minimum.

Of the retail funds in registration, by far the most intriguing is Artisan Developing World. The fund will be managed by Lewis Kaufman who had been managing the five-star, $2.8 billion Thornburg Developing World Fund (THDAX). By most accounts, Mr. Kaufman is one of the field’s legitimate stars.

All eight funds in the pipeline are sketched out on our Funds in Registration page.

Manager Changes

Chip reports that it felt like there were a million of them this month but the actual count is just 38 manager changes, none of them earth-shaking.

Briefly Noted . . .

GlobalX ups the rhetorical stake: not satisfied to hang with the mere “smart beta” crowd, GlobalX has filed to launch a series of “scientific beta” ETFS. Cranking Thomas Dolby’s cautionary tale, “She Blinded Me with Science,” in the background, I ventured into the prospectus, hoping to discover what sort of science I might be privy to.

As long as you think of “scientific” as a synonym for “impenetrable morass,” I found science. The US ETF will replicate the returns of the Scientific Beta United States Multi-Beta Multi-Strategy Equal Risk Contribution Index (scientific! It says so!), authored by EDHEC Risk Institute Asia Ltd. According to their website, EDHEC’s research is “Asia-focused work” which is being extended globally. Here’s the word on index composition:

The Index is composed of four sub-indices, each of which represents a specific beta exposure (or factor tilt): (i) high valuation, (ii) high momentum, (iii) low volatility, and (iv) size (each, a “Beta Sub-Index”). Each Beta Sub-Index comprises the top 50% of companies from the pre-screening universe that best represent that Beta Sub-Index’s specific beta exposure, except that the “size” sub-index is comprised of the bottom 50% of companies in the pre-screening universe according to free-float market capitalization. Once these companies are selected for the Beta Sub-Index, five different weighting schemes are applied to the constituents: (i) maximum deconcentration, (ii) diversified risk-weighting, (iii) maximum decorrelation, (iv) efficient minimum volatility and (v) efficient maximum Sharpe Ratio.

If you can understand all that, you might consider investing in the fund. If you have no earthly idea of what they’re saying, you might be better off moving quietly on.

Janus Diversified Alternatives Fund (JDDAX) has changed its statement of investing strategies to reflect the fact that they now have a higher volatility target and a higher “notional investment exposure.” They anticipate a standard deviation of about 6% and a notional exposure (a way of valuing the impact of their derivatives) of 300-400%.

Linde Hansen Contrarian Value Fund (LHVAX/LHVIX) has officially embraced diversification. It’s advertised itself as “non-diversified” since launch but it’s been “managed as a diversified fund since its inception.” The fund holds 20% cash and 22 stocks, which implies that their notion of “diversified” is “more than 20 stocks.”

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Effective February 28, 2015, the ASTON/TAMRO Small Cap Fund (ATASX) and the ASTON/River Road Independent Value Fund (ARIVX) are open to all investors. 

Fairholme Focused Income (FOCIX) has reopened after a two year closure. Mr. Berkowitz closed all three of his funds simultaneously, and mostly in reaction to the flight of fickle investors. Well, “fickle,” “shell-shocked,” what’s in a name?

The key to this mostly high-yield bond fund is that it focuses more than anybody: it owns two stocks, two bonds (which seem to account for over 50% of the portfolio) and a handful of preferred shares. In any case, assets at FOCIX have declined from $240 to $210 million and the advisor is pretty sure that he’s got places to profitably invest new cash.

Effective immediately, all 15 of the Frost Funds have eliminated their sales loads and have redesignated their “A” shares as “Investor” shares. A couple of their shorter-term bond funds are worth a check and their Total Return Bond Fund (FIJEX) qualifies as a Great Owl. Of it, Charles notes: “Among highest return in short bond category across current full cycle (since Sept 2007 through Jan 2015…still going) and over its 14 year life. Low expenses. Low volatility. High dividend. 10 Year Great Owl.”

Lebenthal Asset Management purchased a minority stake in AH Lisanti Capital Growth LLC, adviser to Adams Harkness Small Cap Growth Fund, now called Lebenthal Lisanti Small Cap Growth (ASCGX). Mary Lisanti has been managing the fund since 2004 and has compiled a fine record without the benefit of, well, many shareholders in the fund. The fund is a small part (say 8%) of the assets of a small adviser, Adam Harkness & Hill. In theory, the partnership with Lebenthal will help raise the fund’s visibility. I wish them well, since Ms. Lisanti and her fund are both solid and under-appreciated.

Effective March 4, 2015, the management fee of Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF was reduced by one basis point! Woo hoo! The happy perspective is “by about 5%.”

Vanguard Convertible Securities Fund (VCVSX) is now open to new accounts for institutional clients who invest directly with Vanguard.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

On March 13, The Giralda Fund (GDMAX – really? The G-dam fund?) closed to new investors. It’s a five star fund with $200 million in assets, which makes the closing seem really disciplined and principled.

Vanguard Wellington Fund (VWELX) has closed to “all prospective financial advisory, institutional, and intermediary clients (other than clients who invest through a Vanguard brokerage account).”  At base they’re trying to close the tap a bit by restricting investment through third-parties like Schwab though, at $90 billion, the question might be whether they’re a bit late. The fund is still performing staunchly, but the track record of funds at $100 billion is not promising.

Wasatch Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund, Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund, International Growth Fund and Small Cap Growth Fund have all closed to new third-party accounts.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

In theory AllianzGI Behavioral Advantage Large Cap Fund (AZFAX) is going to be reorganized “with and into” Fuller & Thaler Behavioral Core Equity Fund, which sounds like the original fund is disappearing. Nay, nay. Fuller & Thayer manage the fund now. The Allianz fund simply becomes the Fuller & Thaler one, likely some time in the third quarter though the reorganization may be delayed. Nice fund, low expenses, good longer-term performance.

Effective May 1, 2015, the name of Eaton Vance Investment Grade Income Fund (EAGIX) changes to Eaton Vance Core Bond Fund.

Emerald Advisers has agreed to acquire the tiny Elessar Small Cap Value Fund (LSRIX). It appears that Emerald will manage the fund on a interim basis until June, when shareholders are asked to make it permanent. Not clear when or if the name will change.

Effective March 31, 2015, Henderson Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund (HEMAX) was renamed Henderson Emerging Markets Fund. The current five-person management team has been replaced by Glen Finegan. Finegan had been responsible for about $13 billion as an EM portfolio manager for First State Stewart, an Edinburgh-domiciled investment manager.

Henderson Global Investors (North America) Inc. is the investment adviser of the Fund. Henderson Investment Management Limited is the subadviser of the Fund. Glen Finegan, Head of Global Emerging Markets Equities, Portfolio Manager, has managed the Fund since March 2015.

Effective April 15, 2015, PIMCO Worldwide Long/Short Fundamental Strategy Fund (PWLAX) became PIMCO RAE Worldwide Long/Short PLUS Fund. The fund launched in December 2014 and I’m guessing that “RAE” is linked to its sub-advisor, Research Affiliates, Inc., Rob Arnott’s firm.

Effective March 1, Manning & Napier Dividend Focus Series (MDFSX) changed to the Disciplined Value Series.

Effective on or about May 1, 2015, the following “enhancements” are expected to be made to the Manning & Napier Core Plus Bond Series (EXCPX) – M&N doesn’t admit to having “funds,” they have “series.”

• It’s rechristened the Unconstrained Bond Series
• Its mandate shifts from “long-term total return by investing primarily in fixed income securities” to “long-term total return, and its secondary objective is to provide preservation of capital.”
• It stops buying just bonds and adds purchases of preferred stocks, ETFs and derivatives as well
• It stops focusing on US investment-grade debt and gains the freedom to own up to 50% high yield and up to 50% international, including emerging markets debt. Not clear whether those circles will overlap into EM HY debt.

Other than for those few tweaks, which were certainly not “fundamental,” it remains the same fund that investors have known and tolerated for the past decade.

Ryan Labs has agreed to be purchased by SunLife, whereupon SL acquired Ryan Labs Core Bond Fund (RLCBX). Given that the fund is tiny and launched four months ago, I’d guess that’s not what drove the purchase. In any case, the acquisition might change the fund’s name but apparently not its advisory contract.

Value Line Larger Companies Fund has changed its name to Value Line Larger Companies Focused Fund (VALLX). The plan is to shrink the portfolio from its current 45 stocks down to 30-50. You can see the new focusedness there.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

This feature usually highlights funds slated to disappear in the next month or two. (Thanks to the indefatigable Shadow and the shy ‘n’ retiring Ted for their leads here.) We’re reporting this month on a slightly different phenomenon. A lot of these funds have already liquidated because their boards shortened the period between decision and death from months down to weeks, often three weeks or less. That really doesn’t give investors much time to adjust though I suppose the boards might be following Macbeth’s advice: “If [murder] were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly.”

But what to make of the rest of Macbeth’s insight?

… we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return
To plague the inventor: this even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of our poison’d chalic
To our own lips.

Perhaps that our impulse to sell, to liquidate, to dispatch might come back to bite us in the … uhh, we mean, “to haunt us”? During our conference call, David Berkowitz recounted the findings of a Fidelity study. Fidelity reviewed thousands of the portfolios they manage, trying to discover the shared characteristics of their most successful investors.

Their findings? The best performance came in accounts where the investors were dead or had forgotten that the account even existed.

ALPS Real Asset Income Fund became, on March 31^st, an EX fund.

‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!

‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies!

‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig!

(Monty Python)

BTS Hedged Income Fund (BDIAX), a fund of funds, will disappear on April 27, 2015. Apparently the combination of $300,000 in assets and poor performance weighed against its survival.

Dreyfus Greater China Fund (DPCAX) will be liquidated around May 21, 2015 

Forward Equity Long/Short Fund (FENRX) goes backward, pretty much terminally backward, on April 24, 2015. It’s not a terrible fund, as long/short funds go; it’s just that nobody was interested in investing in it.

The Board of Trustees approved liquidation of the Fountain Short Duration High Income Fund, with the execution carried out March 27, 2015

Harbor Funds’ Board of Trustees has determined to liquidate and dissolve Harbor Emerging Markets Debt Fund (HAEDX) on April 29, 2015. The fund lost roughly 4% over its four-year life while its peers made roughly the same amount. It’s admirable that the fund was doggedly independent of its peers; it’s less admirable that it lost money in 17 calendar months, often while its peers were posting gains. It’s curious that the same team manages another EM debt fund with a dramatically different record of success:

* 05/02/2011

In mid-March, ISI Total Return U.S. Treasury Fund (TRUSX) and North American Government Bond Fund (NOAMX, which had 15% each in Canadian and Mexican bonds) reorganized into Centre Active U.S. Treasury Fund (DHTRX, which has no such exposure to explain its parlous performance); ISI Strategy Fund (STRTX, which holds a 10% bond stake) merged into Centre American Select Equity Fund (DHAMX, which doesn’t but which still manages to trail STRTX, its peers and the S&P 500); and, finally, Managed Municipal Fund (MUNIX, which was also a substantial laggard) was absorbed by Centre Active U.S. Tax Exempt Fund (DHBIX).

On March 13, the Board of Trustees decided to liquidate the tiny, sucky Loomis Sayles International Bond Fund (LSIAX), which will take place around May 15, 2015.

Morgan Stanley finalized in March a fund merger that we highlighted a couple months ago: the five-star, $350 million Morgan Stanley Global Infrastructure Fund (UTLAX) merged into Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund Select Global Infrastructure Portfolio (MTIPX) at the end of March. MTIPX is … uhh, dramatically smaller, more expensive and marginally less successful. No word on whether the five-fold rise in assets at MTIPX will be occasioned by a dramatic expense reduction, or at least a reduction to the level enjoyed by the former UTLAX shareholders.

Pathway Advisors Growth and Income Fund (PWGFX) was closed and liquidated on March 31, 2015. It strikes me as the sort of fund that an adviser might want to sell to someone getting into the business since those filings are a lot cheaper than the initial filings for a new fund. Generally buying a failed fund is undesirable because you’re buying (and hauling along) its failed record, but there are instances like this where the trailing record isn’t disastrous. Curiously, this decision leaves open the family’s other two (weaker, smaller) funds.

On March 12, 2015, the Board of Directors of The Glenmede Fund approved a plan of liquidation and termination for the Glenmede Philadelphia International Fund (GTIIX). On or about May 15, the fund will be liquidated

The Royce Fund’s Board of Trustees recently approved a plan of liquidation for Royce Select Fund II (RSFDX), Royce Enterprise Select Fund (RMISX), Royce SMid-Cap Value Fund (RMVSX), Royce Partners Fund (RPTRX) and Royce Global Dividend Value Fund (RGVDX). In their delicately worded phrase, “the plan will be effective on April 23, 2015.” That puts the plan in contrast to the funds themselves, which were part of the seemingly mindless expansion of the Royce lineup. Between 1962 and 2001, Royce launched nine funds – all domestic small caps. They were acquired by Legg Mason in 2001. Between 2001 and the present, they launched 21 mutual funds and three closed-end funds in a striking array of flavors. Almost none of the newer funds found traction, with 10 of the 21 sitting under $10 million in assets. Shostakovich, one of our discussion board’s most experienced correspondents, pretty much cut to the chase: “Chuck sold his soul. He kept his cashmere sweaters and his bow ties, but he sold his soul. And the devil’s name is Legg Mason.”

Lutherans are a denomination renowned for the impulse toward merger, so it should be no real surprise that Lutheran funds (Thrivent Funds used to be the Aid Association for Lutherans Funds) would follow the same path. On August 28, eight Thrivent funds will become three:

Pending shareholder approval, Touchstone Capital Growth Fund (TSCGX) merges into the Touchstone Large Cap Fund (TACLX) on or about June 26, 2015. Pending that move, Capital Growth is closed to new investors. Not to suggest that anyone is trying to bury a consistently bad record, but the decedent fund is 12 years old where the acquiring fund is barely 12 months old and the decedent is well more than twice the size of its acquirer.

Sometime during the third quarter, Transamerica Tactical Allocation (TTAAX) will merge into Transamerica Tactical Rotation (ATTRX). They were launched on the same day and are managed by the same team, but the Rotation fund has posted far stronger returns. That said, neither fund has attracted serious assets.

The Turner Titan Fund (TTLFX) is now scheduled to be liquidated on April 30, about six weeks later than originally announced. No word as to why. It wasn’t a bad fund as far as long/short funds go but that, sadly, isn’t saying much. It’s up about 22% total since inception in 2011 (right, about 4% a year) against a peer average of 15%. But no one was impressed and the fund never attracted enough assets to cover its cost of operation.

Van Eck Multi-Manager Alternatives Fund VMAAX) “is expected to be liquidated and dissolved on or about June 3, 2015.” $10 million in assets, 2.84% e.r., consistently bottom decile returns. Yeah, it’s about time to go.

On February 25, 2015, the Board of Trustees of the Virtus Opportunities Trust voted to liquidate the Virtus Global Commodities Stock Fund (VGCAX). On or about April 30, 2015, the Fund will be no more. The fund has turned $10,000 invested at inception into $7200, bad even by the standards of the funds in Morningstar’s natural resources category.

In Closing . . .

My friend Linda approaches some holidays, particularly those that lead to her receiving presents, with the mantra “it’s not a day, it’s a season!” We’re taking the same perspective on the Observer’s fourth anniversary. We launched in phases between early April and early May, 2011. April saw the “soft launch” as we got the discussion board and archival fund profiles moved over from our former home as FundAlarm. Since then, something like 550,000 readers have joined us with about 25,000 “unique” visitors each month now. May saw the debut of our first monthly commentary and our first four fund profiles (each of which, by the way, was brilliant).

