Dear friends,

We’ve always enjoyed and benefited from your reactions to the Observer. Your notes are read carefully, passed around and they often shape our work in the succeeding months. The most common reaction to our July issue was captured by one reader who shared this observation:

Dear David: I really love your writing. I just wish there weren’t so much of it. Perhaps you could consider paring back a bit?

Each month’s cover essay, in Word, ranges from 22 – 35 pages, single-spaced. June and July were both around 30 pages, a length perhaps more appropriate to the cool and heartier months of late autumn and winter. In response, we’ve decided to offer you the Seersucker Edition of Mutual Fund Observer. We, along with the U.S. Senate, are celebrating seersucker, the traditional fabric of summer suits in the South. Light, loose and casual, it is “a wonderful summer fabric that was designed for the hot summer months,” according to Mississippi senator Roger Wicker. In respect of the heat and the spirit of bipartisanship, this is the “light and slightly rumpled” edition of the Observer that “retains its fashionable good looks despite summer’s heat and humidity.”

Ken Mayer, some rights reserved

For September we’ll be adding a table of contents to help you navigate more quickly around the essay. We’ll target “Tweedy”, and perhaps Tweedy Browne, in November!

“There’ll never be another Bill Gross.” Lament or marketing slogan?

Up until July 31, the market seemed to be oblivious to the fact that the wheels seemed to be coming off the global geopolitical system. We focused instead on the spectacle of major industry players acting like carnies (do a Google image search for the word, you’ll get the idea) at the Mississippi Valley Fair.

Exhibit One is PIMCO, a firm that we lauded as having the best record for new fund launches of any of the Big Five. In signs of what must be a frustrating internal struggle:

PIMCO icon Bill Gross felt compelled to announce, at Morningstar, that PIMCO was “the happiest place in the world” to work, allowing that only Disneyland might be happier. Two notes: 1) when a couple says “our marriage is doing great,” divorce is imminent, and 2) Disneyland is, reportedly, a horrible place to work.

(Reuters, Jim King)

Gross also trumpeted “a performance turnaround” which appears not to be occurring at Gross’s several funds, either an absolute return or risk-adjusted return basis.

After chasing co-CIO Mohammed el-Erian out and convincing fund manager Jeremie Banet (a French national whose accent Gross apparently liked to ridicule) that he’d be better off running a sandwich truck, Gross took to snapping at CEO Doug Hodge for his failure to stanch fund outflows.

PIMCO insiders have reportedly asked Mr. Gross to stop speaking in public, or at least stop venting to the media. Mr. Gross threatened to quit, then publicly announced that he’s never threatened to quit.

Despite PIMCO’s declaration that the Wall Street Journal article that detailed many of these promises was “full of untruths and mischaracterizations that are unworthy of a major news daily,” they’ve also nervously allowed that “Pimco isn’t only Bill Gross” and lamented (or promised) that there will never been another PIMCO “bond king” after Gross’s departure.

Others in the industry, frustrated that PIMCO was hogging the silly season limelight, quickly grabbed the red noses and cream pies and headed at each other.

The most colorful is the fight between Morningstar and DoubleLine. On July 16, Morningstar declared that “On account of a lack of information … [DoubleLine Total Return DBLNX] is Not Ratable.” That judgment means that DoubleLine isn’t eligible for a metallic (Gold, Silver, Bronze) Analyst Rating but it doesn’t affect that fund’s five-star rating or the mechanical judgment that the $34 billion fund has offered “high” returns and “below average” risk. Morningstar’s contention is that the fund’s strategies are so opaque that risks cannot be adequately assessed at arm’s length and the DoubleLine refuses to disclose sufficient information to allow Morningstar’s analysts to understand the process from the inside. DoubleLine’s rejoinder (which might be characterized as “oh, go suck an egg!”) is that Morningstar “has made false statement about DoubleLine” and “mischaracterized the fund,” in consequence of which they’ll have “no further communication with Morningstar.com” (“How Bad is the Blood Between DoubleLine and Morningstar?” 07/18/2014).

DoubleLine declined several requests for comment on the fight and, specifically, for a copy of the reported eight page letter of particulars they’d sent to Morningstar. Nadine Youssef, speaking for Morningstar, stressed that

It’s not about refusing to answer questions—it’s about having sufficient information to assign an Analyst Rating. There are a few other fund managers who don’t answer all of our questions, but we assign an Analyst Rating if we have enough information from filings and our due diligence process.

If a fund produced enough information in shareholder letters and portfolios, we could still rate it. For example, stock funds are much easier to assess for risk because our analysts can run good portfolio analytics on them. For exotic mortgages, we can’t properly assess the risk without additional information.

It’s a tough call. Many fund managers, in private, deride Morningstar as imperious, high-handed, sanctimonious and self-serving. Others aren’t that positive. But in the immediate case Morningstar seems to be acting with considerable integrity. The mere fact that a fund is huge and famous can’t be grounds, in and of itself, for an endorsement by Morningstar’s analysts (though, admittedly, Morningstar does not have a single Negative rating on even one of the 234 $10 billion-plus funds). To the extent that this kerfuffle shines a spotlight on the larger problem of investors placing their money in funds whose strategies that don’t actually understand and couldn’t explain, it might qualify as a valuable “teachable moment” for the community.

Somewhere in there, one of the founders of DoubleLine’s equity unit quit and his fund was promptly liquidated with an explanation that almost sounded like “we weren’t really interested in that fund anyway.”

Waddell & Reed, adviser to the Ivy Funds, lost star manager Bryan Krug to Artisan.  He was replaced on Ivy High Income (IVHIX) by William Nelson, who had been running Waddell & Reed High Income (UNHIX) since 2008. On July 9^th Nelson was fired “for cause” and for reasons “unrelated to his portfolio management responsibilities,” which raised questions about the management of nearly $14 billion in high-yield assets. They also named a new president, had their stock downgraded, lost a third high-profile manager, drew huge fund inflows and blew away earnings expectations.

Recovery Time

In the book “Practical Risk-Adjusted Performance Measurement,” Carl Bacon defines recovery time or drawdown duration as the time taken to recover from an individual or maximum drawdown to the original level. In the case of maximum drawdown (MAXDD), the figure below depicts recovery time from peak. Typically, for equity funds at least, the descent from peak to valley happens more quickly than the ascent from valley to recovery level.

An individual’s risk tolerance and investment timeline certainly factor into expectations of maximum drawdown and recovery time. As evidenced in “Ten Market Cycles” from our April commentary, 20% drawdowns are quite common. Since 1956, the SP500 has fallen nearly 30% or more eight times. And, three times – a gut wrenching 50%. Morningstar advises that investors in equity funds need “investment horizons longer than 10 years.”

Since 1962, SP500’s worst recovery time is actually a modest 53 months. Perhaps more surprising is that aggregate bonds experienced a similar duration, before the long bull run.  The difference, however, is in drawdown level.

 During the past 20 years, bonds have recovered much more quickly, even after the financial crisis.

Long time MFO board contributor Bee posted recently:

MAXDD or Maximum Drawdown is to me only half of the story.

Markets move up and down. Typically the more aggressive the fund the more likely it is to have a higher MAXDD. I get that.

What I find “knocks me out of a fund” in a down market is the fund’s inability to bounce back.

Ulcer Index, as defined by Peter Martin and central to MFO’s ratings system, does capture both the MAXDD and recovery time, but like most indices, it is most easily interpreted when comparing funds over same time period. Shorter recovery times will have lower UIcer Index, even if they experience the same absolute MAXDD. Similarly, the attendant risk-adjusted-return measure Martin Ratio, which is excess return divided by Ulcer Index, will show higher levels.