In that same easy spirit, we rolled out a series of visual upgrades this month. The new design features our trademark owl peering at you from the top of the page, a brighter and more consistent color palette, better response times (pages are loading about 30% faster than before), new Amazon and Paypal badges (try them out! really) and a responsive design that should provide much better readability on smart phones, tablets and other mobile devices.

In May we’ll freshen up our homepage and will look back at the stories and funds that launched the Observer.

Your support, both intellectual and financial, makes that happen. Thanks most immediately go to the Messrs. Gardey & co. at Gardey Financial, to Dan at Callahan Capital, to Capt. Neel (hope retirement is treating you well, sir!), to Ed and Charles (no, not the Ed and Charles whose work appears above; rather, the Ed and Charles who seem to appreciate the yeoman work done by, well, Ed and Charles), to Joseph whom we haven’t met before and Eric E. who’s a sort of repeat offender when it comes to supporting the Observer and, as ever, to our two subscribers. (Deb and Greg have earned the designation by setting up automatic monthly contributions through PayPal. It was even their idea.)

As ever,

Egads! I’ve been unmasked.

Dear friends,

As I begin this essay the thermostat registers an attention-grabbing minus 18 degrees Fahrenheit.  When I peer out of the window nearest my (windowless) office, I’m confronted with:

All of which are sure and certain signs that it’s what? Yes, Spring Break in the Midwest!

Which funds? “Not ours,” saith Fidelity!

If you had a mandate to assemble a portfolio of the stars and were given virtually unlimited resources with which to identify and select the country’s best funds and managers, who would you pick? And, more to the point, how cool would it be to look over the shoulders of those who actually had that mandate and those resources?

Welcome to the world of the Strategic Advisers funds, an arm of Fidelity Investments dedicated to providing personalized portfolios for affluent clients. The pitch is simple: “we can do a better job of finding and matching investment managers, some not accessible to regular people, than you possibly could.” The Strategic Advisers funds have broad mandates, with names like Core Fund (FCSAX) and Value Fund (FVSAX). Most are funds of funds, explicitly including Fidelity funds in their selection universe, or they’re hybrids between a fund-of-funds and a fund where other mutual fund managers contribute individual security names.

SA celebrates its manager research process in depth and in detail. The heart of it, though, is being able to see the future:

Yet all too often, yesterday’s star manager becomes tomorrow’s laggard. For this reason, Strategic Advisers’ investment selection process emphasizes looking forward rather than backward, and seeks consistency, not of performance per se, but of style and process.

They’re looking for transparent, disciplined, repeatable processes, stable management teams and substantial personal investment by the team members.

The Observer researched the top holdings of every Strategic Advisers fund, except for their target-date series since those funds just invest in the other SA funds. Here’s what we found:

A small handful of Fidelity funds found their way in. Only four of the eight domestic equity funds had any Fido fund in the sample and each of those featured just one fund. The net effect: Fidelity places something like 95-98% of their domestic equity money with managers other than their own. Fidelity funds dominate one international equity fund (FUSIX), while getting small slices of three others. Fidelity has little presence in core fixed-income funds but a larger presence in the two high-yield funds.

The Fidelity funds most preferred by the SA analysts are:

Fidelity favors managers that are household names. No “undiscovered gems” here. The portfolios are studded with large, safe bets from BlackRock, JPMorgan, MetWest, PIMCO and T. Rowe.

DFA and Vanguard are missing. Utterly, though whether that’s Fidelity’s decision or not is unknown.

JPMorgan appears to be their favorite outside manager. Five different SA funds have invested in JPMorgan products including Core Bond, Equity Spectrum, Short Duration, US Core Plus Large Cap Select and Value Advantage.

The word “Focus” is notably absent. Core hold 550 positions, including funds and individual securities while Core Multi-Manager holds 360. Core Income holds a thousand while Core Income Multi-Managers holds 240 plus nine mutual funds. International owns two dozen funds and 400 stocks.

Some distinguished small funds do appear further down the portfolios. Pear Tree Polaris Foreign Value (QFVOX) is a 1% position in International. Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries (WAFMX) was awarded a freakish 0.02% of Emerging Markets Fund of Funds (FLILX), as well as 0.6% in Emerging Markets (FSAMX). By and large, though, timidity rules!

Bottom Line: the tyranny of career risk rules! Most professional investors know that it’s better to be wrong with the crowd than wrong by yourself. That’s a rational response to the prospect of being fired, either by your investors or by your supervisor. That same pattern plays out in fund selection committees, including the college committee on which I sit. It’s much more important to be “not wrong” than to be “right.” We prefer choices that we can’t be blamed for. The SA teams have made just such choices: dozens of funds, mostly harmless, and hundreds of stocks, mostly mainstream, in serried ranks.

If you’ve got a full-time staff that’s paid to do nothing else, that might be manageable if not brilliant. For the rest of us, private and professional investors alike, it’s not.

One of the Observers’ hardest tasks is trying to insulate ourselves, and you, from blind adherence to that maxim. One of the reasons we’ll highlight one- and two-star funds, and one of the reasons I’ve invested in several, is to help illustrate the point that you need to look beyond the easy answers and obvious choices. With the steady evolution of our Multi-Search screener, we’re hoping to help folks approach that task more systematically. Details soon!

The Death of “Buy the unloved”

You know what Morningstar would say about a mutual fund that claimed a spiffy 20 year record but has switched managers, dramatically changed its investment strategy, went out of business for several years, and is now run by managers who are warning people not to buy the fund. You can just see the analysts’ soured, disbelieving expression and hear the incredulous “what is this cr…?”

Welcome to the world of Buy the Unloved, which used to be my favorite annual feature. Begun in 1993, the strategy drew up the indisputable observation that investors tend to be terrible at timing: over and over again they sell at the bottom and buy at the top. So here was the strategy: encourage people to buy what everyone else was selling and sell what everyone else was buying. The implementation was simple:

Identify the three fund categories that saw the greatest outflows, measured by percentage of assets, then buy good funds in each of those categories and prepare to hold them for three years. At the same time identify the three fund categories with the greatest inrush and sell them.

I liked it, it worked, then Morningstar stopped publishing it. Investment advisor Neil Stoloff provided an interesting history of the strategy, detailed on pages 12-16 of a 2011 essay he wrote. When they resumed, the strategy had a far more conservative take: buy the three sectors that saw the greatest outflows measured in total dollar volume and hold them, while selling the most popular sectors.

The problem with, and perhaps strength of, the newer version is that it means that you’ll mostly be limited to playing with your core sectors rather than volatile smaller ones. By way of example, large cap blend holds about $1.6 trillion – a 1% outflow there ($16 billion) would be an amount greater than the total assets in any of the 50 smallest fund categories. Large cap growth at $1.2 trillion is close behind.

Oh, by the way, they haven’t traditionally allowed bond funds to play. They track bond flows but, in a private exchange, Mr. Kinnel allowed that “Generally they are too dull to provide much of a signal.”

Morningstar now faces two problems:

1. De facto, the system is rigged to provide “sell” signals on core fund groups.
2. Morningstar is not willing to recommend that you ever sell core fund groups.

Katie Reichart’s 2013 presentation of the strategy (annoying video ahead) warned that “It can be used just on the margin…perhaps for a small percentage of their portfolio.” In 2014, it was “Add some to the unloved pile and trim from the loved” and by 2015 there was a flat-out dismissal of it: “I’m sharing the information for those who want to follow the strategy to the letter–but I wouldn’t do it.”

The headline:	The bottom line:
	So, I’m sharing the information for those who want to follow the strategy to the letter–but I wouldn’t do it. R. Kinnel

So what’s happened? Kinnel’s analysis seems odd but might well be consistent with the data:

But since 2008, performance and flows have decoupled on the asset-class level even though they continue to be linked on a fund level.

Now flows are more linked to headlines. Since 2008, some people have taken a pessimistic (albeit incorrect) view of America’s economy and looked to China as a superior bet. It hasn’t worked that way the past five years, and it leaves us in the odd position of seeing the nature of fund flows change.

I don’t actually know what that means.

Morningstar has released complete 2014 fund flow data, by fund family and fund category. (Thanks, Dan!) It reveals that investors fled from:

• US Large Growth (-41 billion)
• Bank Loans (-20 billion)
• High Yield Bonds (-16 billion).

Since two of the three areas are bonds, you’re not supposed to use those as a signal. And since the other is a core category buffeted by headline risk, really there’s nothing there, either. Further down the list, categories such as commodities and natural resources saw outflows of 10% or so. But those aren’t signals, either.

Whither goest investors?

• US Large Blend (+105 billion)
• International Large Blend (+92 billion)
• Intermediate Bonds (+34 billion)
• Non-traditional Bonds (+23 billion)

Two untouchable core categories, two irrelevant bond ones. Meanwhile, the Multialternative category saw an inrush of about 33% of its assets in a year. Too small in absolute terms to matter.

Bottom Line: Get serious or get rid of it. The underlying logic of the strategy is psychological: investors are too cowardly to do the right thing. On face, that’s afflicting Morningstar’s approach to the feature. If the data says it works, they need to screw up their courage and announce the unpopular fact that it might be time to back away from core stock categories. If the data says it doesn’t work, they need to screw up their courage, explain the data and end the game.

The current version, “for amusement only,” version serves no real purpose and no one’s interest.

Whitebox Tactical Opportunities 4Q14 Conference Call 

Portfolio managers Andrew Redleaf and Dr. Jason Cross, along with Whitebox Funds’ President Bruce Nordin and Mike Coffey, Head of Mutual Fund Distribution, hosted the 4^th quarter conference call for their Tactical Opportunities Fund (WBMIX) on February 26. Robert Vogel and Paul Twitchell, the fund’s third and fourth portfolio managers, did not participate.

Prolific MFO board contributor Scott first made us aware of the fund in August 2012 with the post “Somewhat Interesting Tiny Fund.” David profiled its more market neutral and less tactical (less directionally oriented) sibling WBLFX in April 2013. I discussed WBMIX in the October 2013 commentary, calling the fund proper “increasingly hard to ignore.” Although the fund proper was young, it possessed the potential to be “on the short list … for those who simply want to hold one all-weather fund.”

WBMIX recently pasted its three year mark and at $865M AUM is no longer tiny. Today’s question is whether it remains an interesting and compelling option for those investors looking for alternatives to the traditional 60/40 balanced fund at a time of interest rate uncertainty and given the two significant equity drawdowns since 2000.

Mr. Redleaf launched the call by summarizing two major convictions:

• The US equity market is “expensive by just about any measure.” He noted examples like market cap to GDP or Shiller CAPE, comparing certain valuations to pre great recession and even pre great depression. At such valuations, expected returns are small and do not warrant the downside risk they bear, believing there is a “real chance of 20-30-40 even 50% retraction.” In short, “great risk in hope of small gain.”

• The global markets are fraught with risk, still recovering from the great recession. He explained that we were in the “fourth phase of government action.” He called the current phase competitive currency devaluation, which he believes “cannot work.” It provides temporary relief at best and longer term does more harm than good. He seems to support only the initial phase of government stimulus, which “helped markets avert Armageddon.” The last two phases, which included the zero interest rate policy (ZIRP), have done little to increase top-line growth.

Consequently, toward middle of last year, Tactical Opportunities (TO) moved away from its long bias to market neutral. Mr. Redleaf explained the portfolio now looks to be long “reasonably priced” (since cheap is hard to find) quality companies and be short over-priced storybook companies (some coined “Never, Nevers”) that would take many years, like 17, of uninterrupted growth to justify current prices.

The following table from its recent quarterly commentary illustrates the rationale:

Mr. Redleaf holds a deep contrarian view of efficient market theory. He works to exploit market irrationalities, inefficiencies, and so-called dislocations, like “mispriced securities that have a relationship to each other,” or so-called “value arbitrage.” Consistently guarding against extreme risk, the firm would never put on a naked short. Its annual report reads “…a hedge is itself an investment in which we believe and one that adds, not sacrifices returns.”

But that does not mean it will not have periods of underperformance and even drawdown. If the traditional 60/40 balanced fund performance represents the “Mr. Market Bus,” Whitebox chose to exit middle of last year. As can be seen in the graph of total return growth since WBMIX inception, Mr. Redleaf seems to be in good company.

Whether the “exit” was a because of deliberate tactical moves, like a market-neutral stance, or because particular trades, especially long/short trades went wrong, or both … many alternative funds missed-out on much of the market’s gains this past year, as evidenced in following chart:

But TO did not just miss much of the upside, it’s actually retracted 8% through February, based on month ending total returns, the greatest amount since its inception in December 2011; in fact, it has been retracting for ten consecutive months. Their explanation:

Our view of current opportunity has been about 180 degrees opposite Mr. Market’s. Currently, we love what we’d call “intelligent value” while Mr. Market apparently seems infatuated with what we’d call “unsustainable growth.”

Put bluntly, the stocks we disfavored most (and were short) were among the stocks investors remained enamored with.

A more conservative strategy would call for moving assets to cash. (Funds like ASTON RiverRoad Independent Value, which has about 75% cash. Pinnacle Value at 50%. And, FPA Crescent at 44%.) But TO is more aggressive, with attendant volatilities above 75% of SP500, as it strives to “produce competitive returns under multiple scenarios.” This aspect of the fund is more evident now than back in October 2013.

Comparing its performance since launch against other long-short peers and some notable alternatives, WBMIX now falls in the middle of the pack, after a strong start in 2012/13 but disappointing 2014:

From the beginning, Mr. Redleaf has hoped TO would be judged in comparison to top endowments. Below are a couple comparisons, first against Yale and Harvard, which report on fiscal basis, and second against a simple Ivy asset allocation (computed using Alpha Architect’s Allocation Tool) and Vanguard’s 60/40 Balanced Index. Again, a strong showing in 2012/13, but 2014 was a tough year for TO (and Ivy).

Looking beyond strategy and performance, the folks at Whitebox continue to distinguish themselves as leaders in shareholder friendliness – a much welcomed and refreshing attribute, particularly with former hedge fund shops now offering the mutual funds and ETFs. Since last report:

• They maintain a “culture of transparency and integrity,” like their name suggests providing timely and thoughtful quarterly commentaries, published on their public website, not just for advisors. (In stark contrast to other firms, like AQR Funds, which in the past have stopped publishing commentaries during periods of underperformance, no longer make commentaries available without an account, and cater to Accredited Investors and Qualified Eligible Persons.)
• They now benchmark against SP500 total return, not just SPX.
• They eliminated the loaded advisor share class.
• Their expense ratio is well below peer average. Institutional shares, available at some brokerages for accounts with $100K minimum, have been running between 1.25-1.35%. They impose a voluntary cap of 1.35%, which must be approved by its board annually, but they have no intention of ever raising … just the opposite as AUM grows, says Mr. Coffey. (The cap is 1.6% for investor shares, symbol WBMAX.)

These ratios exclude the mandatory reporting of dividend and interest expense on short sales and acquired fund fees, which make all long/short funds inherently more expensive than long only equity funds. The former has been running about 1%, while the latter is minimal with selective index ETFs.

• They do not charge a short-term redemption fee.

All that said, they could do even better going forward:

• While Mr. Redleaf has over $1M invested directly with the fund, the most recent SAI dated 15 January 2015, indicates that the other three portfolio managers have zero stake. A spokesman for the fund defends “…as a smaller company, the partners’ investment is implicit rather than explicit. They have ‘Skin in the game,’ as a successful Tac Ops increases Whitebox’s profitability and on the other side of the coin, they stand to lose.”

David, of course, would argue that there is an important difference: Direct shareholders of a fund gain or lose based on fund performance, whereas firm owners gain or lose based on AUM.