But nothing hits home quite like maximum drawdown and recovery time, whose absolute levels are easily understood. A review of lifetime MAXDD and recoveries reveals the following funds with some dreadful numbers, representing a cautionary tale at least:

In contrast, some notable funds, including three Great Owls, with recovery times at one year or less:

On Bee’s suggestion, we will be working to make fund recovery times available to MFO readers.

Flash Geeks and Other Vagaries of Life …..

By Edward Studzinski

“The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing.”

                Gamal Abdel Nasser

Some fifteen to twenty-odd years ago, before Paine Webber was acquired by UBS Financial Services, it had a superb annual conference. It was their quantitative investment conference usually held in Boston in early December. What was notable about it was that the attendees were the practitioners of what fundamental investors back then considered the black arts, namely the quants (quantitative investors) from shops like Acadian, Batterymarch, Fidelity, Numeric, and many of the other quant or quasi-quant shops. I made a point of attending, not because I thought of myself as a quant, but rather because I saw that an increasing amount of money was being managed in this fashion. WHAT I DID NOT KNOW COULD HURT BOTH ME AND MY INVESTORS.

One of the things you quickly learned about quantitative methods was that their factor-based models for screening stocks and industries, and then constructing portfolios, worked until they did not work. That is, inefficiencies that were discovered could be exploited until others noticed the same inefficiencies and adjusted their models accordingly. The beauty of this conference was that you had papers and presentations from the California Technology, MIT, and other computer geeks who had gone into the investment world. They would discuss what they had been working on and back-testing (seeing how things would have turned out). This usually gave you a pretty good snapshot of how they would be investing going forward. If nothing else, it helped you to know when you might want to step out of the way to keep from being run-over. It was certainly helpful to me in 1994. 

In late 2006, I was in New York at a financial markets presentation hosted by the Santa Fe Institute and Bill Miller of Legg Mason. It was my follow-on substitute for the Paine Webber conference. The speakers included people like Andrew Lo, who is both a brilliant scientist at MIT and the chief scientific officer of the Alpha Simplex Group. One of the other people I chanced to hear that day was Dan Mathisson of Credit Suisse, who was one of the early pioneers and fathers of algorithmic trading. In New York then on the stock exchanges people were seeing change not incrementally, but on a daily basis. The floor trading and market maker jobs which had been handed down in families from generation to generation (go to Fordham or NYU, get your degree, and come into the family business) were under siege, as things went electronic (anyone who has studied innovation in technology and the markets knows that the Canadians, as with air traffic control systems, beat us by many years in this regard). And then I returned to Illinois, where allegedly the Flat Earth Society was founded and still held sway. One of the more memorable quotes which I will take with me forever is this. “Trying to understand algorithmic trading is a waste of time as it will never amount to more than ten per cent of volume on the exchanges. One will get better execution by having” fill-in-the blank “execute your trade on the floor.” Exit, stage right.

Flash forward to 2014. Michael Lewis has written and published his book, Flash Boys. I have to confess that I purchased this book and then let it sit on my reading pile for a few months, thinking that I already understood what it was about. I got to it sitting in a hotel room in Switzerland in June, thinking it would put me to sleep in a different time zone. I learned very quickly that I did not know what it was about. Hours later, I was two-thirds finished with it and fascinated. And beyond the fascination, I had seen what Lewis talked about happen many times in the process of reviewing trade executions.

If you think that knowing something about algorithmic trading, black pools, and the elimination of floor traders by banks of servers and trading stations prepares you for what you learn in Lewis’ book, you are wrong. Think about your home internet service. Think about the difference in speeds that you see in going from copper to fiber optic cable (if you can actually get it run into your home). While much of the discussion in the book is about front-running of customer trades, more is about having access to the right equipment as well as the proximity of that equipment to a stock exchange’s computer servers. And it is also about how customer trades are often routed to exchanges that are not advantageous to the customer in terms of ultimate execution cost. 

Now, a discussion of front running will probably cause most eyes to glaze over. Perhaps a better way to think about what is going on is to use the term “skimming” as it might apply for instance, to someone being able to program a bank’s computers to take a few fractions of a cent from every transaction of a particular nature. And this skimming goes on, day in and day out, so that over a year’s time, we are talking about those fractions of cents adding up to millions of dollars.

Let’s talk about a company, Bitzko Kielbasa Company, which is a company that trades on average 500,000 shares a day. You want to sell 20,000 shares of Bitzko. The trading screen shows that the current market is $99.50 bid for 20,000 shares. You tell the trader to hit the bid and execute the sale at $99.50. He types in the order on his machine, hits sell, and you sell 100 shares of Bitzko at $99.50. The bid now drops to $99.40 for 1,000 shares. When you ask what happened, the answer is, “the bid wasn’t real and it went away.” What you learn from Lewis’ book is that as the trade was being entered, before the send/execute button was pressed, other firms could read your transaction and thus manipulate the market in that security. You end up selling your Bitzko at an average price well under the original price at which you thought you could execute.

So, how is it that no one has been held accountable for this yet? I don’t know, although there seem to be a lot of investigations ongoing. You also learn that a lot here has to do with order flow, or to what exchange a sell-side firm gets to direct your order for execution. The tragi-comic aspect of this is that mutual fund trustees spend a lot of time looking at trading evaluations as to whether best execution took place. The reality is that they have absolutely no idea on whether they got best execution because the whole thing was based on a false premise from the get-go. And the consultant’s trading execution reports reflect none of that.

Who has the fiduciary obligation? Many different parties, all of whom seem to hope that if they say nothing, the finger will not get pointed at them. The other side of the question is, you are executing trades on behalf of your client, individual or institutional, and you know which firms are doing this. Do you still keep doing business with them? The answer appears to be yes, because it is more important to YOUR business than to act in the best interests of your clients. Is there not a fiduciary obligation here as well? Yes.

I would like to think that there will be a day of reckoning coming. That said, it is not an easy area to understand or explain. In most sell-side firms, the only ones who really understood what was going on were the computer geeks. All that management and the marketers understood was that they were making a lot of money, but could not explain how. All that the buy-side firms understood was that they and their customers were being disadvantaged, but by how much was another question.

As an investor, how do you keep from being exploited? The best indicators as usual are fees, expenses, and investment turnover. Some firms have trading strategies tied to executing trades only when a set buy or sell price is triggered. Batterymarch was one of the forerunners here. Dimensional Fund Advisors follows a similar strategy today. Given low turnover in most indexing strategies, that is another way to limit the degree of hurt. Failing that, you probably need to resign yourself to paying hidden tolls, especially as a purchaser or seller of individual securities. Given that, being a long-term investor makes a good bit of sense. I will close by saying that I strongly suggest Michael Lewis’ book as must-reading. It makes you wonder how an industry got to the point where it has become so hard for so many to not see the difference between right and wrong.

What does it take for Morningstar to notice that they’re not noticing you?

Based on the funds profiled in Russ Kinnel’s July 15th webcast, “7 Under the Radar Funds,” the answer is about $400 million and ten years with the portfolio.

Let’s start with the obvious: these are pretty consistently solid funds and well worth your consideration. What most strikes me about the list is the implied judgment that unless you’re from a large fund complex, the threshold for Morningstar even to admit that they’ve been ignoring you is dauntingly high. While Don Phillips spoke at the 2013 Morningstar Investment Conference of an initiative to identify promising funds earlier in their existence, that promise wasn’t mentioned at the 2014 gathering and this list seems to substantiate the judgment that from Morningstar’s perspective, small funds are dead to them.

That’s a pity given the research that Mr. Kinnel acknowledges in his introduction…when it comes to funds, bigger is simply not better.

Investors might be beginning to suspect the same thing. Kevin McDevitt, a senior analyst on Morningstar’s manager research team (that’s what they’re calling the folks who cover mutual funds now), studied fund flows and noticed two things:

1. Starting in early 2013, investors began pouring money into “risk on” funds. “Since the start of 2013, flows into the least-volatile group of funds have basically been flat. During that same six-quarter stretch, investors poured nearly $125 billion into the most-volatile category of funds.” That is, he muses, reminiscent of their behavior in the years (2004-07) immediately before the final crisis.
2. Investors are pouring money into recently-launched funds. He writes: “What’s interesting about this recent stretch is that a sizable chunk of inflows has gone to funds without a three-year track record. If those happen to be higher-risk funds too, then people really have embraced risk once more. It’s pretty astonishing that these fledgling funds have collected more inflows over the past 12 months through June ($154 billion) than the other four quartiles (that is, funds with at least a three-year record) combined ($117 billion).”

I’ve got some serious concerns about that paragraph (you can’t just assume newer funds as “higher-risk funds too”) and I’ve sent Mr. McDevitt a request for clarification since I don’t have any ideas of what “the other four quartiles” (itself a mathematical impossibility) refers to. See “Investors Show Willingness to Buy Untested Funds,” 07/31/2014.

That said, it looks like investors and their advisors might be willing to listen. Happily, the Observer’s willing to speak with them about newer, smaller, independent funds.  Our willingness to do so is based on the research, not simple altruism. Small, nimble, independent, investment-driven rather than asset-driven works.

And so, for the 3500 funds smaller than the smallest name on Morningstar’s list and the 4100 smaller than the average fund on this list, be of good cheer! For the 141 small funds that have a better 10-year record than any of these, be brave! To the 17 unsung funds that have a five-star rating for the past three years, five years, ten years and overall, your time will come!

Thanks to Akbar Poonawala for bringing the webcast to my attention!

What aren’t you reading this summer?

If you’re like me, you have at your elbow a stack of books that you promised yourself you were going to read during summer’s long bright evenings and languid afternoons.  Mine includes Mark Miodownik’s Stuff Matters: Exploring the Marvelous Materials that Shape Our Manmade World (2013) and Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (2012). Both remain in lamentably pristine condition.

How are yours?

Professor Jordan Ellenberg, a mathematician at Wisconsin-Madison, wrote an interesting but reasonably light-hearted essay attempting to document the point at which our ambition collapses and we surrender our pretensions of literacy.  He did it by tracking the highlights that readers embed in the Kindle versions of various books.  His thought is that the point at which readers stop highlighting text is probably a pretty good marker of where they stopped reading it.  His results are presented in “The Summer’s Most Unread Book Is…” (7/5/14). Here are his “most unread” nominees:

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman : 6.8% 
Apparently the reading was more slow than fast. To be fair, Prof. Kahneman’s book, the summation of a life’s work at the forefront of cognitive psychology, is more than twice as long as “Lean In,” so his score probably represents just as much total reading as Ms. Sandberg’s does.

A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking: 6.6% 
The original avatar backs up its reputation pretty well. But it’s outpaced by one more recent entrant—which brings us to our champion, the most unread book of this year (and perhaps any other). Ladies and gentlemen, I present:

Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty: 2.4% 
Yes, it came out just three months ago. But the contest isn’t even close. Mr. Piketty’s book is almost 700 pages long, and the last of the top five popular highlights appears on page 26. Stephen Hawking is off the hook; from now on, this measure should be known as the Piketty Index.

At the other end of the spectrum, one of the most read non-fiction works is a favorite of my colleague Ed Studzinski’s or of a number of our readers:

Flash Boys by Michael Lewis : 21.7% 
Mr. Lewis’s latest trip through the sewers of financial innovation reads like a novel and gets highlighted like one, too. It takes the crown in my sampling of nonfiction books.

What aren’t you drinking this summer?

The answer, apparently, is Coca-Cola in its many manifestations. US consumption of fizzy drinks has been declining since 2005. In part that’s a matter of changing consumer tastes and in part a reaction to concerns about obesity; even Coca-Cola North America’s president limits himself to one 8-ounce bottle a day. 

Some investors, though, suspect that the problem arises from – or at least is not being effectively addressed by – Coke’s management. They argue that management is badly misallocating capital (to, for example, buying Keurig rather than investing in their own factories) and compensating themselves richly for the effort.

Enter David Winters, manager of Wintergreen Fund (WGRNX). While some long-time Coke investors (that would be Warren Buffett) merely abstain rather than endorse management proposals, Mr. Winters loudly, persistently and thoughtfully objects. His most public effort is embodied in the website Fix Big Soda. 

David’s aged more gracefully than have I. Rich, smart, influential and youthful. Nuts.

This is far from Winters’ first attempt to influence the direction of one of his holdings. He stressed two things in a long ago interview with us: (1) the normal fund manager’s impulse to simply sell and let a corporation implode struck him as understandable but defective, and (2) the vast majority of management teams welcomed thoughtful, carefully-researched advice from qualified outsiders. But some don’t, preferring to run a corporation for the benefit of insiders rather than shareholders or other stakeholders. When Mr. Winters perceives that a firm’s value might grow dramatically if only management stopped being such buttheads (though I’m not sure he uses the term), he’s willing to become the catalyst to unlock that value for the benefit of his own shareholders. A fairly high profile earlier example was his successful conflict with the management of Florida real estate firm Consolidated-Tomoka.

You surely wouldn’t want all of your managers pursuing such a strategy but having at least one of them gives you access to another source of market-independent gains in your portfolio. So-called “special situation” or “distressed” investments can gain value if the catalyst is successful, even if the broader market is declining.

Observer Fund Profiles:

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

This month we profile two funds that offer different – and differently successful – takes on the same strategy. There’s a lot of academic research that show firms which are seriously and structurally devoted to innovation far outperform their rivals. These firms can exist in all sectors; it’s entirely possible to have a highly innovative firm in, say, the cement industry. Conversely, many firms systematically under-invest in innovation and the research suggests these firms are more-or-less doomed.

Why would firms be so boneheaded? Two reasons come to mind:

1. Long-term investments are hard to justify in a market that demands short-term results.
2. Spending on research and training are accounted as “overhead” and management is often rewarded for trimming unnecessary overhead.

Both of this month’s profiles target funds that are looking for ways to identify firms that are demonstrably and structurally (that is, permanently) committed to innovation or knowledge leadership. While their returns are very different, each is successful on its own terms.

GaveKal Knowledge Leaders (GAVAX) combines a search for high R&D firms with sophisticated market risks screens that force it to reduce its market exposure when markets begin teetering into “the red zone.” The result is an equity portfolio with hedge fund like characteristics which many advisors treat as a “liquid alts” option.

Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators (IWIRX) stays fully invested regardless of market conditions in the world’s 30 most innovative firms. What started in the 1990s as the Wired 40 Index Fund has been crushing its competition as an actively managed for fund over a decade. Lipper just ranked it as the best performing Global Large Cap Growth fund of the past year. And of the past three years. Also the #1 performer for the past five years and, while we’re at it, for the past 10 years as well.

Elevator Talk: Jim Cunnane, Advisory Research MLP & Energy Income Fund (INFRX/INFIX)

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.

The Observer has presented the case for investing in Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) before, both when we profiled SteelPath Alpha (now Oppenheimer SteelPath Alpha MLPAX) and in our Elevator Talk with Ted Gardiner of Salient MLP Alpha and Energy Infrastructure II (SMLPX). Here’s the $0.50 version of the tale:

MLPs are corporate entities which typically own energy infrastructure. They do not explore for oil and they do not refine it, but they likely own the pipelines that connect the E&P firm with the refiner. Likewise they don’t mine the coal nor produce the electricity, but might own and maintain the high tension transmission grid that distributes it.