Ed, author of two articles on “Skin in the Game” (Part I & Part II), would warn: “If you want to get rich, it’s easier to do so by investing the wealth of others than investing your own money.”

• Similarly, the SAI shows only one of its four trustees with any direct stake in the fund.
• They continue to impose a 12b-1 fee on their investor share class. A simpler and more equitable approach would be to maintain a single share class eliminating this fee and continue to charge lowest expenses possible.
• They continue to practice a so-called “soft money” policy, which means the fund “may pay higher commission rates than the lowest available” on broker transactions in exchange for research services. Unfortunately, this practice is widespread in the industry and investors end-up paying an expense that should be paid for by the adviser.

In conclusion, does the fund’s strategy remain interesting? Absolutely. Thoughtfulness, logic, and “arithmetic” are evident in each trade, in each hedge. Those trades can include broad asset classes, wherever Mr. Redleaf and team deem there are mispriced opportunities at acceptable risk.

Another example mentioned on the call is their longstanding large versus small theme. They believe that small caps are systematically overpriced, so they have been long on large caps while short on small caps. They have seen few opportunities in the credit markets, but given the recent fall in the energy sector, that may be changing. And, finally, first mentioned as a potential opportunity in 2013, a recent theme is their so-called “E-Trade … a three‐legged position in which we are short Italian and French sovereign debt, short the euro (currency) via put options, and long US debt.”

Does the fund’s strategy remain compelling enough to be a candidate for your one all-weather fund? If you share a macro-“market” view similar to the one articulated above by Mr. Redleaf, the answer to that may be yes, particularly if your risk temperament is aggressive and your timeline is say 7-10 years. But such contrarianism comes with a price, shorter-term at least.

During the call, Dr. Cross addressed the current drawdown, stating that “the fund would rather be down 8% than down 30% … so that it can be positioned to take advantage.” This “positioning” may turn out to be the right move, but when he said it, I could not help but think of a recent post by MFO board member Tampa Bay:

“Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in corrections themselves.” – Peter Lynch 

Mr. Redleaf is no ordinary investor, of course. His bet against mortgages in 2008 is legendary. Whitebox Advisers, LLC, which he founded in 1999 in Minneapolis, now manages more than $4B.

He concluded the call by stating the “path to victory” for the fund’s current “intelligent value” strategy is one of two ways: 1) a significant correction from current valuations, or 2) a fully recovered economy with genuine top-line growth.

Whitebox Tactical Opportunities is facing its first real test as a mutual fund. While investors may forgive not making money during an upward market, they are notoriously unforgiving losing money (eg., Fairholme 2011), perhaps unfairly and perhaps to their own detriment, but even over relatively short spans and even if done in pursuit of “efficient management of risk.”

We’ve Seen This Movie Before

By Edward Studzinski

“We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe.”          Goethe

For students of the stock market, one of the better reads is John Brooks’, The Go-Go Years.   It did a wonderful job of describing the rather manic era of the 60’s and 70’s (pre-1973). One of the arguments made then was that the older generation of money managers was out of touch with both technology and new investment ideas. This resulted in a youth movement on Wall Street, especially in the investment management firms. You needed to have a “kid” as a portfolio manager, which was taken to its logical conclusion in a cartoon which showed an approximately ten-year old sitting behind a desk, looking at a Quotron machine. Around 2000, a similar youth movement came along during the dot.com craze, where once again investment managers, especially value managers, were told that their era was over, that they didn’t understand the new way and new wave of investing. Each of those two eras ended badly for those who had entrusted their assets to what was in vogue at the time.

In 2008, we had a period of over-valuation in the markets that was pretty clear in terms of equities. We also had what appears in retrospect to have been the deliberate misrepresentation and marketing of certain categories of fixed income investments to those who should have known better and did not. This resulted in a market meltdown that caused substantial drawdowns in value for many equity mutual funds, in a range of forty to sixty per cent, causing many small investors to panic and suffer a permanent loss of capital which many of them could not afford nor replace. The argument of many fund managers who had invested in their own funds (and as David has often written about, many do not), was that they too had skin in the game, and suffered the losses alongside of their investors.

Let’s run some simple math. Assume a fund management firm that at 2/27/2015 has $100 billion in assets under management. Assets are equities, a mix of international and domestic, the international with fees and expenses of 1.30% and the domestic with fees and expenses of 0.90%. Let’s assume a 50/50 international/domestic split of assets, so $50 billion at 0.90% and $50 billion at 1.30%. This results in $1.1billion in fees and expenses to the management company. Assuming $300 million goes in expenses to non-investment personnel, overhead, and the other expenses that you read about in the prospectus, you could have $800 million to be divided amongst the equity owners of the management firm. In a world of Marxian simplicity, each partner is getting $40 million dollars a year. But, things are often not simple if we take the PIMCO example. Allianz as owners of the firm, having funded through their acquisitions the buy-out of the founders, may take 50% of profits or revenues off the top. So, each equal-weighted equity owner may only be getting paid $20 million a year. Assets under management may go down with the market sell-off so that fees going forward go down. But it should be obvious that average mutual fund investors are not at parity with the fund managers in risk exposure or tolerance.

Why am I beating this horse into the ground again? U.S. economic growth for the final quarter was revised down from the first reported estimate of 2.6% to 2.2%. More than 440 of the companies in the S&P 500 index had reported Q4 numbers by the end of last week showed revenue growth of 1.5% versus 4.1% in the previous quarter. Earnings increased at an annual rate that had slowed to 5.9% from 10.4% in the previous quarter. Earnings downgrades have become more frequent. 

Why then has the market been rising – faith in the Federal Reserve’s QE policy of bond repurchases (now ended) and their policy of keeping rates low. Things on the economic front are not as good as we are being told. But my real concern is that we have become detached from thinking about the value of individual investments, the margin of safety or lack thereof, and our respective time horizons and risk tolerances. And I will not go into at this time, how much deflation and slowing economies are of concern in the rest of the world.

Look at the energy sector, where the price of oil has come down more than 50% since the 2014 high. Each time we see a movement in the price of oil, as well as in the futures, we see swings in the equity prices of energy companies. Should the valuations of those companies be moving in sync with energy prices, and are the balance sheets of each of those companies equal? No, what you are seeing is the algorithmic trading programs kicking in, with large institutional investors and hedge funds trying to grind out profits from the increased volatility. Most of the readers of this publication are not playing the same game. Indeed they are unable to play that game. 

So I say again, focus upon your time horizons and risk tolerance. If your investment pool represents the accumulation of your life’s work and retirement savings, your focus should be not on how much you can make but rather how much you can afford to lose. As the U.S. equity market has continued to hit one record high after another,  recognize that it is getting close to trading at nearly thirty times long-term, inflation-adjusted earnings. In 2014, the S&P 500 did not fall for more than three consecutive days.

We are in la-la land, and there is little margin for error in most investment opportunities. On January 15, 2015, when the Swiss National Bank eliminated its currency’s Euro-peg, the value of that currency moved 30% in minutes, wiping out many currency traders in what were thought to be low-risk arbitrage-like investments. 

What should this mean for readers of this publication? We at MFO have been looking for absolute value investors. I can tell you that they are in short supply. Charlie Munger had some good advice recently, which others have quoted and I will paraphrase. Focus on doing the easy things. Investment decisions or choices that are complex, and by that I mean things that include shorting stocks, futures, and the like – leave that to others. One of the more brilliant value investors and a contemporary of Benjamin Graham, Irving Kahn, passed away last week. He did very well with 50% of his assets in cash and 50% of his assets in equities. For most of us, the cash serves as a buffer and as a reserve for when the real, once in a lifetime, opportunities arise. I will close now, as is my wont, with a quote from a book, The Last Supper, by one of the great, under-appreciated American authors, Charles McCarry. “Do you know what makes a man a genius? The ability to see the obvious. Practically nobody can do that.”

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 Lawsuits

The Calamos Growth Fund is the subject of a new section 36(b) lawsuit that alleges excessive advisory and 12b-1 fees. The complaint alleges that Calamos extracted higher investment advisory fees from the Growth Fund than from “third-party, arm’s length institutional clients,” even though advisory services were “similar” and “in some cases effectively identical.” (Chill v. Calamos Advisors LLC.)

A new lawsuit accuses T. Rowe Price of infringing several patents relating to management of its target-date funds. (GRQ Inv. Mgmt., LLC v. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.)

New Appeal

Plaintiffs have appealed a district court’s dismissal of state-law claims against Vanguard regarding fund holdings of gambling-related securities. The district court held that the claims were time barred and, alternatively, that the fund board’s refusal to pursue plaintiffs’ litigation demand was protected by the business judgment rule. Defendants include independent directors. (Hartsel v. Vanguard Group, Inc.)

Settlements

ERISA class action plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to settle their claims against Northern Trust for $36 million. The lawsuit alleged mismanagement of the securities lending program in which collective trust funds participated. (Diebold v. N. Trust Invs., N.A.)

In an interrelated class action against Northern Trust that asserts non-ERISA claims, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to partially settle the lawsuit for $24 million. The settlement covers plaintiffs who participated in the securities lending program indirectly (i.e., through investments in commingled investment funds); the litigation will continue with respect to plaintiffs who participated directly (i.e., through a securities lending agreement with Northern Trust). (La. Firefighters’ Ret. Sys. v. N. Trust Invs., N.A.)

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and news from DailyAlts.

By Brian Haskin, editor of DailyAlts.com

February is in the books, and fortunately it ended with a significant decline in volatility, and a nice rally in the equity market. Bonds took it on the chin as rates rose over the month, but commodities rallied on the back of rising oil prices over the month. In the alternative mutual fund are, all of the major categories put up positive returns over the month, with long/short equity leading the way with a category return of 1.88%, according to Morningstar. Multi-alternative funds posted a category return of 0.98%, while non-traditional bonds ended the month 0.88% higher and managed futures funds added 0.47%.

Industry Evolution

The liquid alternatives industry continues to evolve in many ways, the most obvious of which is the continuous launch of new funds. However, we are now beginning to see more activity and consolidation of players at the company level. In December of 2014, we ended the year with New York Life’s MainStay arm purchasing IndexIQ, an alternative ETF provider. This acquisition gave MainStay immediate access to two of the hottest segments of the investment field, all in one package: active ETFs and liquid alternatives.

In February, we saw two more firms combine forces with Salient Partner’s purchase of Forward Management. Both firms have strong footholds in the liquid alternatives market, and the combination of the two firms will expend both their product platforms and distribution capabilities. Scale becomes more important as competition continues to grow. Expect more mergers over the year as firms jockey for position.

Waking Giants

Aside from merger activity, some firms just finally wake up and realize there is an opportunity passing them by. Columbia Management is one of them. The firm has been making some moves over the past few months with new hires and product filings, and finally put the pedal to the metal this month and launched a new alternative mutual fund in partnership with Blackstone. At the same time, Columbia rationalized some of their existing offerings and announced the termination terminated three alternative mutual funds that were launched more than three years ago.

In addition to Columbia, American Century has decided to formalize their liquid alternatives business with new branding (AC Alternatives) and three new alternative mutual funds. These new funds join a stable of two equity market neutral funds and two long/short “130-30” funds (these funds remain beta 1 funds but increase their long exposure to 130% of the portfolio’s value and offset that with 30% shorting, bringing the fund to a net long position of 100%). With at least five alternative mutual funds (the 130-30 funds are technically not liquid alternatives since they are beta 1 funds), American Century will have a solid stable of products to roll under their new AC Alternatives brand that has been created just for their liquid alternatives business.

Featured New Funds

February new fund activity picked up over January with a few notable new funds that hit the market. One theme that has emerged is the growth of globally focused long/short equity funds. Up until last year, a large majority of long/short equity funds were focused on US equities, however last year, firms began introducing funds that could invest in globally developed and emerging markets. The Boston Partners Global Long/Short Fund was one of note, and was launched after the firm had closed its first two long/short equity funds.

This increased diversity of funds is good for both asset managers and investors. Asset managers have a larger global pond in which to fish, thus creating more opportunities, while investors can diversify across both domestic and globally focused funds. Four new funds of note are as follows:

Meeder Spectrum Fund – This is the firm’s first alternative mutual fund, but not their first unconstrained fund. The fund will use a quantitative process to create a globally allocated long/short equity fund, and will use both stocks and other mutual funds or ETFs to implement its strategy. The fund’s management fee is a reasonable 0.75%.

Stone Toro Market Neutral Fund – While described as market neutral, the fund can move between -10% net short to +60% net long. This means that the fund will likely have some beta exposure, but it does allocate globally to both developed and emerging market stocks using an arbitrage approach that looks for structural imperfections related to investor behavior and corporate actions. This is different from the traditional valuation driven approach and could prove to add some value in ways other funds will not.

PIMCO Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund – This fund will allocate to a range of PIMCO alternative mutual funds, including alternative asset classes such as commodities and real assets. Research Affiliates will also sub-advise on the fund and assist in the allocation to funds advised by Research Affiliates.

Columbia Adaptive Alternatives Fund – launched in partnership with Blackstone, this fund invests across three different sleeves (one of which is managed by Blackstone), and allocates to twelve different investment strategies. Lots of complexity here – give it time to see what it can deliver.

While there is plenty more news and fund activity to discuss, let’s call it a wrap there. If you would like to receive daily or weekly updates on liquid alternatives, feel free to sign up for our free newsletter: http://dailyalts.com/mailinglist.php.

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.

Northern Global Tactical Asset Allocation (BBALX): This fund is many things: broadly diversified, well designed, disciplined, low priced and successful. It is not, however, a typical “moderate allocation” fund. As such, it’s imperative to get past the misleading star rating (which has ranged from two to five) to understand the fund’s distinctive and considerable strengths.

Pinnacle Value (PVFIX): If they (accurately) rebranded this as Pinnacle Hedged Microcap Value, the liquid alts crowd would be pounding on the door (and Mr. Deysher would likely be bolting it). While it doesn’t bear the name, the effect is the same: hedged exposure to a volatile asset class with a risk-return profile that’s distinctly asymmetrical to the upside.

Elevator Talk: Waldemar Mozes, ASTON/TAMRO International Small Cap (AROWX/ATRWX)

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.

Waldemar Mozes manages AROWX which launched at the end of December 2014. The underlying strategy, however, has a record that’s either a bit longer or a lot longer, depending on whether you’re looking at the launch of separately managed accounts in this style (from April 2013) or the launch of TAMRO’s investment strategy (2000), of which this is just a special application. Mr. Mozes joined TAMRO in 2008 after stints with Artisan Partners and The Capital Group, adviser to the American Funds.

TAMRO uses the same strategy in their private accounts and all three of the funds they sub-advise for Aston:

… we identify undervalued companies with a competitive advantage. We attempt to mitigate our investment risk by purchasing stocks where, by our calculation, the potential gain is at least three times the potential loss (an Upside reward-to-Downside risk ratio of 3:1 or greater). While our investments fall into three different categories – Leaders, Laggards and Innovators – all share the key characteristics of success:

• Differentiated product or service offering

• Capable and motivated leadership

• Financial flexibility

As a business development matter, Mr. Mozes proposed extending the strategy to the international small cap arena. There are at least three reasons why that made sense:

• The ISC universe is huge. Depending on who’s doing the calculation, there are 10,000 – 25,000 stocks.
• It is the one area demonstrably ripe for active managers to add value. The average ISC stock is covered by fewer than five analysts and it’s the only area where the data shows the majority of active managers consistently outperforming passive products. Across standard trailing time periods, international small caps outperform international large caps with higher Sharpe and Sortino ratios.
• Most investors are underexposed to it. International index funds (e.g, BlackRock International Index MDIIX, Schwab International IndexSWISX, Rowe Price International Index PIEQX or Vanguard Total International Stock Index VGTSX) typically commit somewhere between none of their portfolio (BlackRock, Price, Schwab) to up a tiny slice (Vanguard) to small caps. Of the 10 largest actively managed international funds, only one has more than 2% in small caps.