MLPs typically make money by charging for the use of their facilities, the same way that toll road operators do. They’re protected from competition by the ridiculously high capital expenses needed to create infrastructure. The rates they charge as generally set by state rate commissions, so they’re very stable and tend to rise by slow, predictable amounts.

The prime threat to MLPs is falling energy demand (for example, during a severe recession) or falling energy production.

From an investor’s perspective, direct investment in an MLP can trigger complex and expensive tax requirements. Indeed, a fund that’s too heavily invested in MLPs alone might generate those same tax headaches.

That having been said, these are surprisingly profitable investments. The benchmark Alerian MLP Index has returned 17.2% annually over the past decade with a dividend yield of 5.2%. That’s more than twice the return of the stock market and twice the income of the bond market.

The questions you need to address are two-fold. First, do these investments make sense for your portfolio? If so, second, does an actively-managed fund make more sense than simply riding an index. Jim Cunnane thinks that two yes’s are in order.

Mr. Cunnane manages Advisory Research MLP & Energy Infrastructure Fund which started life as a Fiduciary Asset Management Company (FAMCO) fund until the complex was acquired by Advisory Research. He’d been St. Louis-based FAMCO’s chief investment officer for 15 years. He’s the CIO for the MLP & Energy Infrastructure team and chair of AR’s Risk Management Committee. He also manages two closed-end funds which also target MLPs: the Fiduciary/Claymore MLP Opportunity Fund (FMO) and the Nuveen Energy MLP Total Return Fund (JMF). Here are his 200 words (and one picture) on why you might consider INFRX:

We’re always excited to talk about this fund because it’s a passion of ours. It’s a unique way to manage MLPs in an open-end fund. When you look at the landscape of US energy, it really is an exciting fundamental story. The tremendous increases in the production of oil and gas have to be accompanied by tremendous increases in energy infrastructure. Ten years ago the INGA estimated that the natural gas industry would need $3.6 billion/year in infrastructure investments. Today the estimate is $14.2 billion. We try to find great energy infrastructure and opportunistically buy it.

There are two ways you can attack investing in MLPs through a fund. One would be an MLP-dedicated portfolio but that’s subject to corporate taxation at the fund level. The other is to limit direct MLP holdings to 25% of the portfolio and place the rest in attractive energy infrastructure assets including the parent companies of the MLPs, companies that might launch MLPs and a new beast called a YieldCo which typically focus on solar or wind infrastructure. We have the freedom to move across the firms’ capital structure, investing in either debt or equity depending on what offers the most attractive return.

Our portfolio in comparison to our peers offers a lot of additional liquidity, a lower level of volatility and tax efficiency. Despite the fact that we’re not exclusively invested in MLPs we manage a 90% correlation with the MLP index.

While there are both plausible bull and bear cases to be made about MLPs, our conclusion is that risk and reward is fairly balanced and that MLP investors will earn a reasonable level of return over a 10-year horizon. To account for the recent strong performance of MLPs, we are adjusting our long term return expectation down to 5-9% per annum, from our previous estimate of 6-10%. We also expect a 10% plus MLP market correction at some point this year.

The “exciting story” that Mr. Cunnane mentioned above is illustrated in a chart that he shared:

The fund has both institutional and retail share classes. The retail class (INFRX) has a $2500 minimum initial investment and a 5.5% load.  Expenses are 1.50% with about $725 million in assets.  The institutional share class (INFIX) is $1,000,000 and 1.25%. Here’s the fund’s homepage.

Funds in Registration

The Securities and Exchange Commission requires that funds file a prospectus for the Commission’s review at least 75 days before they propose to offer it for sale to the public. The release of new funds is highly cyclical; it tends to peak in December and trough in the summer.

This month the Observer’s other David (research associate David Welsch) tracked down nine new no-load funds in registration, all of which target a September launch. It might be the time of year but all of this month’s offerings strike me as “meh.”

Manager Changes

Just as the number of fund launches and fund liquidations are at seasonal lows, so too are the number of fund manager changes.  Chip tracked down a modest 46 manager changes, with two retirements and a flurry of activity at Fidelity accounting for much of the activity.

Top Developments in Fund Industry Litigation – July 2014

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

New Lawsuit

• In a copyright infringement lawsuit, the publisher of Oil Daily alleges that KA Fund Advisors (you might recognize them as Kayne Anderson) and its parent company have “for years” internally copied and distributed the publication “on a consistent and systematic basis,” and “concealed these activities” from the publisher. (Energy Intelligence Group, Inc. v. Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, LP.)

 Order

• The court granted American Century‘s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit that challenged investments in an illegal Internet gambling business by the Ultra Fund. (Seidl v. Am. Century Cos.)

 Briefs

• Plaintiffs filed their opposition to BlackRock‘s motion to dismiss excessive-fee litigation regarding its Global Allocation and Dividend Equity Funds. (In re BlackRock Mut. Funds Advisory Fee Litig.)
• First Eagle filed a motion to dismiss an excessive-fee lawsuit regarding its Global and Overseas Funds. (Lynn M. Kennis Trust v. First Eagle Inv. Mgmt., LLC.)
• J.P. Morgan filed a motion to dismiss an excessive- fee lawsuit regarding its Core Bond, High Yield, and Short Duration Bond Funds. (Goodman v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt., Inc.)

Answer

• Opting against a motion to dismiss, ING filed an answer in the fee lawsuit regarding its Global Real Estate Fund. (Cox v. ING Invs. LLC.)

– – –

A potentially fascinating case arose just a bit after David shared his list with us. A former Vanguard employee is suing Vanguard, alleging that they illegally dodged billions in taxes. While Vanguard itself warns that “The issues presented in the complaint are far too complex to get a full and proper hearing in the news media” (the wimps), it appears that the plaintiff has two allegations:

1. That Vanguard charges too little for their services; they charge below-market rates while the tax code requires that, for tax purposes, transactions be assessed at market rates. A simple illustration: if your parents rented an apartment to you for $300/month when anyone else would expect to pay $1000/month for the same property, the $700 difference would be taxable to you since they’re sort of giving you a $700 gift each month.
2. That Vanguard should have to pay taxes on the $1.5 billion “contingency reserve” they’ve built.

Joseph DiStephano of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Vanguard’s hometown newspaper, laid out many of the issues in “Vanguard’s singular model is under scrutiny,” 07/30/2014. If you’d like to be able to drop legalese casually at your next pool party, you can read the plaintiff’s filing in State of New York ex rel David Danon v. Vanguard Group Inc.

Updates

Aston/River Road Long-Short (ARLSX) passed its three year anniversary in May and received its first Morningstar rating recently. They rated it as a four-star fund which has captured a bit more of the upside and a bit less of the downside than has its average peer. The fund had a bad January (down more than 4%) but has otherwise been a pretty consistently above average, risk-conscious performer.

Zac Wydra, manager of Beck, Mack and Oliver Partners Fund (BMPEX), was featured in story in the Capitalism and Crisis newsletter. I suspect the title, “Investing Wisdom from Zac Wydra,” likely made Zac a bit queasy since it rather implies that he’s joined the ranks of the Old Dead White Guys (ODWGs) also with Graham and Dodd.