There are very few true international small cap funds worth examining since most that claim to be small cap actually invest more in mid- and large-cap stocks than in actual small caps. Here are Waldemar’s 268 words on why you should add AROWX to your due-diligence list:

At TAMRO, our objective is to invest in high-quality companies trading below their intrinsic value due to market misperceptions. This philosophy has enabled our domestic small cap strategy to beat its benchmark, 10 of the past 14 calendar years. We’re confident, after 3+ years of rigorous testing and nearly a two-year composite performance track record, that it will work for international small cap too. 

Here’s why:

Bigger Universe = Bigger Opportunity. The international equity universe is three times larger than the domestic universe and probably contains both three times as many high-quality and three times as many poorly-run companies. We exploit this weakness by focusing on quality: businesses that generate high and consistent ROIC/ROE, are run by skilled capital allocators, and produce enough free cash flow to self-fund growth without excessive leverage or dilution. But we also care deeply about downside risk, which is why our valuation mantra is: the price you pay dictates your return.

GDP Always Growing Somewhere. Smaller companies tend to be the engines of local economic growth and GDP is always growing somewhere. We use a proprietary screening tool that provides a timely list of potential research ideas based on fundamental and valuation characteristics. It’s not a black box, but it does flag companies, industries, or countries that might otherwise be overlooked.

Something Different. One reason international small-cap as an asset class has such great appeal is lower correlation. We strive to build on this advantage with a concentrated (40-60 positions), quality-biased portfolio. Ultimately, we care little about growth/value styles and focus on market-beating returns with high active share, low tracking error, and low turnover.

ASTON/TAMRO International Small Cap has a $2500 minimum initial investment which is reduced to $500 for IRAs and other types of tax-advantaged accounts. Expenses are capped at 1.50% on the investor shares and 1.25% for institutional shares, with a 2.0% redemption fee on shares sold within 90 days. The fund has about gathered about $1.3 million in assets since its December 2014 launch. Here’s the fund’s homepage. It’s understandably thin on content yet but there’s some fairly rich analysis on the TAMRO Capital page devoted to the underlying strategy.

Conference Call Highlights: Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators

Every month through the winter, the Observer conspires to give folks the opportunity to do something rare and valuable: to hear directly from managers, to put questions to them in-person and to listen to the quality of the unfiltered answers. A lot of funds sponsor quarterly conference calls, generally web-based. Of necessity, those are cautious affairs, with carefully screened questions and an acute awareness that the compliance folks are sitting there. Most of the ones I’ve attended are also plagued by something called a “slide deck,” which generally turns out to be a numbing array of superfluous PowerPoint slides. We try to do something simpler and more useful: find really interesting folks, let them talk for just a little while and then ask them intelligent questions – yours and mine – that they don’t get to rehearse the answers to. Why? Because the better you understand how a manager thinks and acts, the more likely you are to make a good decision about one.

In February with spoke with Matthew Page and Ian Mortimer of the Guinness Atkinson funds. Both of their funds have remarkable track records, we’ve profiled both and I’ve had good conversations with the team on several occasions. Here’s what we heard on the call.

The guys run two strategies for US investors. The older one, Global Innovators, is a growth strategy that Guinness has been pursuing for 15 years. The newer one, Dividend Builder, is a value strategy that the managers propounded on their own in response to a challenge from founder Tim Guinness. These strategies are manifested in “mirror funds” open to European investors. Curiously, American investors seem taken by the growth strategy ($180M in the US, $30M in the Euro version) while European investors are prone to value ($6M in the US, $120M in the Euro). Both managers have an ownership stake in Guinness Atkinson and hope to work there for 30 years, neither is legally permitted to invest in the US version of the strategy, both intend – following some paperwork – to invest their pensions in the Dublin-based version. The paperwork hang up seems to affect, primarily, the newer Dividend Builder (in Europe, “Global Equity Income”) strategy and I failed to ask directly about personal investment in the older strategy.

The growth strategy, Global Innovators IWIRX, starts by looking for firms “doing something smarter than the average company in their industry. Being smarter translates, over time, to higher return on capital, which is the key to all we do.” They then buy those companies when they’re underpriced. The fund holds 30 equally-weighted positions.

Innovators come in two flavors: disruptors – early stage growth companies, perhaps with recent IPOs, that have everyone excited and continuous improvers – firms with a long history of using innovation to maintain consistently high ROC. In general, the guys prefer the latter because the former tend to be wildly overpriced and haven’t proven their ability to translate excitement into growth.

The example they pointed to was the IPO market. Last year they looked at 180 IPOs. Only 60 of those were profitable firms and only 6 or 7 of the stocks were reasonably priced (p/e under 20). Of those six, exactly one had a good ROC profile but its debt/equity ratio was greater than 300%. So none of them ended up in the portfolio. Matthew observes that their portfolio is “not pure disruptors. Though those can make you look extremely clever when they go right, they also make you look extremely stupid when they go wrong. We would prefer to avoid that outcome.”

This also means that they are not looking for a portfolio of “the most innovative companies in the world.” A commitment to innovation provides a prism or lens through which to identify excellent growth companies. That’s illustrated in the separate paths into the portfolio taken by disruptors and continuous improvers. With early stage disruptors, the managers begin by looking for evidence that a firm is truly innovative (for example, by looking at industry coverage in Fast Company or MIT’s Technology Review) and then look at the prospect that innovation will produce consistent, affordable growth. For the established firms, the team starts with their quantitative screen that finds firms with top 25% return on capital scores in every one of the past ten years, then they pursue a “very subjective qualitative assessment of whether they’re innovative, how they might be and how those innovations drive growth.”

In both cases, they have a “watch list” of about 200-250 companies but their discipline tends to keep many of the disruptors out because of concerns about sustainability and price. Currently there might be one early stage firm in the portfolio and lots of Boeing, Intel, and Cisco.

They sell when price appreciates (they sold Shire pharmaceuticals after eight months because of an 80% share-price rise), fundamentals deteriorate (fairly rare – of the firms that pass the 10 year ROC screen, 80% will continue passing the screen for each of the subsequent five years) or the firm seems to have lost its way (shifting, for example, from organic growth to growth-through-acquisition).

The value strategy, Dividend Builder GAINX is a permutation of the growth strategy’s approach to well-established firms. The value strategy looks only at dividend-paying companies that have provided an inflation-adjusted cash flow return on investment of at least 10% in each of the last 10 years. The secondary screens require at least a moderate dividend yield, a history of rising dividends, low levels of debt and a low payout ratio. In general, they found a high dividend strategy to be a loser and a dividend growth one to be a winner.

In general, the guys are “keen to avoid getting sucked into exciting stories or areas of great media interest. We’re physicists, and we quite like numbers rather than stories.” They believe that’s a competitive advantage, in part because listening to the numbers rather than the stories and maintaining a compact, equal-weight portfolio both tends to distance them from the herd. The growth strategy’s active share, for instance, is 94. That’s extraordinarily high for a strategy with a de facto large cap emphasis.

Bottom line: I’m intrigued by the fact that this fund has consistently outperformed both as a passive product and as an active one and with three different sets of managers. The gain is likely a product of what their discipline consciously and uniquely excludes, firms that don’t invest in their futures, as what it includes. The managers’ training as physicists, guys avowedly wary of “compelling narratives” and charismatic CEOs, adds another layer of distinction.

We’ve gathered all of the information available on the two Guinness Atkinson funds, including an .mp3 of the conference call, into its new Featured Fund page. Feel free to visit!

Conference Call Upcoming: RiverPark Focused Value

We’d be delighted if you’d join us on Tuesday, March 17^th, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern, for a conversation with David Berkowitz and Morty Schaja of the RiverPark Funds. Mr. Berkowitz has been appointed as RiverPark’s co-chief investment officer and is set to manage the newly-christened RiverPark Focused Value Fund (RFVIX/RFVFX) which will launch on March 31.

It’s unprecedented for us to devote a conference call to a manager whose fund has not launched, much less one who also has no public performance record. So why did we?

Mr. Berkowitz seems to have had an eventful career. Morty describes it this way:

David’s investment career began in 1992, when, with a classmate from business school, he founded Gotham Partners, a value-oriented investment partnership. David co-managed Gotham from inception through 2002. In 2003, he joined the Jack Parker Corporation, a New York family office, as Chief Investment Officer; in 2006, he launched Festina Lente, a value-oriented investment partnership; and in 2009 joined Ziff Brothers Investments where he was a Partner and Chief Risk and Strategy Officer.

It will be interesting to talk about why a public fund for the merely affluent is a logical next step in his career and how he imagines the structural differences might translate to differences in his portfolio.

RiverPark’s record on identifying first-tier talent is really good. Pretty much all of the RiverPark funds have met or exceeded any reasonable expectation. In addition, they tend to be distinctive funds that don’t fit neatly into style boxes or fund categories. In general they represent thoughtful, distinctive strategies that have been well executed.

Good value investors are in increasingly short supply. When you reach the point that everyone’s a value investor, then no one is. It becomes just a sort of rhetorical flourish, devoid of substance. As the market ascends year after year, fewer managers take the career risk of holding out for deeply-discounted stocks. Mr. Berkowitz professes a commitment to a compact, high commitment portfolio aiming for “substantial discounts to conservative assessments of value.” As a corollary to a “high commitment” mindset, Mr. Berkowitz is committing $10 million of his own money to seed the fund, an amount supplemented by $2 million from the other RiverPark folk. It’s a promising gesture.

Andrew Foster of Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX) has agreed to join us on April 16. We’ll share details in our April issue.

HOW CAN YOU JOIN IN? 

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

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

WOULD AN ADDITIONAL HEADS UP HELP?

Over four 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.

Launch Alert

At the end of January, T. Rowe Price launched their first two global bond funds. The more interesting of the two might be T. Rowe Price Global High Income Bond Fund (RPIHX). The fund will seek high income, with the prospect of some capital appreciation. The plan is to invest in a global portfolio of corporate and government high yield bonds and in floating rate bank loans.  The portfolio sports a 5.86% dividend yield.

It’s interesting, primarily, because of the strength of its lead managers.  It will be managed by Michael Della Vedova and Mark Vaselkiv. Mr. Della Vedova runs Price’s European high-yield fund, which Morningstar UK rates as a four-star fund with above average returns and just average risk.  Before joining Price in 2009, he was a cofounder and partner of Four Quarter Capital, a credit hedge fund focusing on high-yield European corporate debt.  There’s a video interview with Mr. Della Vedova on Morningstar’s UK site. (Warning: the video begins playing automatically and somewhat loudly.) Mr. Vaselkiv manages Price’s first-rate high yield bond fund which is closed to new investors. He’s been running the fund since 1996 and has beaten 80% of his peers by doing what Price is famous for: consistent, disciplined performance, lots of singles and no attempts to goose returns by swinging for the fences. His caution might be especially helpful now if he’s right that we’re “in the late innings of an amazing cycle.” With European beginning to experiment with negative interest rates on its investment grade debt, carefully casting a wider net might well be in order.

The opening expense ratio is 0.85%. The minimum initial investment is $2,500, reduced to $1,000 for IRAs.

Funds in Registration

After months of decline, the number of new no-load funds in the pipeline, those in registration with the SEC for April launch, has rebounded a bit. There are at least 16 new funds on the way.  A couple make me just shake my head, though they certainly will have appeal to fans of Rube Goldberg’s work. There are also a couple niche funds – a luxury brands fund and an Asian sustainability one – that might have merit beyond their marketing value, though I’m dubious. That said, there are also a handful of intriguing possibilities:

American Century is launching a series of multi-manager alternative strategies funds.

Brown Advisory is launching a global leaders fund run by a former be head of Asian equities for HSBC.

Brown Capital Management is planning an international small cap fund run by the same team that manages their international large growth fund.

They’re all detailed on the Funds in Registration page.

Manager Changes

February was a month that saw a number of remarkable souls passing from this vale of tears. Irving Kahn, Benjamin Graham’s teaching assistant and Warren Buffett’s teacher, passed away at 109. All of his siblings also lived over 100 years. Jason Zweig published a nice remembrance of him, “Investor Irving Kahn, Disciple of Benjamin Graham, Dies at 109,” which you can read if you Google the title but which I can’t directly link to.  Leonard Nimoy, whose first autobiography was entitled I Am Not Spock (1975), died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at age 83. He had a global following, not least among mixed-race youth who found solace in the character Spock’s mixed heritage. Of immediate relevance to this column, Don Hodges, founder of the Hodges Funds, passed away in late January at age 80. He’d been a professional investor for 50 years and was actively managing several of the Hodges Funds until a few weeks before his death.

You can see all of the comings and goings on our Manager Changes page.

Updates

Bretton Fund (BRTNX) is a small, concentrated portfolio managed by Stephen Dodson. The fund launched in 2010 in an attempt to bring a Buffett-like approach to the world of funds. In thinking about his new firm and its discipline, he was struck by a paradox: almost all investment professionals worshipped Warren Buffett, but almost none attempted to invest like him. Stephen’s estimate is that there are “a ton” of concentrated long-term value hedge funds, but fewer than 20 mutual funds (Pinnacle Value PVFIX and The Cook and Bynum Fund COBYX, for example) that follow Buffett’s discipline: he invests in “a small number of good business he believes that he understands and that are trading at a significant discount to what they believe they’re worth.” Stephen seemed particularly struck by his interviews of managers who run successful, conventional equity funds: 50-100 stocks and a portfolio sensitive to the sector-weightings in some index.

I asked each of them, “How would you invest if it was only your money and you never had to report to outside shareholders but you needed to sort of protect and grow this capital at an attractive rate for the rest of your life, how would you invest. Would you invest in the same approach, 50-100 stocks across all sectors.” And they said, “absolutely not. I’d only invest in my 10-20 best ideas.” 

One element of Stephen’s discipline is that he only invests in companies and industries that he understands; that is, he invests within a self-defined “circle of competence.”

In February he moved to dramatically expand that circle by adding Raphael de Balmann as co-principal of the adviser and co-manager of BRTNX. Messrs. Dodson and de Balmann have known each other for a long time and talk regularly and he seems to have strengths complementary to Mr. Dodson’s. De Balmann has primarily been a private equity investor, where Dodson has been public equity. De Balmann is passionate about understanding the sources and sustainability of cash flows, Dodson is stronger on analyzing earnings. De Balmann understands a variety of industries, including industrials, which are beyond Dodson’s circle of competence.

Stephen anticipates a slight expansion of the number of portfolio holdings from the high teens to the low twenties, a fresh set of eyes finding value in places that he couldn’t and likely a broader set of industries. The underlying discipline remains unchanged.

We wish them both well.

Star gazing

Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX) celebrated its third anniversary on February 5^th. By mid-March it should receive its first star rating from Morningstar. With a risk conscious strategy and three year returns in the top 3% of its emerging markets peer group, we’re hopeful that the fund will gain some well-earned recognition from investors.

Guinness Atkinson Dividend Builder (GAINX) will pass its three-year mark at the end of March, with a star rating to follow by about five. The fund has returned 49% since inception, against 38% for its world-stock peers.

A resource for readers

Our colleague Charles Boccadoro is in lively and continuing conversation with a bunch of folks whose investing disciplines have a strongly quantitative bent. He offers the following alert about a new book from one of his favorite correspodents.

Official publication date is tomorrow, March 2.

Like his last two books, Shareholder Yield and Global Value, reviewed in last year’s May commentary, Meb Faber’s new book “Global Asset Allocation: A Survey of the World’s Top Asset Allocation Strategies” is a self-published ebook, available on Amazon for just $2.99.

On his blog, Mr. Faber states “my goal was to keep it short enough to read in one sitting, evidence-based with a basic summary that is practical and easily implementable.”

That description is true of all Meb’s books, including his first published by Wiley in 2009, The Ivy Portfolio. To celebrate he’s making downloads of Shareholder Yield and Global Value available for free.

We will review his new book next time we check-in on Cambria’s ETF performance.

Here appears to be its Table of Contents:

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 – A History of Stocks, Bonds, and Bills

CHAPTER 2 – The Benchmark Portfolio: 60/40

CHAPTER 3 – Asset Class Building Blocks

CHAPTER 4 – The Risk Parity and All Seasons Portfolios

CHAPTER 5 – The Permanent Portfolio

CHAPTER 6 – The Global Market Portfolio

CHAPTER 7 – The Rob Arnott Portfolio

CHAPTER 8 – The Marc Faber Portfolio

CHAPTER 9 – The Endowment Portfolio: Swensen, El-Erian, and Ivy

CHAPTER 10 – The Warren Buffett Portfolio

CHAPTER 11 – Comparison of the Strategies

CHAPTER 12 – Implementation (ETFs, Fees, Taxes, Advisors)

CHAPTER 13 – Summary

APPENDIX A – FAQs

Briefly Noted . . .

Vanguard, probably to Jack Bogle’s utter disgust, is making a pretty dramatic reduction in their exposure to US stocks and bonds. According an SEC filing, the firm’s retirement-date products and Life Strategy Funds will maintain their stock/bond balance but, over “the coming months,” the domestic/international balance with the stock and bond portfolios will swing.

For long-dated funds, those with target dates of 2040 or later, the US stock allocation will drop from 63% to 54% while international equities will rise from 27% to 36%. In shorter-date funds, there’s a 500 – 600 basis point reallocation from domestic to international. There’s a complementary hike in international body exposure, from 2% of long-dated portfolios up to 3% and uneven but substantial increases in all of the shorter-date funds as well.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Okay, it might be stretching to call this a “win,” but you can now get into two one-star funds for a lot less money than before. Effective February 27, 2015, the minimum investment amount in the Class I Shares of both the CM Advisors Fund (CMAFX) and the CM Advisors Small Cap Value (CMOVX) was reduced from $250,000 to $2,500.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

None that we noticed.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Around May 1, the $6 billion ClearBridge Equity Income Fund (SOPAX) becomes ClearBridge Dividend Strategy Fund. The strategy will be to invest in stocks and “other investments with similar economic characteristics that pay dividends or are expected to initiate their dividends over time.”

Effective May 1, 2015, European Equity Fund (VEEEX/VEECX) escapes Europe and equities. It gets renamed at the Global Strategic Income Fund and adds high-yield bonds to its list of investment options.

On April 30, Goldman Sachs U.S. Equity Fund (GAGVX) becomes Goldman Sachs Dynamic U.S. Equity Fund. The “dynamic” part is that the team that guided it to mediocre large cap performance will now guide it to … uh, dynamic all-cap performance.

Goldman Sachs Absolute Return Tracker Fund (GARTX) attempts to replicate the returns of a hedge fund index without, of course, investing in hedge funds. It’s not clear why you’d want to do that and the fund has been returning 1-3% annually. Effective April 30, the fund’s investment strategies will be broadened to allow them to invest in an even wider array of derivatives (e.g. master limited partnership indexes) in pursuit of their dubious goal.

Effective March 31, 2015, MFS Research Bond Fund will change to MFS® Total Return Bond Fund and MFS Bond Fund will change to MFS® Corporate Bond Fund.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Aberdeen Global Select Opportunities Fund was swallowed up by Aberdeen Global Equity Fund (GLLAX) on Friday, February 25, 2015. GLLAX is … performance-challenged.

As we predicted a couple months ago when the fund suddenly closed to new investors, Aegis High Yield Fund (AHYAX/AHYFX) is going the way of the wild goose. Its end will come on or before April 30, 2015.

Frontier RobecoSAM Global Equity Fund (FSGLX), a tiny institutional fund that was rarely worse than mediocre and occasionally a bit better, will be closed and liquidated on March 23, 2015.

Bad news for Chuck Jaffe. He won’t have the Giant 5 to kick around anymore. Giant 5 Total Investment System Fund received one of Jaffe’s “Lump of Coal” awards in 2014 for wasting time and money changing their ticker symbol from FIVEX to CASHX. Glancing at their returns, Jaffe suggested SUCKX as a better move. From here it starts to get a bit weird. The funds’ adviser changed its name from Willis Group to Index Asset Management, which somehow convinced them to spend more time and money changed the ticker on their other fund, Giant 5 Total Index System Fund, from INDEX to WILLX. So they decided to surrender a cool ticker that reflected their current name for a ticker that reminds them of the abandoned name of their firm. Uh-huh. At this point, cynics might suggest changing their URL from weareindex.com to the more descriptively accurate wearecharging2.21%andchurningtheportfolio.com. Doubtless sensing Chuck beginning to stock up on the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, the adviser sprang into action on February 27 … and announced the liquidation of the funds, effective March 30^th.

The $24 million Hatteras PE Intelligence Fund (HPEIX) will liquidate on March 13, 2015. The plan was to produce the returns of a Private Equity index without investing in private equity. The fund launched in November 2013, has neither made nor lost any meaningful money, so the adviser pulled the plug after 15 months.

JPMorgan Alternative Strategies Fund (JASAX), a fund mostly comprised of other Morgan funds, will liquidate on March 23, 2015.

Martin Focused Value Fund (MFVRX), a dogged little fund that held nine stocks and 70% cash, has decided that it’s not economically viable and that’s unlikely to change. As a result, it will cease operations by the end of March.

Old Westbury Real Return Fund (OWRRX), which has about a half billion in assets, is being liquidated in mid-March 2015. It was perfectly respectable as commodity funds go. Sadly, the fund’s performance charts had a lot of segments that looked like

and like

In consequence of which it finished down 9% since inception and down 24% over the past five years.

Parnassus Small Cap Fund (PARSX) is being merged into the smaller but far stronger Parnassus Mid Cap (PARMX) at the end of April, 2015. PARMX’s prospectus will be tweaked to make it SMID-ier.

The Board of Trustees of PIMCO approved a plan of liquidation for the PIMCO Convertible Fund (PACNX) which will occur on May 1, 2015. The fund has nearly a quarter billion in assets, so presumably the Board was discouraged by the fund’s relatively week three year record: 11% annually, which trailed about two-thirds of the funds in the tiny “convertibles” group.

The Board of Rainier Balanced Fund (RIMBX/RAIBX) has approved, the liquidation and termination of the fund. The liquidation is expected to occur as of the close of business on March 27, 2015. It’s been around, unobjectionable and unremarkable, since the mid-90s but has under $20 million in assets.

S1 (SONEX/SONRX), the Simple Alternatives fund, will liquidate in mid-March. We were never actually clear about what was “simple” about the fund: it was a high expense, high turnover, high manager turnover operation.

Salient Alternative Strategies Master Fund liquidated in mid-February, around the time they bought Forward Funds to get access to more alternative strategies.

In examples of an increasingly common move, Touchstone decided to liquidated both Touchstone Institutional Money Market Fund and Touchstone Money Market Fund, proceeds of the move will be rolled over into a Dreyfus money market.

In a sort of “snatching Victory from the jaws of defeat, then chucking some other Victory into the jaws” development, shareholders have learned that Victory Special Value (SSVSX) is not going to be merged out of existence into Victory Dividend Growth. Instead, Special Value has reopened to new investment while Dividend Growth has closed and replaced it on Death Row. Liquidation of Dividend Growth is slated for April 24, 2015. In the meantime, Victory Special Value got a whole new management team. The new managers don’t have a great record, but it does beat their predecessors’, so that’s a small win.

Wasatch Heritage Growth Fund (WAHGX) has closed to new investors and will be liquidated at the end of April, 2015. The initial plan was to invest in firms that had grown too large to remain in Wasatch’s many small cap portfolios; those “graduates” were the sort of the “heritage” of the title. The strategy generated neither compelling results nor investor interest.

In Closing . . .

The Observer celebrates its fourth anniversary on April 1^st. We’re delighted (and slightly surprised) at being here four years later; the average lifespan of a new website is generally measured in weeks. We’re delighted and humbled by the realization that nearly 30,000 folks peek in each month to see what we’re up to. We’re grateful, especially to the folks who continue to support the Observer, both financially and with an ongoing stream of suggestions, leads, questions and corrections. I’m always anxious about thanking folks for their contributions because I’m paranoid about forgetting anyone (if so, many apologies) and equally concerned about botching your names (a monthly goof). To the folks who use our Paypal link (Lee – I like the fact that your firm lists its professionals alphabetically rather than by hierarchy, Jeffrey who seems to have gotten entirely past Twitter and William, most recently), remember that you’ve got the option to say “hi”, too. It’s always good to hear from you. One project for us in the month ahead will be to systematize access for subscribers to our steadily-evolved premium site.

We’d been planning a party with party hats, festive noisemakers, a round of pin-the-tail-on-the-overrated-manager and a cake. Chip and Charles were way into it. 

Hmmm … apparently we might end up with something a bit more dignified instead. At the very least we’ll all be around the Morningstar conference in June and open to the prospect of a celebratory drink.

Spring impends. Keep a good thought and we’ll see you in a month!

Dear friends,

Investing by aphorism is a tricky business.

“Buy on the sound of cannons, sell on the sound of trumpets.” It’s widely attributed to “Baron Nathan Rothschild (1810).” Of course, he wasn’t a baron in 1810. There’s no evidence he ever said it. 1810 wouldn’t have been a sensible year for the statement even if he had said it. And the earliest attributions are in anti-Semitic French newspapers advancing the claim that some Rothschild or another triggered a financial panic for family gain.

And then there’s weiji. It’s one of the few things that Condoleeza Rice and Al Gore agree upon. Here’s Rice after a trip to the Middle East:

I don’t read Chinese but I’m told that the Chinese character for crisis is “weiji”, which means both danger and opportunity. And I think that states it very well.

And Gore, accepting the Nobel Prize:

In the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and Japanese, “crisis” is written with two symbols, the first meaning “danger,” the second “opportunity.”

John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, business school deans, the authors of The Encyclopedia of Public Relations, Flood Planning: The Politics of Water Security, On Philosophy: Notes on A Crisis, Foundations of Interpersonal Practice in Social Work, Strategy: A Step by Step Approach to the Development and Presentation of World Class Business Strategy (apparently one unencumbered by careful fact-checking), Leading at the Edge (the author even asked “a Chinese student” about it, the student smiled and nodded so he knows it’s true). One sage went so far as to opine “the danger in crisis situations is that we’ll lose the opportunity in it.”

Weiji, Will Robinson! Weiji!

Except, of course, that it’s not true. Chinese philologists keep pointing out that “ji” is being misinterpreted. At base, “ji” can mean a lot of things. Since at least the third century CE, “weiji” meant something like “latent danger.” In the early 20^th century it was applied to economic crises but without the optimistic “hey, let’s buy the dips!” sense now given it. As Victor Mair, a professor of Chinese language and literature at the University of Pennsylvania put it:

Those who purvey the doctrine that the Chinese word for “crisis” is composed of elements meaning “danger” and “opportunity” are engaging in a type of muddled thinking that is a danger to society, for it lulls people into welcoming crises as unstable situations from which they can benefit. Adopting a feel-good attitude toward adversity may not be the most rational, realistic approach to its solution.

Maybe in our March issue, I’ll expound on the origin of the phrase “furniture polish.” Did you know that it’s an Olde English term that comes from the French. It reflects the fact that the best furniture in the world was made around the city of Krakow, Poland so if you had furniture Polish, you had the most beautiful anywhere.

The good folks at Leuthold foresee a market decline of 30%, likely some time in 2015 or 2016 and likely sooner rather than later. Professor Studzinski suspects that they’re starry-eyed optimists. Yale’s Crash Confidence Index is drifting down, suggesting that investors think there will be a crash, a perception that moves contrary to the actual likelihood of a crash, except when it doesn’t. AAII’s Investor Confidence Index rose right along with market volatility. American and Chinese investors became more confident, Europeans became less confident and US portfolios became more risk-averse.

Meanwhile oil prices are falling, Russia is invading, countries are unraveling, storms are raging, Mitt’s withdrawing … egad! What, you might ask, am I doing about it? Glad you asked.

Snowball and the power of positive stupidity

My portfolio is designed to allow me to be stupid. It’s not that I try to be stupid but, being human, the temptation is almost irresistible at times. If you’re really smart, you can achieve your goals by taking a modest amount and investing it brilliantly. My family suggested that I ought not be banking on that route, so I took the road less traveled. Twenty years ago, I used free software available from Fidelity, Price and Vanguard, my college’s retirement plan providers, to determine how much I needed to invest in order to fund my retirement. I used conservative assumptions (long-term inflation near 4% and expected portfolio returns below 8% nominal), averaged the three recommendations and ended up socking away a lot each month. 

Downside (?): I needed to be careful with our money – my car tends to be a fuel-efficient used Honda or Toyota that I drive for a quarter million miles or so, I tend to spend less on new clothes each year than on good coffee (if you’re from Pittsburgh, you know Mr. Prestogeorge’s coffee; if you’re not, the Steeler Nation is sad on your behalf), our home is solid and well-insulated but modest and our vacations often involve driving to see family or other natural wonders. 

Upside: well, I’ve never become obsessed about the importance of owning stuff. And the more sophisticated software now available suggests that, given my current rate of investment, I only need to earn portfolio returns well under 6% (nominal) in order to reach my long-term goals. 

And I’m fairly confident that I’ll be able to maintain that pace, even if I am repeatedly stupid along the way. 

It’s a nice feeling. 

A quick review of my fund portfolio’s 2015 performance would lead you to believe that I managed to be extra stupid last year with a portfolio return of just over 3%. If my portfolio’s goal was to maximize one-year returns, you’d be exactly right. But it isn’t, so you aren’t. Here’s a quick review of what I was thinking when I constructed my portfolio, what’s in it and what might be next.

The Plan: Follow the evidence. My non-retirement portfolio is about half equity and half income because the research says that more equity simply doesn’t pay off in a portfolio with an intermediate time horizon. The equity portion is about half US and half international and is overweighted toward small, value, dividend and quality. The income portion combines some low-cost “normal” stuff with an awful lot of abnormal investments in emerging markets, convertibles, and called high-yield bonds. On whole the funds have high active share, long-tenured managers, are risk conscious, lower turnover and relatively low expense. In most instances, I’ve chosen funds that give the managers some freedom to move assets around.

Pure equity:

Artisan Small Cap Value (ARTVX, closed). This is, by far, my oldest holding. I originally bought Artisan Small Cap (ARTSX) in late 1995 and, being a value kinda guy, traded those shares in 1997 for shares in the newly-launched ARTVX. It made a lot of money for me in the succeeding decade but over the past five years, its performance has sucked. Lipper has it ranked as 203 out of 203 small value funds over the past five years, though it has returned about 7% annually in the period. Not entirely sure what’s up. A focus on steady-eddy companies hasn’t helped, especially since it led them into a bunch of energy stocks. A couple positions, held too long, have blown up. The fact that they’re in a leadership transition, with Scott Satterwhite retiring in October 2016, adds to the noise. I’ll continue to watch and try to learn more, but this is getting a bit troubling.