Here’s a major vote of confidence: Effective August 1, 2014, John Neff and Thomas Saberhagen were named as co-portfolio managers for the Akre Focus Fund. They both joined Mr. Akre’s firm in 2009 after careers at William Blair and Aegis Financial, respectively. The elevation is striking. Readers might recall that Mr. Akre was squeezed out after running FBR Focus (now Hennessy Focus HFCSX) for 13 years. FBR decided to cut Mr. Akre’s contract by about 50% (without reducing shareholder expenses), which caused him to launch Akre Focus using the same discipline. FBR promptly poached Mr. Akre’s analysts (while he was out of town) to run their fund in his place. At that point, Mr. Akre swore never to repeat the mistake and to limit analysts to analyzing rather than teaching them portfolio construction. Time and experience with the team seems to have mellowed the great man. Given the success that the rapscallions have had at HFCSX, there’s a good chance that Mr. Akre, now in his 70s, has trained Neff and Saberhagen well which might help address investor concerns about an eventual succession plan.

Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX) passed the $100 million AUM threshold in July and is in the process of hiring a business development director. Manager Andrew Foster reports that they received a slug of really impressive applications. Our bottom line was, and is, “There are few more-attractive emerging markets options available.” We’re pleased that folks are beginning to have faith in that conclusion.

Stewart Capital Mid Cap Fund (SCMFX) has been named to the Charles Schwab’s Mutual Fund OneSource Select List for the third quarter of 2014. It’s one of six independent mid-caps to make the list. The recognition is appropriate and overdue.  Our Star in the Shadow’s profile of the fund concluded that it was “arguably one of the top two midcap funds on the market, based on its ability to perform in volatile rising and falling markets. Their strategy seems disciplined, sensible and repeatable.” That judgment hasn’t changed but their website has; the firm made a major and welcome upgrade to it last year.

Briefly Noted . . .

Yikes. I mean, really yikes. On July 28, Aberdeen Asset Management Plc (ADN) reported that an unidentified but “very long standing” client had just withdrawn 4 billion pounds of assets from the firm’s global and Asia-Pacific region equity funds. The rough translation is $6.8 billion. Overall the firm saw over 8 billion pounds of outflow in the second quarter, an amount large enough that even Bill Gross would feel it.

We all have things that set us off. For some folks the very idea of “flavored” coffee (poor defenseless beans drenched in amaretto-kiwi goo) will do it. For others it’s the designated hitter rule or plans to descrecate renovate Wrigley Field. For me, it’s fund managers who refuse to invest in their own funds, followed closely behind by fund trustees who refuse to invest in the funds whose shareholders they represent.

Sarah Max at Barron’s published a good short column (07/12/14) on the surprising fact that over half of all managers have zero (not a farthing, not a penny, not a thing) invested in their own funds. The research is pretty clear (the more the insiders’ interests are aligned with yours, the better a fund’s risk-adjusted performance) and the atmospherics are even clearer (what on earth would convince you that a fund is worth an outsider’s money if it’s not worth an insider’s?). That’s one of the reasons that the Observer routinely reports on the manager and director investments and corporate policies for all of the funds we cover. In contrast to the average fund, small and independent funds tend to have persistently, structurally high levels of insider commitment.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

On June 30, both the advisory fee and the expense cap on The Brown Capital Management International Equity Fund (BCIIX) were reduced. The capped e.r. dropped from 2.00% to 1.25%.

Forward Tactical Enhanced Fund (FTEAX) is dropping its Investor Share class expense ratio from 1.99% to 1.74%. Woo hoo! I’d be curious to see if they drop their portfolio turnover rate from its current 11,621%.  (No, I’m not making that up.)

Perritt Ultra MicroCap Fund (PREOX) reopened to new investors on July 8. It had been closed for three whole months. The fund has middling performance at best and a tiny asset base, so there was no evident reason to close it and no reason for either the opening or closing was offered by the advisor.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Effective at the close of business on August 15, 2014, Grandeur Peak Emerging Opportunities Fund (GPEOX/GPEIX) the Fund will close to all purchases. There are two exceptions, (1) individuals who invested directly through Grandeur Peak and who have either a tax-advantaged account or have an automatic investing plan and (2) institutions with an existing 401(k) arrangement with the firm. The fund reports about $370M in assets and YTD returns of 11.6% through late July, which places it in the top 10% of all E.M. funds. There are a couple more G.P. funds in the pipeline and the guys have hinted at another launch sooner rather than later, but the next gen funds are likely more domestic than international.

Effective as of the close of business on October 31, 2014, the Henderson European Focus Fund (HFEAX) will be closed to new purchases. The fund sports both top tier returns and top tier volatility. If you like charging toward closing doors, it’s available no-load and NTF at Schwab and elsewhere.

Parametric Market Neutral Fund (EPRAX) closed to new investors on July 11, 2014. The fund is small and slightly under water since inception. Under those circumstances, such closures are sometimes a signal of bigger changes – new management, new strategy, liquidation – on the horizon.

Citing “the lack of investment opportunities” and “high current cash levels” occasioned by the five year run-up in global stock prices, Tweedy Browne announced the impending soft close of Tweedy, Browne Global Value II (TBCUX).  TBCUX is an offshoot of Tweedy, Browne Global Value (TBGVX) with the same portfolio and managers but Global Value often hedges its currency exposure while Global Value II does not. The decision to close TBCUX makes sense as a way to avoid “diluting our existing shareholders’ returns in this difficult environment” since the new assets were going mostly to cash. Will Browne planned “to reopen the Fund when new idea flow improves and larger amounts of cash can be put to work in cheap stocks.”

Here’s the question: why not close Global Value as well?

The good folks at Mount & Nadler arranged for me to talk with Tom Shrager, Tweedy’s president. Short version: they have proportionately less  inflows into Global Value but significant net inflows, as a percentage of assets, into Global Value II. As a result, the cash level at GV II is 26% while GV sits at 20% cash. While they’ve “invested recently in a couple of stocks,” GV II’s net cash level climbed from 21% at the end of Q1 to 26% at the end of Q2. They tried adding a “governor” to the fund (you’re not allowed to buy $4 million or more a day without prior clearance) which didn’t work.

Mr. Shrager describes the sudden popularity of GV II as “a mystery to us” since its prime attraction over GV would be as a currency play and Tweedy doesn’t see any evidence of a particular opportunity there. Indeed, GV II has trailed GV over the past quarter and YTD while matching it over the past 12 months.

At the same time, Tweedy reports no particular interest in either Value (TWEBX, top 20% YTD) or High Dividend Yield Value (TBHDX, top 50% YTD), both at 11% cash.

The closing will not affect current shareholders or advisors who have been using the fund for their clients.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Alpine Foundation Fund (ADABX) has been renamed Alpine Equity Income Fund. The rechristened version can invest no more than 20% in fixed income securities. The latest, prechange portfolio was 20.27% fixed income. Over the longer term, the fund trails its “aggressive allocation” peers by 160 – 260 basis points annually and has earned a one-star rating for the past three, five and ten year periods. At that point, I’m not immediately convinced that a slight boost in the equity stake will be a game-changer for anyone.

On October 1, the billion dollar Alpine Ultra Short Tax Optimized Income Fund (ATOAX) becomes Alpine Ultra Short Municipal Income Fund and promises to invest, mostly, in munis.

Effective October 1, SunAmerica High Yield Bond (SHNAX)becomes SunAmerica Flexible Credit. The change will free the fund of the obligation of investing primarily in non-investment grade debt which is good since it wasn’t particularly adept at investing in such bonds (one-star with low returns and above average risk during its current manager’s five-year tenure).

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Thanks, as always, go to The Shadow – an incredibly vigilant soul and long tenured member of the Observer’s discussion community for his contributions to this section.  Really, very little gets past him and that gives me a lot more confidence in saying that we’ve caught of all of major changes hidden in the ocean of SEC filings.

Grazie!

CM Advisors Defensive Fund (CMDFX) “has terminated the public offering of its shares and will discontinue its operations effective on or about August 1, 2014.”  Uhhh … what would be eight weeks after launch?