Artisan International Value (ARTKX, closed). I acquired this the same way I acquired ARTVX, in trade. I bought Artisan International (ARTIX) shortly after its launch, then moved my investment here because of its value focus. Good move, by the way. It’s performed brilliantly with a compact, benchmark-free portfolio of high quality stocks. I’m a bit concerned about the fund’s size, north of $11 billion, and the fact that it’s now dominated by large cap names. That said, no one has been doing a better job.

Grandeur Peak Global Reach (GPROX, closed). When it comes to global small and microcap investing, I’m not sure that there’s anyone better or more disciplined than Grandeur Peak. This is intended to be their flagship fund, with all of the other Grandeur Peak funds representing just specific slices of its portfolio. Performance across the group, extending back to the days when the managers ran Wasatch’s international funds, has been spectacular. All of the existing funds are closed though three more are in the pipeline: US Opportunities, Global Value, and Global Microcap.

Pure income

RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX, closed). The best and most misunderstood fund in the Morningstar universe. Merely noting that it has the highest Sharpe ratio of any fund doesn’t go far enough. Its Sharpe ratio, a measure of risk-adjusted returns where higher is better, since inception is 6.81. The second-best fund is 2.4. Morningstar insists on comparing it to its high yield bond group, with which it shares neither strategy nor portfolio. It’s a conservative cash management account that has performed brilliantly. The chart is RPHYX against the HY bond peer group.

RiverPark Strategic Income (RSIVX). At base, this is the next step out from RPHYX on the risk-return spectrum. Manager David Sherman thinks he can about double the returns posted by RPHYX without a significant risk of permanent loss of capital. He was well ahead of that pace until mid-2014 when he encountered a sort of rocky plateau. In the second half of 2014, the fund dropped 0.45% which is far less than any plausible peer group. Mr. Sherman loathes the prospect of “permanent impairment of capital” but “as long as the business model remains acceptable and is being pursued consistently and successfully, we will tolerate mark-to-market losses.” He’s quite willing to hold bonds to maturity or to call, which reduces market volatility to annoying noise in the background. Here’s the chart of Strategic Income (blue) against its older sibling.

Matthews Strategic Income (MAINX). I think this is a really good fund. Can’t quite be sure since it’s essentially the only Asian income fund on the market. There’s one Asian bond fund and a couple ETFs, but they’re not quite comparable and don’t perform nearly as well. The manager’s argument struck me as persuasive: Asian fixed-income offers some interesting attributes, it’s systematically underrepresented in indexes and underfollowed by investors (the fund has only $67 million in assets despite a strong record). Matthews has the industry’s deepest core of Asia analysts, Ms. Kong struck me as exceptionally bright and talented, and the opportunity set seemed worth pursuing.

Impure funds

FPA Crescent (FPACX). I worry, sometimes, that the investing world’s largest “free-range chicken” (his term) might be getting fat. Steve Romick has one of the longest and most successful records of any manager but he’s currently toting a $20 billion portfolio which is 40% cash. The cash stash is consistent with FPA’s “absolute value” orientation and reflects their ongoing concerns about market valuations which have grown detached from fundamentals. It’s my largest fund holding and is likely to remain so.

T. Rowe Price Spectrum Income (RPSIX). This is a fund of TRP funds, including one equity fund. It’s been my core fixed income holding since it’s broadly diversified, low cost and sensible. Over time, it tends to make about 6% a year with noticeably less volatility than its peers. It’s had two down years in a quarter century, losing about 2% in 1994 and 9% in 2008. I’m happy.

Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX). I believe that Andrew Foster is an exceptional manager and I was excited when he moved from a large fund with a narrow focus to launch a new fund with a broader one. Seafarer is a risk-conscious emerging markets fund with a strong presence in Asia. It’s my second largest holding and I’ve resolved to move my account from Scottrade to invest directly with Seafarer, to take advantage of their offer of allowing $100 purchase minimums on accounts with an automatic investing plan. Given the volatility of the emerging markets, the discipline to invest automatically rather than when I’m feeling brave seems especially important.

Matthews Asian Growth & Income (MACSX). I first purchased MACSX when Andrew Foster was managing this fund to the best risk-adjusted returns in its universe. It mixes common stock with preferred shares and convertibles. It had strong absolute returns, though poor relative ones, in rising markets and was the best in class in falling markets. It’s done well in the years since Andrew’s departure and is about the most sensible option around for broad Asia exposure.

Northern Global Tactical Asset Allocation (BBALX). Formerly a simple 60/40 balanced fund, BBALX uses low-cost ETFs and Northern funds to execute their investment planning committee’s firm-wide recommendations. On whole, Northern’s mission is to help very rich people stay very rich so their strategies tend to be fairly conservative and tilted toward quality, dividends, value and so on. They’ve got a lot less in the US and a lot more emerging markets exposure than their peers, a lot smaller market cap, higher dividends, lower p/e. It all makes sense. Should I be worried that they underperform a peer group that’s substantially overweighted in US, large cap and growth? Not yet.

Aston River Road Long/Short (ARLSX). Probably my most controversial holding since its performance in the past year has sucked. That being said, I’m not all that anxious about it. By the managers’ report, their short positions – about a third of the portfolio – are working. It’s their long book that’s tripping them up. Their long portfolio is quite different from their peers: they’ve got much larger small- and mid-cap positions, their median market cap is less than half of their peers’ and they’ve got rather more direct international exposure (10%, mostly Europe, versus 4%). In 2014, none of those were richly rewarding places to be. Small caps made about 3% and Europe lost nearly 8%. Here’s Mr. Moran’s take on the former:

Small-cap stocks significantly under-performed this quarter and have year-to-date as well. If the market is headed for a correction or something worse, these stocks will likely continue to lead the way. We, however, added substantially to the portfolio’s small-cap long positions during the quarter, more than doubling their weight as we are comfortable taking this risk, looking different, and are prepared to acknowledge when we are wrong. We have historically had success in this segment of the market, and we think small-cap valuations in the Fund’s investable universe are as attractive as they have been in more than two years.

It’s certainly possible that the fund is a good idea gone bad. I don’t really know yet.

Since my average holding period is something like “forever” – I first invested in eight of my 12 funds shortly after their launch – it’s unlikely that I’ll be selling anyone unless I need cash. I might eventually move the Northern GTAA money, though I have no target in mind. I suspect Charles would push for me to consider making my first ETF investment into ValueShares US Quantitative Value (QVAL). And if I conclude that there’s been some structural impairment to Artisan Small Cap Value, I might exit around the time that Mr. Satterwhite does. Finally, if the markets continue to become unhinged, I might consider a position in RiverPark Structural Alpha (RSAFX), a tiny fund with a strong pedigree that’s designed to eat volatility.

My retirement portfolio, in contrast, is a bit of a mess. I helped redesign my college’s retirement plan to simplify and automate it. That’s been a major boost for most employees (participation has grown from 23% to 93%) but it’s played hob with my own portfolio since we eliminated the Fidelity and T. Rowe funds in favor of a greater emphasis on index funds, funds of index funds and a select few active ones. My allocation there is more aggressive (80/20 stocks) but has the same tilt toward small, value, and international. I need to find time to figure out how best to manage the two frozen allocations in light of the more limited options in the new plan. Nuts.

For now: continue to do the automatic investment thing, undertake a modest bit of rebalancing out of international equities, and renew my focus on really big questions like whether to paint the ugly “I’m so ‘70s” brick fireplace in my living room.

Strange doings, currency wars, and unintended consequences

By Edward A. Studzinski

Imagine the Creator as a low comedian, and at once the world becomes explicable.     H.L. Mencken

January 2015 has perhaps not begun in the fashion for which most investors would have hoped. Instead of continuing on from last year where things seemed to be in their proper order, we have started with recurrent volatility, political incompetence, an increase in terrorist incidents around the world, currency instability in both the developed and developing markets, and more than a faint scent of deflation creeping into the nostrils and minds of central bankers. Through the end of January, the Dow, the S&P 500, and the NASDAQ are all in negative territory. Consumers, rather than following the lead of the mass market media who were telling them that the fall in energy prices presented a tax cut for them to spend, have elected to save for a rainy day. Perhaps the most unappreciated or underappreciated set of changed circumstances for most investors to deal with is the rising specter of currency wars.

So, what is a currency war? With thanks to author Adam Chan, who has written thoughtfully on this subject in the January 29, 2015 issue of The Institutional Strategist, a currency war is usually thought of as an effort by a country’s central bank to deliberately devalue their currency in an effort to stimulate exports. The most recent example of this is the announcement a few weeks ago by the European Central Bank that they would be undertaking another quantitative easing or QE in shorthand. More than a trillion Euros will be spent over the next eighteen months repurchasing government bonds. This has had the immediate effect of producing negative yields on the market prices of most European government bonds in the stronger economies there such as Germany. Add to this the compound effect of another sixty billion Yen a month of QE by the Bank of Japan going forward. Against the U.S. dollar, those two currencies have depreciated respectively 20% and 15% over the last year.

We have started to see the effects of this in earnings season this quarter, where multinational U.S. companies that report in dollars but earn various streams of revenues overseas, have started to miss estimates and guide towards lower numbers going forward. The strong dollar makes their goods and services less competitive around the world. But it ignores another dynamic going on, seen in the collapse of energy and other commodity prices, as well as loss of competitiveness in manufacturing.

Countries such as the BRIC emerging market countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) but especially China and Russia, resent a situation where the developed countries of the world print money to sustain their economies (and keep the politicians in office) by purchasing hard assets such as oil, minerals, and manufactured goods for essentially nothing. For them, it makes no sense to allow this to continue.

The end result is the presence in the room of another six hundred pound gorilla, gold. I am not talking about gold as a commodity, but rather gold as a currency. Note that over the last year, the price of gold has stayed fairly flat while a well-known commodity index, the CRB, is down more than 25% in value. Reportedly, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan supported this view last November when he said, “Gold is still a currency.” He went on to refer to it as the “premier currency.” In that vein, for a multitude of reasons, we are seeing some rather interesting actions taking place around the world recently by central banks, most of which have not attracted a great deal of notice in this country.

In January of this year, the Bundesbank announced that in 2014 it repatriated 120 tons of its gold reserves back to Germany, 85 tons from New York and the balance from Paris. Of more interest, IN TOTAL SECRECY, the central bank of the Netherlands repatriated 122 tons of its gold from the New York Federal Reserve, which it announced in November of 2014. The Dutch rationale was explained as part of a currency “Plan B” in the event the Netherlands left the Euro. But it still begs the question as to why two of the strongest economies in Europe would no longer want to leave some of their gold reserves on deposit/storage in New York. And why are Austria and Belgium now considering a similar repatriation of their gold assets from New York?

At the same time, we have seen Russia, with its currency under attack and not by its own doing or desire as a result of economic sanctions. Putin apparently believes this is a deliberate effort to stimulate unrest in Russia and force him from power (just because you are paranoid, it doesn’t mean you are wrong). As a counter to that, you see the Russian central bank being the largest central bank purchaser of gold, 55 tons, in Q314. Why? He is interested in breaking the petrodollar standard in which the U.S. currency is used as the currency to denominate energy purchases and trade. Russia converts its proceeds from the sale of oil into gold. They end up holding gold rather than U.S. Treasuries. If he is successful, there will be considerably less incentive for countries to own U.S. government securities and for the dollar to be the currency of global trade. Note that Russia has a positive balance of trade with most of its neighbors and trading partners.

Now, my point in writing about this is not to engender a discussion about the wisdom or lack thereof in investing in gold, in one fashion or another. The students of history among you will remember that at various points in time it has been illegal for U.S. citizens to own gold, and that on occasion a fixed price has been set when the U.S. government has called it in. My purpose is to point out that there have been some very strange doings in asset class prices this year and last. For most readers of this publication, since their liabilities are denominated in U.S. dollars, they should focus on trying to pay those liabilities without exposing themselves to the vagaries of currency fluctuations, which even professionals have trouble getting right. This is the announced reason, and a good one, as to why the Tweedy, Browne Value Fund and Global Value Fund hedge their investments in foreign securities back into U.S. dollars. It is also why the Wisdom Tree ETF’s which are hedged products have been so successful in attracting assets. What it means is you are going to have to pay considerably more attention this year to a fund’s prospectus and its discussion of hedging policies, especially if you invest in international and/or emerging market mutual funds, both equity and fixed income.

My final thoughts have to do with unintended consequences, diversification, and investment goals and objectives. The last one is most important, but especially this year. Know yourself as an investor! Look at the maximum drawdown numbers my colleague Charles puts out in his quantitative work on fund performance. Know what you can tolerate emotionally in terms of seeing a market value decline in the value of your investment, and what your time horizon is for needing to sell those assets. Warren Buffett used to speak about evaluating investments with the thought as to whether you would still be comfortable with the investment, reflecting ownership in a business, if the stock market were to close for a couple of years. I would argue that fund investments should be evaluated in similar fashion. Christopher Browne of Tweedy, Browne suggested that you should pay attention to the portfolio manager’s investment style and his or her record in the context of that style. Focus on whose record it is that you are looking at in a fund. Looking at Fidelity Magellan’s record after Peter Lynch left the fund was irrelevant, as the successor manager (or managers as is often the case) had a different investment management style. THERE IS A REASON WHY MORNINGSTAR HAS CHANGED THEIR METHODOLOGY FROM FOLLOWING AND EVALUATING FUNDS TO FOLLOWING AND EVALUATING MANAGERS.

Diversification is another key issue to consider. Outstanding Investor Digest, in Volume XV, Number 7, published a lecture and Q&A with Philip Fisher that he gave at Stanford Business School. If you don’t know who Philip Fisher was, you owe it to yourself to read some of his work. Fisher believed strongly that you had achieved most of the benefits of risk reduction from diversification with a portfolio of from seven to ten stocks. After that, the benefits became marginal. The quote worth remembering, “The last thing I want is a lot of good stocks. I want a very few outstanding ones.” I think the same discipline should apply to mutual fund portfolios. You are not building an investment ark, where you need two of everything.

Finally, I do expect this to be a year of unintended consequences, both for institutional and individual investors. It is a year (but the same applies every year) when predominant in your mind should not be, “How much money can I make with this investment?” which is often tied to bragging rights at having done better than your brother-in-law. The focus should be, “How much money could I lose?” And my friend Bruce would ask if you could stand the real loss, and what impact it might have on your standard of living? In 2007 and 2008, many people found that they had to change their standard of living and not for the better because their investments were too “risky” for them and they had inadequate cash reserves to carry them through several years rather than liquidate things in a depressed market.

Finally, I make two suggestions. One, the 2010 documentary on the financial crisis by Charles Ferguson entitled “Inside Job” is worth seeing and if you can’t find it, the interview of Mr. Ferguson by Charlie Rose, which is to be found on line, is quite good. As an aside, there are those who think many of the most important and least watched interviews in our society today are conducted by Mr. Rose, which I agree with and think says something about the state of our society. And for those who think history does not repeat itself, I would suggest reading volume I, With Fire and Sword of the great trilogy of Henryk Sienkiewicz about the Cossack wars of the Sixteenth Century set in present day Ukraine. I think of Sienkiewicz as the Walter Scott of Poland, and you have it all in these novels – revolution and uprising in Ukraine, conflict between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Moscow – it’s all there, but many, many years ago. And much of what is happening today, has happened before.

I will leave you with a few sentences from the beginning pages of that novel.

It took an experienced ear to tell the difference between the ordinary baying of the wolves and the howl of vampires. Sometimes entire regiments of tormented souls were seen to drift across the moonlit Steppe so that sentries sounded the alarm and garrisons stood to arms. But such ghostly armies were seen only before a great war.