Direxion U.S. Government Money Market Fund (DXMXX) will liquidate on August 20, 2014.  I’m less struck by the liquidation of a tiny, unprofitable fund than by the note that “the Fund’s assets will be converted to cash.”  It almost feels like a money market’s assets should be describable as “cash.”

Geneva Advisors Mid Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”) will be closed and liquidated on August 28. 2014. That decision comes nine months after the fund’s launch. While the fund’s performance was weak and it gathered just $4 million in assets, such hasty abandonment strikes me as undisciplined and unprofessional especially when the advisor reminds its investors of “the importance of … a long-term perspective when it comes to the equity portion of their portfolio.”  The fund representatives had no further explanation of the decision.

GL Macro Performance Fund (GLMPX) liquidated on July 30, 2014.  At least the advisor gave this fund 20 months of life so that it had time to misfire with style:

The Board of Trustees of Makefield Managed Futures Strategy Fund (MMFAX) has concluded that “it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations.” Having lost 17% for its few investors since launch, the Board probably reached the right conclusion.  Liquidation is slated for August 15, 2014.

Following the sudden death of its enigmatic manager James Wang, the Board of the Oceanstone Fund (OSFDX) voted to liquidate the portfolio at the end of August. The fund had unparalleled success from 2007-2012 which generated a series of fawning (“awesome,” “the greatest investor you’ve never heard of,” “the most intriguing questions in the mutual fund world today”) stories in the financial media.  Mr. Wang would neither speak to be media nor permit his board to do so (“he will be upset with me,” fretted one independent trustee) and his shareholder communications were nearly nonexistent. His trustees rightly eulogize him as “very sincere, hard working, humble, efficient and caring.” Our sympathies go out to his family and to those for whom he worked so diligently.

Pending shareholder approval, Sentinel Capital Growth Fund (BRGRX) and Sentinel Growth Leaders Fund (BRFOX) will be merged into Sentinel Common Stock Fund (SENCX) sometime this fall. Here’s the best face I can put on the merger: SENCX isn’t awful.

Effective October 16, SunAmerica GNMA (GNMAX) gets merged into SunAmerica U.S. Government Securities (SGTAX). Both funds fall just short of mediocre (okay, they both trail 65 – 95% of their peers over the past three, five and ten year periods so maybe it’s “way short” or “well short”) and both added two new managers in July 2014.  We wish Tim and Kara well with their new charges.

With shareholder approval, the $16 million Turner All Cap Growth Fund (TBTBX) will soon merge into the Turner Midcap Growth Fund (TMGFX). Midcap has, marginally, the better record but All Cap has, massively, the greater assets so …

In Closing . . .

I’m busily finishing up the outline for my presentation to the Cohen Client Conference, which takes place in Milwaukee on August 20 and 21. The working title of my talk is “Seven things that matter, two that don’t … and one that might.” My hope is to tie some of the academic research on funds and investing into digestible snackage (it is at lunchtime, after all) that attempts to sneak a serious argument in under the cover of amiable banter. I’ll let you know how it goes.

I know that David Hobbs, Cook and Bynum’s president, will be there and I’m looking forward to a chance to chat with him. He’s offered some advice about the thrust of my talk that was disturbingly consistent with my own inclinations, which should worry at least one of us. I’ll be curious to get his reaction.

We’re also hoping to cover the Morningstar ETF Conference en masse; that is, Charles, Chip, Ed and I would like to meet there both to cover the presentations (Meb Faber, one of Charles’s favorite guys, and Eugene Fama are speaking) and to debate about ways to strengthen the Observer and better serve you folks. A lot depends on my ability to trick my colleagues into covering two of my classes that week. Perhaps we’ll see you there?

My son Will, still hobbled after dropping his iPad on a toe, has taken to wincing every time we approach the mall. It’s festooned with “back to school sale! Sale! sale!” banners which seem, somehow, to unsettle him.

Here’s a quick plug for using the Observer’s link to Amazon.com. If you’d like to spare your children, grandchildren, and yourself the agony of the mall parking lot and sound of wailing and keening, you might consider picking some of this stuff up online. The Observer receives a rebate equal to about 6% on whatever is purchased through our link. It’s largely invisible to you – if costs nothing extra and doesn’t involve any extra steps on your part – but it generates the majority of the funds that keep the lights on here.

Here are some ways to make support easy:

• Click on our Amazon link and bookmark it for easy referral.
• Look to your right, the dang thing is continually floating over there ->
• In Chrome, set us as one of your start pages.  On the upper right of your screen, click on the three horizontal bars then click “settings.”  You’ll see this option:

Click on “Set pages” then simply paste the Observer link in along with wherever else you like to start. Each time you open Chrome, it’ll launch several tabs including your regular homepage and our Amazon page.

• If, like many, you’re not comfortable with Amazon’s plan to take over everything …
  feel free to resort to PayPal or the USPS. It all helps and it’s all detailed on our Support Us page.

Finally, we offer cheerful greetings to our curiously large and diligent readership in Cebu City, Philippines; Cebu Citizens spend about a half hour on site per visit, about five times the global average. Greetings, too, to the good folks in A Coruña in the north of Spain. You’ve been one of our most persistent international audiences.  The Madrileños are fewer in number, but diligent in their reading. To our sole Ukrainian visit, Godspeed and great care.

As ever,

Dear friends,

Welcome to the midway point of … well, nothing in particular, really. Certainly six months have passed in 2014 and six remain, but why would you care?  Unless you plan on being transported by aliens or cashing out your portfolio on December 31^st, questions like “what’s working this year?” are interesting only to the poor saps whose livelihoods are dependent on inventing explanations for, and investment responses to, something that happened 12 minutes ago and will be forgotten 12 minutes from now.

So, what’s working for investors in 2014? If you guessed “investments in India and gold,” you’ve at least got numbers on your side.  The top funds YTD:

Oh wait!  Sorry!  My bad.  That’s how this year’s brilliant ideas did last year.  Here’s the glory I wanted to highlight for this year?

 * Enjoy it while you can.  Dreyfus India is slated for liquidation by summer’s end.

Now doesn’t that make you feel better?

The Two Morningstar conferences

We had the opportunity to attend June’s Morningstar Investor Conference where Bill Gross, the world’s most important investor, was scheduled to give an after lunch keynote address today. Apparently he actually gave two addresses: the one that Morningstar’s folks attended and the one I attended.

Morningstar heard a cogent, rational argument for why a real interest rate of 0-1% is “the new neutral.” At 2% real, the economy might collapse. In that fragile environment, PIMCO models bond returns in the 3-4% range and stocks in the 4-5% range. In an act of singular generosity, he also explained the three strategies that allows PIMCO Total Return to beat everyone else and grow to $280 billion. Oops, $230 billion now as ingrates and doubters fled the fund and weren’t around to reap this year’s fine returns: 3.07% YTD. He characterized that as something like “fine” or “top tier” returns, though the fund is actually modest trailing both its benchmark and peer group YTD.

Representatives of other news outlets also attended that speech and blandly reported Gross’s generous offer of “the keys to the PIMCO Mercedes” and his “new neutral” stance.  One went so far as to declare the whole talk “charming.”