Genius, succession and transition at Third Avenue

The mutual fund industry is in the midst of a painful transition. As long ago as the 1970s, Charles Ellis recognized that the traditional formula could no longer work. That formula was simple:

1. Read Dodd and Graham
2. Apply Dodd and Graham
3. Crush the competition
4. Watch the billions flow in.

Ellis’s argument is that Step 3 worked only if you were talented and your competitors were not. While that might have described the investing world in the 1930s or even the 1950s, by the 1970s the investment industry was populated by smart, well-trained, highly motivated investors and the prospect of beating them consistently became as illusory as the prospect of winning four Super Bowls in six years now is. (With all due respect to the wannabees in Dallas and New England, each of which registered three wins in a four year period.)

The day of reckoning was delayed by two decades of a roaring stock market. From 1980 – 1999, the S&P 500 posted exactly two losing years and each down year was followed by eight or nine winning ones. Investors, giddy at the prospect of 100% and 150% and 250% annual reports, catapulted money in the direction of folks like Alberto Vilar and Garrett Van Wagoner. As the acerbic hedge fund manager Jim Rogers said, “It is remarkable how many people mistake a bull market for brains.”

That doesn’t deny the existence of folks with brains. They exist in droves. And a handful – Charles Royce and Marty Whitman among them – had “brains” to the point of “brilliance” and had staying power.

For better and worse, Step 4 became difficult 15 years ago and almost a joke in the past decade. While a handful of funds – from Michael C. Aronstein’s Mainstay Marketfield (MFLDX) and The Jeffrey’s DoubleLine complex – managed to sop up tens of billions, flows into actively-managed fund have slowed to a trickle. In 2014, for example, Morningstar reports that actively-managed funds saw $90 billion in outflows and passive funds had $156 billion in inflows.

The past five years have not been easy ones for the folks at Third Avenue funds. It’s a firm with that earned an almost-legendary reputation for independence and success. Our image of them and their image of themselves might be summarized by the performance of the flagship Third Avenue Value Fund (TAVFX) through 2007.

The Value Fund (blue) not only returned more than twice what their global equity peers made, but also essential brushed aside the market collapse at the end of the 1990s bubble and the stagnation of “the lost decade.” Investors rewarded the fund by entrusting it with billions of dollars in assets; the fund held over $11 billion at its peak.

But it’s also a firm that struggled since the onset of the market crisis in late 2007. Four of the firm’s funds have posted mediocre returns – not awful, but generally below-average – during the market cycle that began in early October 2007 and continues to play out. The funds’ five- and ten-year records, which capture parts of two distinct market cycles but the full span of neither, make them look distinctly worse. That’s been accompanied by the departure of both investment professionals and investor assets:

Third Avenue Value (TAVFX) saw the departure of Marty Whitman as the fund’s manager (2012) and of his heir presumptive Ian Lapey (2014), along with 80% of its assets. The fund trails about 80% of its global equity peers over the past five and ten years, which helps explain the decline. Performance has rallied in the past three years with the fund modestly outperforming the MSCI World index through the end of 2014, though investors have been slow to return.

Third Avenue Small Cap Value (TASCX) bid adieu to manager Curtis Jensen (2014) and analyst Charles Page, along with 80% of its assets. The fund trails 85% of its peers over the past five years and ten years.

Third Avenue International Value (TAVIX) lost founding manager Amit Wadhwaney (2014), his co-manager and two analysts. Trailing 96% of its peers for the past five and ten years, the fund’s AUM declined by 86% from its peak assets.

Third Avenue Focused Credit (TFCIX) saw its founding manager, Jeffrey Gary, depart (2010) to found a competing fund, Avenue Credit Strategies (ACSAX) though assets tripled from around the time of his departure to now. The fund’s returns over the past five years are almost dead-center in the high yield bond pack.

Only Third Avenue Real Estate Value (TAREX) has provided an island of stability. Lead manager Michael Winer has been with the fund since its founding, he’s got his co-managers Jason Wolfe (2004) and Ryan Dobratz (2006), a growing team, and a great (top 5% for the past 3, 5, 10 and 15 year periods) long-term record. Sadly, that wasn’t enough to shield the fund from a 67% drop in assets from 2006 to 2008. Happily, assets have tripled since then to about $3 billion.

In sum, the firm’s five mutual funds are down by $11 billion from their peak asset levels and nearly 50% of the investment professionals on staff five years ago, including the managers of four funds, are gone. At the same time, only one of the five funds has had performance that meets the firm’s long-held standards of excellence.

Many outsiders noted not just the departure of long-tenured members of the Third Avenue community, but also the tendency to replace some those folks with outsiders, including Robert Rewey, Tim Bui and Victor Cunningham. The most prominent change was the arrival, in 2014, of Robert Rewey, the new head of the “value equity team.” Mr. Rewey formerly was a portfolio manager at Cramer Rosenthal McGlynn, LLC, where his funds’ performance trailed their benchmark (CRM Mid Cap Value CRMMX, CRM All Cap Value CRMEX and CRM Large Cap Opportunity CRMGX) or exceeded it modestly (CRM Small/Mid Cap Value CRMAX). Industry professionals we talked with spoke of “a rolling coup,” the intentional marginalization of Mr. Whitman within the firm he created and the influx of outsiders. Understandably, the folks at Third Avenue reject that characterization, noting that Mr. Whitman is still at TAM, that he attends every research meeting and was involved in every hiring decision.

Change in the industry is constant; the Observer reports on 500 or 600 management changes – some occasioned by a manager’s voluntary change of direction, others not – each year. The question for investors isn’t “had Third Avenue changed?” (It has, duh). The questions are “how has that change been handled and what might it mean for the future?” For answers, we turned to David Barse. Mr. Barse has served with Mr. Whitman for about a quarter century. He’s been president of Third Avenue, of MJ Whitman LLC and of its predecessor firm. He’s been with the operation continuously since the days that Mr. Whitman managed the Equity Strategies Fund in the 1980s.

From that talk and from the external record, I’ve reached three tentative conclusions:

1. Third Avenue Value Fund’s portfolio went beyond independent to become deeply, perhaps troublingly, idiosyncratic during the current cycle. Mr. Whitman saw Asia’s growth as a powerful driver to real estate values there and the onset of the SARS/avian flu panics as a driver of incredible discounts in the stocks’ prices. As a result, he bought a lot of exposure to Asian real estate and, as the markets there declined, bought more. At its peak, 65% of the fund’s portfolio was exposed to the Asian real estate market. Judging by their portfolios, neither the very successful Real Estate Value Fund nor the International Value Fund, the logical home of such investments, believed that it was prudent to maintain such exposure. Mr. Winer got his fund entirely out of the Asia real estate market and Mr. Wadhwaney’s portfolio contained none of the stocks held in TAVFX. Reportedly members of Mr. Whitman’s own team had substantial reservations about the extent of their investment and many shareholders, including large institutional investors, concluded that this was not at all what they’d signed up for. Third Avenue has now largely unwound those positions, and the Value Fund had 8.5% of its 2014 year-end portfolio in Hong Kong.
2. “Succession planning” always works better on paper than in the messy precinct of real life. Mr. Whitman and Mr. Barse knew, on the day that TAVFX launched, that they needed to think about life after Marty. Mr. Whitman was 67 when the fund launched and was setting out for a new adventure around the time that most professionals begin winding down. In consequence, Mr. Barse reports, “Succession planning was intrinsic to our business plans from the very beginning. This was a fantastic business to be in during the ‘90s and early ‘00s. We pursued a thoughtful expansion around our core discipline and Marty looked for talented people who shared his discipline and passion.” Mr. Whitman seems to have been more talented in investment management than in business management and none of this protégés, save Mr. Winer, showed evidence of the sort of genius that drove Mr. Whitman’s success. Finally, in his 89^th year of life, Mr. Whitman agreed to relinquish management of TAVFX with the understanding that Ian Lapey be given a fair chance as his successor. Mr. Lapey’s tenure as manager, both the five years which included time as co-manager with Mr. Whitman and the 18 months as lead manager, was not notably successful.
3. Third Avenue is trying to reorient its process from “the mercurial genius” model to “the healthy team” one. When Third Avenue was acquired in 2002 by the Affiliated Managed Group (AMG), the key investment professionals signed a ten year commitment to stay with the firm – symbolically important if legally non-binding – with a limited non-compete period thereafter. 2012 saw the expiration of those commitments and the conclusion, possibly mutual, that it was time for long-time managers like Curtis Jensen and Amit Wadhwaney to move on. The firm promoted co-managers with the expectation that they’d become eventual successors. Eventually they began a search for Mr. Whitman’s successor. After interviewing more than 50 candidates, they selected Mr. Rewey based on three factors: he understood the nature of a small, independent, performance-driven firm, he understood the importance of healthy management teams and he shared Mr. Whitman’s passion for value investing. “We did not,” Mr. Barse notes, “make this decision lightly.” The firm gave him a “team leader” designation with the expectation that he’d consciously pursue a more affirmative approach to cultivating and empowering his research and management associates.

It’s way too early to draw any conclusions about the effects of their changes on fund performance. Mr. Barse notes that they’ve been unwinding some of the Value Fund’s extreme concentration and have been working to reduce the exposure of illiquid positions in the International Value Fund. In the third quarter, Small Cap Value eliminated 16 positions while starting only three. At the same time, Mr. Barse reports growing internal optimism and comity. As with PIMCO, the folks at Third Avenue feel they’re emerging from a necessary but painful transition. I get a sense that folks at both institutions are looking forward to going to work and to the working together on the challenges they, along with all active managers and especially active boutique managers, face.

The questions remain: why should you care? What should you do? The process they’re pursuing makes sense; that is, team-managed funds have distinct advantages over star-managed ones. Academic research shows that returns are modestly lower (50 bps or so) but risk is significantly lower, turnover is lower and performance is more persistent. And Third Avenue remains fiercely independent: the active share for the Value Fund is 98.2% against the MSCI World index, Small Cap Value is 95% against the Russell 2000 Value index, and International Value is 97.6% against MSCI World ex US. Their portfolios are compact (38, 64 and 32 names, respectively) and turnover is low (20-40%).

For now, we’d counsel patience. Not all teams (half of all funds claim them) thrive. Not all good plans pan out. But Third Avenue has a lot to draw on and a lot to prove, we wish them well and will keep a hopeful eye on their evolution.

Where are they now?

We were curious about the current activities of Third Avenue’s former managers. We found them at the library, mostly. Ian Lapey’s LinkedIn profile now lists him as a “director, Stanley Furniture Company” but we were struck by the current activities of a number of his former co-workers:

Apparently time at Third Avenue instills a love of books, but might leave folks short of time to pursue them.

Would you give somebody $5.8 million a year to manage your money?

And would you be steamed if he lost $6.9 million for you in your first three months with him?

If so, you can sympathize with Bill Gross of Janus Funds. Mr. Gross has reportedly invested $700 million in Janus Global Unconstrained Bond (JUCIX), whose institutional shares carry a 0.83% expense ratio. So … (mumble, mumble, scribble) 0.0083 x 700,000,000 is … ummmm … he’s charging himself $5,810,000 for managing his personal fortune.

Oh, wait! That overstates the expenses a bit. The fund is down rather more than a percent (1.06% over three months, to be exact) so that means he’s no longer paying expenses on the $7,420,000 that’s no longer there. That’d be a $61,000 savings over the course of a year.

It calls to mind a universally misquoted passage from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s short story, “The Rich Boy” (1926)

Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft, where we are hard, cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. 

Hemingway started the butchery by inventing a conversation between himself and Fitzgerald, in which Fitzgerald opines “the rich are different from you and me” and Hemingway sharply quips, “yes, they have more money.” It appears that Mary Collum, an Irish literary critic, in a different context, made the comment and Hemingway pasted it seamlessly into a version that made him seem the master.

P.S. please don’t tell the chairman of Janus. He’s the guy who didn’t know that all those millions flowing from a single brokerage office near Gross’s home into Gross’s fund was Gross’s money. I suspect it’s just better if we don’t burden him with unnecessary details.

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.

Decision

• The court granted Vanguard‘s motion to dismiss shareholder litigation regarding two international funds’ holdings of gambling-related securities: “the court concludes that plaintiffs’ claims are time barred and alternatively that plaintiff has not established that the Board’s refusal to pursue plaintiffs’ demand for litigation violated Delaware’s business judgment rule.” Defendants included independent directors. (Hartsel v. Vanguard Group Inc.)

Settlement

• Morgan Keegan defendants settled long-running securities litigation, regarding bond funds’ investments in collateralized debt obligations, for $125 million. Defendants included independent directors. (In re Regions Morgan Keegan Open-End Mut. Fund Litig.; Landers v. Morgan Asset Mgmt., Inc.)

Briefs

• AXA Equitable filed a motion for summary judgment in fee litigation regarding twelve subadvised funds: “The combined investment management and administrative fees . . . for the funds were in all cases less than 1% of fund assets, and in some cases less than one half of 1%. These fees are in line with industry medians.” (Sanford v. AXA Equitable Funds Mgmt. Group, LLC; Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co.)
• Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Genworth‘s motion for summary judgment in a fraud case regarding an investment expert’s purported role in the management of the BJ Group Services portfolios. (Goodman v. Genworth Fin. Wealth Mgmt., Inc.)
• Plaintiffs filed their opposition to SEI defendants’ motion to dismiss fee litigation regarding five subadvised funds: By delegating “nearly all of its investment management responsibilities to its army of sub-advisers” and “retaining substantial portions of the proceeds for itself,” SEI charges “excessive fees that violate section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.” (Curd v. SEI Invs. Mgmt. Corp.)

Answer

• Having previously lost its motion to dismiss, Harbor filed an answer to excessive-fee litigation regarding its subadvised International and High-Yield Bond Funds. (Zehrer v. Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc.)

The Alt Perspective: Commentary and news from DailyAlts.

By Brian Haskin, editor of DailyAlts.com

Last month, I took a look at a few of the trends that took shape over the course of 2014 and noted how those trends might unfold in 2015. Now that the full year numbers are in, I thought I would do a 2014 recap of those numbers and see what they tell us.

Overall, assets in the Liquid Alternatives category, including both mutual funds and ETFs, were up 10.9% based on Morningstar’s classification, and 9.8% by DailyAlts classification. For ease of use, let’s call it 10%. Not too bad, but quite a bit short of the growth rates seen earlier in the year that hovered around 40%. But, compared to other major asset classes, alternative funds actually grew about 3 times faster. That’s quite good. The table below summarizes Morningstar’s asset flow data for mutual funds and ETFs combined:

The macro shifts in investor’s allocations were quite subtle, but nonetheless, distinct. Assets growth increased at about an equal rate for both stocks and bonds at a 3.4% and 3.7%, respectively, while commodities fell out of favor and lost 3.4% of their assets. However, with most investors underinvested in alternatives, the category grew at 10.9% and ended the year with $199 billion in assets, or 1.4% of the total pie. This is a far cry from institutional allocations of 15-20%, but many experts expect to see that 1.4% number increase to the likes of 10-15% over the coming decade.

Now, let’s take a look a more detailed look at the winning and loosing categories within the alternatives bucket. Here is a recap of 2014 flows, beginning assets, ending assets and growth rates for the various alternative strategies and alternative asset classes that we review:

The dominant category over the year was what Morningstar calls non-traditional bonds, which took in $22.8 billion. Going into 2014, investors held the view that interest rates would rise and, thus, they looked to reduce interest rate risk with the more flexible non-traditional bond funds. This all came to a halt as interest rates actually declined and flows to the category nearly dried up in the second half.

On a growth rate perspective, multi-alternative funds grew at a nearly 34% rate in 2014. These funds allocate to a wide range of alternative investment strategies, all in one fund. As a result, they serve as a one-stop shop for allocations to alternative investments. In fact, they serve the same purpose as fund-of-hedge funds serve for institutional investors but for a much lower cost! That’s great news for retail investors.