I missed out on that presentation and instead sat in on an incoherent, self-indulgent monologue that was so inappropriate to the occasion that it made me seriously wonder if Gross was off his meds. He walked on stage wearing sunglasses and spent some time looking at himself on camera; he explained that he always wanted to see himself in shades on the big screen. “I’m 70 years old and looking good!” he concluded. He tossed the shades aside and launched into a 20 minute reflection on the film The Manchurian Candidate, a Cold War classic about brainwashing and betrayal. I have no idea of why. He seemed to suggest that we’d been brainwashed or that he wasn’t able to brainwash us but wished he could or he needed to brainwash himself into not hating the media. 20 minutes. He then declared PIMCO to be “the happiest workplace in the world,” allowing that if there was any place happier, it was 15 miles up the road at Disneyland. That’s an apparent, if inept, response to the media reports of the last month that painted Gross as arrogant, ill-tempered, autocratic and nigh unto psychotic in the deference he demanded from employees. He then did an ad for the superiority of his investment process before attempting an explanation of “the new neutral” (taking pains to establish that the term was PIMCO’s, not Bloomberg’s). After 5-10 minutes of his beating around the bush, I couldn’t take it any more and left.

Gross’s apologists claimed that this was a rhetorical masterpiece whose real audience was finance ministers who might otherwise screw up monetary policy. A far larger number of folks – managers, marketers, advisors – came away horrified. “I’ve heard Gross six times in 20 years and he’s always given to obscure analogies but this was different. This was the least coherent I’ve ever heard him,” said one. “That was absolutely embarrassing,” opined someone with 40 years in the field. “An utter train wreck,” was a third’s. I’ve had friends dependent on psychoactive medications; this presentation sounded a lot like what happens when one of them failed to take his meds, a brilliant guy stumbling about with no sense of appropriateness.

Lisa Shidler at RIA Advisor was left to wonder how much damage was done by a speech that was at times “bizarre” and, most optimistically, “not quite a disaster.”

Bottom line: Gross allowed that “I could disappear today and it wouldn’t have a material effect on PIMCO for 3-5 years.” It might be time to consider it.

The Morningstar highlight: Michael Hasenstab on emerging markets

Michael Hasenstab, a CIO and manager of the four-star, $70 billion Templeton Global Bond Fund (TPINX), was the conference keynote. Over 40% of the fund is now invested in emerging markets, including 7% in Ukraine. He argued that investors misunderstand the fundamental strength of the emerging markets. Emerging markets were, in the past, susceptible to collapse when interest rates began to rise in the developed world. Given our common understanding that the Fed is likelier to raise rates in the coming year than to reduce them, the question is: are we on the cusp of another EM collapse.

He argues that we are not. Two reasons: the Bank of Japan is about to bury Asia in cash and emerging markets have shown a fiscal responsibility far in excess of anything seen in the developed world.

The Bank of Japan is, he claims, on the verge of printing a trillion dollars worth of stimulus. Prime Minister Abe has staked his career on his ability to stimulate the Japanese economy. He’s using three tools (“arrows,” in his terms) but only one of those three (central bank stimulus) is showing results. In consequence, Japan is likely to push this one tool as far as they’re able. Hasenstab thinks that the stimulus possible from the BOJ will completely, and for an extended period, overwhelm any moderation in the Fed’s stimulus. In particular, BOJ stimulus will most directly impact Asia, which is primarily emerging. The desire to print money is heightened by Japan’s need to cover a budget deficit that domestic sources can’t cover and foreign ones won’t.

Emerging markets are in exemplary fiscal shape, unlike their position during past interest rate tightening phases. In 1991, the emerging markets as a whole had negligible foreign currency reserves; when, for example, American investors wanted to pull $100 million out, the country’s banks did not hold 100 million in US dollars and crisis ensued. Since 1991, average foreign currency reserves have tripled. Asian central banks hold reserves equal to 40% of their nation’s GDPs and even Mexico has reserves equal to 20% of GDP. At base, all foreign direct investment could leave and the EMs would still maintain large currency reserves.

Hasenstab also noted that emerging markets have undergone massive deleveraging so that their debt:GDP ratios are far lower than those in developed markets and far lower than the historic levels in the emerging markets. Finally we’re already at the bottom of the EM growth cycle with growth rates over the next several years averaging 6-7%.

As an active manager, he likely felt obliged to point out that EM stocks have decoupled; nations with negative real interest rates and negative current account balances are vulnerable. Last year, for example, Hungary’s market returned 4000 bps more than Indonesia’s which reflects their fundamentally different situations. As a result, it’s not time to buy a broad-based EM index.

Bottom line: EM exposure should be part of a core portfolio but can’t be pursued indiscriminately. While the herd runs from manic to depressed on about a six month cycle, the underlying fundamentals are becoming more and more compelling.  For folks interested in the argument, you should read the MFO discussion board thread on it.  There’s a lot of nuance and additional data there for the taking.

Feeding the Beast

by Edward Studzinski

“Finance is the art of passing currency from hand to hand until it finally disappears.”

                                                  Robert Sarnoff

A friend of mine, a financial services reporter for many years, spoke to me one time about the problem of “feeding the beast.”  With a weekly deadline requirement to come up with a story that would make the editors up the chain happy and provide something informative to the readers, it was on more than one occasion a struggle to keep from repeating one’s self and avoid going through the motions.  Writing about mutual funds and the investment management business regularly presents the same problems for me.  Truth often becomes stranger than fiction, and many readers, otherwise discerning rational people, refuse to accept that the reality is much different than their perception.  The analogy I think of is the baseball homerun hitter, who through a combination of performance enhancing chemicals and performance enhancing bats, breaks records (but really doesn’t). 

So let’s go back for a moment to the headline issue.  One of my favorite “Shoe” cartoons had the big bird sitting in the easy chair, groggily waking up to hear the break-in news announcement “Russian tanks roll down Park Avenue – more at 11.”  The equivalent in the fund world would be “Famous Fund Manager says nothing fits his investment parameters so he is sending the money back.”  There is not a lot of likelihood that you will see that happening, even though I know it is a concern of both portfolio managers and analysts this year, for similar reasons but with different motivations.  In the end however it all comes back to job security, about which both John Bogle and Charlie Ellis have written, rather than a fiduciary obligation to your investors. 

David Snowball and I interviewed a number of money managers a few months ago.  All of them were doing start-ups.  They had generally left established organizations, consistently it seemed because they wanted to do things their own way.  This often meant putting the clients first rather than the financial interests of a parent company or the senior partners.  The thing that resonated the most with me was a comment from David Marcus at Evermore Global, who said that if you were going to set up a mutual fund, set up one that was different than what was available in the market place.  Don’t just set up another large cap value fund or another global value fund.  Great advice but advice that is rarely followed it seems. 

If you want to have some fun, take a look at:

•  an S&P 500 Index Fund’s top ten holdings vs.
•  the top ten holdings at a quantitative run large cap value fund (probably one hundred stocks rather than five hundred, and thirty to sixty basis points in fees as opposed to five at the index fund) vs.
•  the top ten holdings at a diversified actively managed large cap value fund (probably sixty stocks and eighty basis points in fees) vs.
•  a non-diversified concentrated value fund (less than twenty holdings, probably one hundred basis points in fees).

Look at the holdings, look at the long-term performance (five years and up), and look at the fees, and draw your own conclusions.  My suspicion is that you will find a lot of portfolio overlap, with the exception of the non-diversified concentrated fund.  My other suspicion is that the non-diversified concentrated fund will show outlier returns (either much better or much worse).  The fees should be much higher, but in this instance, the question you should be paying attention to is whether they are worth it.  I realize this will shock many, but this is one of the few instances where I think they are justified if there is sustained outperformance.

Now I realize that some of you think that the question of fees has become an obsession with me, my version of Cato the Elder saying at every meeting of the Roman Senate, “Carthage must be destroyed.”  But the question of fees is one that is consistently under appreciated by mutual fund investors, if for no other reason that they do not see the fees.  In fact, if you were to take a poll of many otherwise sophisticated investors, they would tell you that they are not being charged fees on their mutual fund investment.  And yet, high fees without a differentiated portfolio does more to degrade performance over time than almost anything else.