Finally, what is most striking is that the asset flows to alternatives all came in the first half of the year – $36.2 billion in the first half and only $622 million in the second half. Much of the second half slowdown can be attributed to two factors: A complete halt in flows to non-traditional bonds in reaction to falling rates, and billions in outflows from the MainStay Marketfield Fund (MFLDX), which had an abysmal 2014. The good news is that multi-alternative funds held steady from the first half to the second – a good sign that advisors and investors are maintaining a steady allocation to broad based alternative funds.

For 2015, expect to see multi-alternative funds continue to gather assets at a steady clip. The managed futures category, which grew at a healthy 19.5% in 2014 on the back of multiple difficult years, should see continued action as global markets and economies continue to diverge, thus creating a more favorable environment for these funds. Market neutral funds should also see more interest as they are designed to be immune to most of the market’s ups and downs.

Next month we will get back to looking at a few of the intriguing fund launches for early 2015. Until then, hold on for the ride and stay diversified!

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 two or three 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.

Osterweis Strategic Investment (OSTVX). I’m always intrigued by funds that Morningstar disapproves of. When you combine disapproval with misunderstanding, then add brilliant investment performance, it becomes irresistible for us to address the question “what’s going on here?” Short answer: good stuff.

Pear Tree Polaris Foreign Value Small Cap (QUSOX). There are three, and only three, great international small cap funds: Wasatch International Opportunities (WAIOX), Grandeur Peak International Opportunities (GPIOX) and Pear Tree Polaris Foreign Value Small Cap. Why have you only heard of the first two?

TrimTabs Float Shrink ETF (TTFS). This young ETF is off to an impressive start by following what it believes are the “best informed market participants.” This is a profile by our colleague Charles Boccadoro, which means it will be data-rich!

Touchstone Sands Capital Emerging Markets Growth (TSEMX). Sands Capital has a long, strong record in tracking down exceptional businesses and holding them close. TSEMX represents the latest extension of the strategy from domestic core to global and now to the emerging markets.

Conference Call Highlights: Bernie Horn, Polaris Global Value

About 40 of us gathered in mid-January to talk with Bernie Horn. It was an interesting talk, one which covered some of the same ground that he went over in private with Mr. Studzinski and me but one which also highlighted a couple new points.

Highlights:

• The genesis of the fund was in his days as a student at the Sloan School of Management at MIT at the end of the 1970s. It was a terrible decade for stocks in the US but he was struck by the number of foreign markets that had done just fine. One of his professors, Fischer Black, an economist whose work with Myron Scholes on options led to a Nobel Prize, generally preached the virtues of the efficient market theory but carries “a handy list of exceptions to EMT.” The most prominent exception was value investing. The emerging research on the investment effects of international diversification and on value as a loophole to EMT led him to launch his first global portfolios.
• His goal is, over the long-term, to generate 2% greater returns than the market with lower volatility.
• He began running separately-managed accounts but those became an administrative headache and so he talked his investors into joining a limited partnership which later morphed into Polaris Global Value Fund (PGVFX).
• The central discipline is calculating the “Polaris global cost of equity” (which he thinks separates him from most of his peers) and the desire to add stocks which have low correlations to his existing portfolio.
• The Polaris global cost of capital starts with the market’s likely rate of return, about 6% real. He believes that the top tier of managers can add about 2% or 200 bps of alpha. So far that implies an 8% cost of capital. He argues that fixed income markets are really pretty good at arbitraging currency risks, so he looks at the difference between the interest rates on a country’s bonds and its inflation rate to find the last component of his cost of capital. The example was Argentina: 24% interest rate minus a 10% inflation rate means that bond investors are demanding a 14% real return on their investments. The 14% reflects the bond market’s judgment of the cost of currency; that is, the bond market is pricing-in a really high risk of a peso devaluation. In order for an Argentine company to be attractive to him, he has to believe that it can overcome a 22% cost of capital (6 + 2 + 14). The hurdle rate for the same company domiciled elsewhere might be substantially lower.
• He does not hedge his currency exposure because the value calculation above implicitly accounts for currency risk. Currency fluctuations accounted for most of the fund’s negative returns last year, about 2/3s as of the third quarter. To be clear: the fund made money in 2014 and finished in the top third of its peer group. Two-thirds of the drag on the portfolio came from currency and one-third from stock selections.
• He tries to target new investments which are not correlated with his existing ones; that is, ones that do not all expose his investors to a single, potentially catastrophic risk factor. It might well be that the 100 more attractively priced stocks in the world are all financials but he would not overload the portfolio with them because that overexposes his investors to interest rate risks. Heightened vigilance here is one of the lessons of the 2007-08 crash.
• An interesting analogy on the correlation and portfolio construction piece: he tries to imagine what would happen if all of the companies in his portfolio merged to form a single conglomerate. In the conglomerate, he’d want different divisions whose cash generation was complementary: if interest rates rose, some divisions would generate less cash but some divisions would generate more and the net result would be that rising interest rates would not impair the conglomerates overall free cash flow. By way of example, he owns energy exploration and production companies whose earnings are down because of low oil prices but also refineries whose earnings are up.
• He instituted more vigorous stress tests for portfolio companies in the wake of the 2007-09 debacle. Twenty-five of 70 companies were “cyclically exposed”. Some of those firms had high fixed costs of operations which would not allow them to reduce costs as revenues fell. Five companies got “bumped off” as a result of that stress-testing.

A couple caller questions struck me as particularly helpful:

Ken Norman: are you the lead manager on both the foreign funds? BH: Yes, but … Here Bernie made a particularly interesting point, that he gives his associates a lot of leeway on the foreign funds both in stock selection and portfolio construction. That has two effects. (1) It represents a form of transition planning. His younger associates are learning how to operate the Polaris system using real money and making decisions that carry real consequences. He thinks that will make them much better stewards of Polaris Global Value when it becomes their turn to lead the fund. (2) It represents a recruitment and retention strategy. It lets bright young analysts know that they have a real role to play and a real future with the firm.

Shostakovich, a member of the Observer’s discussion board community and investor in PGVFX: you’ve used options to manage volatility. Is that still part of the plan? BH: Yes, but rarely now. Three reasons. (1) There are no options on many of the portfolio firms. (2) Post-08, options positions are becoming much more expensive, hence less rewarding. (3) Options trade away “excess” upside in exchange for limiting downside; he’s reluctant to surrender much alpha since some of the firms in the portfolio have really substantial potential.

Bottom line: You need to listen to the discussion of ways in which Polaris modified their risk management in the wake of 2008. Their performance in the market crash was bad. They know it. They were surprised by it. And they reacted thoughtfully and vigorously to it. In the absence of that one period, PGVFX has been about as good as it gets. If you believe that their responses were appropriate and sufficient, as I suspect they were, then this strikes me as a really strong offering.

We’ve gathered all of the information available on Polaris Global Value Fund, including an .mp3 of the conference call, into its new Featured Fund page. Feel free to visit!

Conference Call Upcoming: Matthew Page and Ian Mortimer, Guinness Atkinson Funds

We’d be delighted if you’d join us on Monday, February 9th, from noon to 1:00 p.m. Eastern, for a conversation with Matthew Page and Ian Mortimer, managers of Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators (IWIRX) and Guinness Atkinson Dividend Builder (GAINX). These are both small, concentrated, distinctive, disciplined funds with top-tier performance. IWIRX, with three distinctive strategies (starting as an index fund and transitioning to an active one), is particularly interesting. Most folks, upon hearing “global innovators” immediately think “high tech, info tech, biotech.” As it turns out, that’s not what the fund’s about. They’ve found a far steadier, broader and more successful understanding of the nature and role of innovation. Guinness reports:

Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators is the #1 Global Multi-Cap Growth Fund across all time periods (1,3,5,& 10 years) this quarter ending 12/31/14 based on Fund total returns.

They are ranked 1 of 500 for 1 year, 1 of 466 for 3 years, 1 of 399 for 5 years and 1 of 278 for 10 years in the Lipper category Global Multi-Cap Growth.

Goodness. And it still has under $200 million in assets.

Matt volunteered the following plan for their slice of the call:

I think we would like to address some of the following points in our soliloquy.

• Why are innovative companies an interesting investment opportunity?
• How do we define an innovative company?
• Aren’t innovative companies just expensive?
• Are the most innovative companies the best investments?

I suppose you could sum all this up in the phrase: Why Innovation Matters.

In deference to the fact that Matt and Ian are based in London, we have moved our call to noon Eastern. While they were willing to hang around the office until midnight, asking them to do it struck me as both rude and unproductive (how much would you really get from talking to two severely sleep-deprived Brits?).

Over the past several years, the Observer has hosted a series of hour-long conference calls between remarkable investors and, well, you. The format’s always the same: you register to join the call. We share an 800-number with you and send you an emailed reminder on the day of the call. We divide our hour together roughly in thirds: in the first third, our guest talks with us, generally about his or her fund’s genesis and strategy. In the middle third I pose a series of questions, often those raised by readers. Here’s the cool part, in the final third you get to ask questions directly to our guest; none of this wimpy-wompy “you submit a written question in advance, which a fund rep rewords and reads blankly.” Nay nay. It’s your question, you ask it. The reception has been uniformly positive.

HOW CAN YOU JOIN IN?

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

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

WOULD AN ADDITIONAL HEADS UP HELP?

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

Funds in Registration

There continued to be remarkably few funds in registration with the SEC this month and I’m beginning to wonder if there’s been a fundamental change in the entrepreneurial dynamic in the industry. There are nine new no-load retail funds in the pipeline, and they’ll launch by the end of April. The most interesting development might be DoubleLine’s move into commodities. (It’s certainly not Vanguard’s decision to launch a muni-bond index.) They’re all detailed on the Funds in Registration page.

Manager Changes

About 50 funds changed part or all of their management teams in the past month. An exceptional number of them were part of the continuing realignment at PIMCO. A curious and disappointing development was the departure of founding manager Michael Carne from the helm of Nuveen NWQ Flexible Income Fund (NWQAX). He built a very good, conservative allocation fund that holds stocks, bonds and convertibles. We wrote about the fund a while ago: three years after launch it received a five-star rating from Morningstar, celebration followed until a couple weeks later Morningstar reclassified it as a “convertibles” fund (it ain’t) and it plunged to one-star, appealed the ruling, was reclassified and regained its stars. It has been solid, disciplined and distinctive, which makes it odd that Nuveen chose to switch managers.

You can see all of the comings and goings on our Manager Changes  page.

Briefly Noted . . .

On December 1, 2014, Janus Capital Group announced the acquisition of VS Holdings, parent of VelocityShares, LLC. VelocityShares provides both index calculation and a suite of (creepy) leveraged, reverse leveraged, double leveraged and triple leveraged ETNs.

Fidelity Strategic Income (FSICX) is changing the shape of the barbell. They’ve long described their portfolio as a barbell with high yield and EM bonds on the one end and high quality US Treasuries and corporates on the other. They’re now shifting their “neutral allocation” to inch up high yield exposure (from 40 to 45%) and drop investment grade (from 30 to 25%).

GaveKal Knowledge Leaders Fund (GAVAX/GAVIX) is changing its name to GaveKal Knowledge Leaders Allocation Fund. The fund has always had an absolute value discipline which leads to it high cash allocations (currently 25%), exceedingly low risk … and Morningstar’s open disdain (it’s currently a one-star large growth fund). The changes will recognize the fact that it’s not designed to be a fully-invested equity fund. Their objective changes from “long-term capital appreciation” to “long-term capital appreciation with an emphasis on capital preservation” and “fixed income” gets added as a principal investment strategy.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Palmer Square Absolute Return Fund (PSQAX/PSQIX) has agreed to a lower management fee and has reduced the cap on operating expenses by 46 basis points to 1.39% and 1.64% on its institutional and “A” shares.

Likewise, State Street/Ramius Managed Futures Strategy Fund (RTSRX) dropped its expense cap by 20 basis points, to 1.90% and 1.65% on its “A” and institutional shares.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Effective as of the close of business on February 27, 2015, BNY Mellon Municipal Opportunities Fund (MOTIX) will be closed to new and existing investors. It’s a five-star fund with $1.1 billion in assets and five-year returns in the top 1% of its peer group.

Franklin Small Cap Growth Fund (FSGRX) closes to new investors on February 12, 2015. It’s a very solid fund that had a very ugly 2014, when it captured 240% of the market’s downside.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Stand back! AllianceBernstein is making its move: all AllianceBernstein funds are being rebranded as AB funds.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Ascendant Natural Resources Fund (NRGAX) becomes only a fond memory as of February 27, 2015.

AdvisorShares International Gold and AdvisorShares Gartman Gold/British Pound ETFs liquidated at the end of January.

Cloumbia is cleaning out a bunch of funds at the beginning of March: Columbia Masters International Equity Portfolio, Absolute Return Emerging Markets Macro Fund,Absolute Return Enhanced Multi-Strategy Fund and Absolute Return Multi-Strategy Fund. Apparently having 10-11 share classes each wasn’t enough to save them. The Absolute Return funds shared the same management team and were generally mild-mannered under-performers with few investors.

Direxion/Wilshire Dynamic Fund (DXDWX) will be dynamically spinning in its grave come February 20^th.

Dynamic Total Return Fund (DYNAX/DYNIX) will totally return to the dust whence it came, effective February 20^th. Uhhh … if I’m reading the record correctly, the “A” shares never launched, the “I” shares launched in September 2014 and management pulled the plug after three months.

Loeb King Alternative Strategies (LKASX) and Loeb King Asia Fund (LKPAX) are being liquidated at the end of February because, well, Loeb King doesn’t want to run mutual funds anymore and they’re getting entirely out of the business. Both were pricey long/short funds with minimal assets and similar success.

New Path Tactical Allocation Fund became liquid on January 13, 2015.

In “consideration of the Fund’s asset size, strategic importance, current expenses and historical performance,” Turner’s board of directors has pulled the plug on Turner Titan Fund (TTLFX). It wasn’t a particularly bad fund, it’s just that Turner couldn’t get anyone (including one of the two managers and three of the four trustees) to invest in it. Graveside ceremonies will take place on March 13, 2015 in the family burial plot.

In Closing . . .

I try, each month, to conclude this essay with thanks to the folks who’ve supported us, by reading, by shopping through our Amazon link and by making direct, voluntary contributions. Part of the discipline of thanking folks is, oh, getting their names right. It’s not a long list, so you’d think I could manage it.

Not so much. So let me take a special moment to thank the good folks at Evergreen Asset Management in Washington for their ongoing support over the years. I misidentified them last month. And I’d also like to express intense jealousy over what appears to be the view out their front window since the current view out my front window is

With extra careful spelling, thanks go out to the guys at Gardey Financial of Saginaw (MI), who’ve been supporting us for quite a while but who don’t seem to have a particularly good view from their office, Callahan Capital Management out of Steamboat Springs (hi, Dan!), Mary Rose, our friends Dan S. and Andrew K. (I know it’s odd, but just knowing that there are folks who’ve stuck with us for years makes me feel good), Rick Forno (who wrote an embarrassingly nice letter to which we reply, “gee, oh garsh”), Ned L. (who, like me, has professed for a living), David F., the surprising and formidable Dan Wiener and the Hastingses. And, as always, to our two stalwart subscribers, Greg and Deb. If we had MFO coffee mugs, I’d sent them to you all!

Do consider joining us for the talk with Matt and Ian. We’ve got a raft of new fund profiles in the works, a recommendation to Morningstar to euthanize one of their long-running features, and some original research on fund trustees to share. In celebration of our fourth birthday this spring, we’ve got surprises a-brewin’ for you.

Until then, be safe!

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.