John Templeton once said that if your portfolio looks like everyone else’s, your returns also will look the same.  The great (and I truly mean great) value investor Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital puts it somewhat differently but equally succinctly.  Here I am paraphrasing but, if you want to make outsized returns than you have to construct a portfolio that is different than that held by most other investors.  Sounds easy right?

But think about it.  In large investment organizations, unconventional behavior is generally not rewarded.  If anything, the distinction between the investors and the consultant intermediaries increasingly becomes blurred in terms of who really is the client to whom the fiduciary obligation is owed.  Unconventional thinking loses out to job security.  It may be sugar coated in terms of the wording you hear, with all the wonderful catch phrases about increased diversification, focus on generating a higher alpha with less beta, avoiding dispersion of investment results across accounts, etc., etc.  But the reality is that if 90% of the client assets were invested in an idea that went to zero or the equivalent of zero and 10% of them did not because the idea was avoided by some portfolio managers, the ongoing discussion in that organization will not be about lessons learned relative to the investment mistake.  Rather it will be about the management and organizational problems caused by the 10% managers not being “team players.” 

The motto of the Special Air Service in Great Britain is, “Who dares, wins.”  And once you spend some time around those people, you understand that the organization did not mold that behavior into them, but rather they were born with it and found the right place where they could use those talents (and the organization gave them a home).  Superior long-term investment performance requires similar willingness to assess and take risks, and to be different than the consensus.  It requires a willingness to be different, and a willingness to be uncomfortable with your investments.  That requires both a certain type of portfolio manager, as well as a certain type of investor.

I have written before about some of the post-2008 changes we have seen in portfolio management behavior, such as limiting position sizes to a certain number of days trading volume, and increasing the number of securities held in a portfolio (sixty really is not concentrated, no matter what the propaganda from marketing says).  But by the same token, many investors will not be comfortable with a very different portfolio.  They will also not be comfortable investing when the market is declining.  And they will definitely not be comfortable with short-term underperformance by a manager, even when the long-term record trashes the indices. 

From that perspective, I again say that if you as an investor can’t sleep at night with funds off the beaten path or if you don’t want to do the work to monitor funds off the beaten path, then focus your attention on asset-allocation, risk and time horizon, and construct a portfolio of low-cost index funds. 

At least you will sleep at night knowing that over time you will earn market returns.  But if you know yourself, and can tolerate being different – than look for the managers where the portfolio is truly different, with the potential returns that are different. 

But don’t think that any of this is easy.  To quote Charlie Munger, “It’s not supposed to be easy.  Anyone who finds it easy is stupid.”  You have to be prepared to make mistakes, in both making investments and assessing managers.  You also have to be willing to look different than the consensus.  One other thing you have to be willing to do, especially in mutual fund investing, is look away from the larger fund organizations for your investment choices (with the exception of index funds, where size will drive down costs) for by their very nature, they will not attract and retain the kind of talent that will give you outlier returns (and as we are seeing with one large European-owned organization, the parent may not be astute enough to know when decay has set in).  Finally, you have to be in a position to be patient when you are wrong, and not be forced to sell, either by reason of not having a long-term view or long-term resources, or in the case of a manager, not having the ability to weather redemptions while maintaining organizational and institutional support for the philosophy. 

Next month: Flash geeks and other diversions from the mean.

Navigating Scylla and Charybdis: reading advice from the media saturated

Last month’s lead essay, “All the noise, noise, noise noise!”  made the simple argument that you need to start paying less attention to what’s going on in the market, not more.  Our bottom line:

It’s survival. I really want to embrace my life, not wander distractedly through it. For investors, that means making fewer, more thoughtful decisions and learning to trust that you’ve gotten it right rather than second-guessing yourself throughout the day and night.

The argument is neither new nor original to us.  The argument is old.  In 1821 the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley complained “We have more moral, political, and historical wisdom than we know how to reduce into practice.”  By the end of the century, the trade journal Printer’s Ink (1890) complained that “the average [newspaper] reader skims lightly over the thousand facts massed in serried columns. To win his attention he must be aroused, excited, terrified.”  (Certain broadcast outlets apparently took note.)

And the argument is made more eloquently by others than by us.  We drew on the concerns raised by a handful of thoughtful investors who also happen to be graceful writers: Joshua Brown, Tadas Viskanta, and Barry Ritholtz. 

We should have included Jason Zweig in the roster.  Jason wrote a really interesting essay, Stock Picking for the Long, Long, Long Haul, on the need for us to learn to be long-term investors:

Fund managers helped cause the last financial crisis—and they will contribute to the next one unless they and their clients stop obsessing over short-term performance.

Jason studied the remarkable long-term performance of the British investment firm Baillie Gifford and find that their success is driven by firms whose management is extraordinarily far-sighted:

What all these companies have in common, Mr. Anderson [James, BG’s head of global equities] says, is that they aren’t “beholden to the habits of quarterly capitalism.” Instead of trying to maximize their short-term growth in earnings per share, these firms focus almost entirely on growing into the distant future.

“Very often, the best way to be successful in the long run is not to aim at being successful in the short run,” he says. “The history of capitalism has been lurched forward by people who weren’t looking primarily for the rewards of narrow, immediate gain.”

In short, he doesn’t just want to find the great companies of today—but those that will be even greater companies tomorrow and for decades to come.

The key for those corporate leaders is to find investors, fund managers and others, who “have a horizon of decades.”  “It’s amazing how some of the largest and greatest companies hunger to have shareholders who are genuinely long-term,” Mr. Anderson says.

In June I asked those same writers to shift their attention from problem to solution.  If the problem is that we become addled to paying attention – increasingly fragmented slivers of attention, anyway – to all the wrong stuff, where should we be looking?  How should we be training our minds?  Their answers were wide-ranging, eloquent, consistent and generous.  We’ll start by sharing the themes and strategies that the guys offered, then we’ll reproduce their answers in full for you on their own pages.

“What to read if you want to avoid being addled and stupid.”  It’s the Scylla and Charybdis thing: you can’t quite ignore it all but you don’t want to pay attention to most of it, so how do you steer between?  I was hopeful of asking the folks I’d quoted for their best answer to the question: what are a couple things, other than your own esteemed publication, that it would benefit folks to read or listen to regularly?

Three themes seem to run across our answers.

1. Don’t expose yourself to any more noise than your job demands.

   As folks in the midst of the financial industry, the guys are all immersed in the daily stream but try to avoid being swept away by it. Josh reports that “at no time do I ever visit the home page of a blog or media company’s site.”  He scans headlines and feeds, looking for the few appearances (whether Howard Marks or “a strategist I care about”) worth focusing on. Jason reads folks like Josh and Tadas “who will have short, sharp takes on whatever turns out to matter.”  For the rest of us, Tadas notes, “A monthly publication is for the vast majority of investors as frequent as they need to be checking in on the world of investing.”

2. Take scientific research seriously. 

   Jason is “looking for new findings about old truths – evidence that’s timely about aspects of human nature that are timeless.”  He recommends that the average reader “closely follow the science coverage in a good newspaper like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times.”  Tadas concurs and, like me, also regularly listens to the Science Friday podcast which offers “an accessible way of keeping up.” 

3. Read at length and in depth. 

   All of us share a commitment to reading books.  They are, Tadas notes, “an important antidote to the daily din of the financial media,” though he wryly warns that “many of them are magazine articles padded out to fill out the publisher’s idea of how long a book should be.”

   Of necessity, the guys read (and write) books about finance, but those books aren’t at the top of their stacks and aren’t the ones in their homes.  Jason’s list is replete with titles that I dearly wish I could get my high achieving undergrads to confront (Montaigne’s Essays) but they’re not “easy reads” and they might well be things that won’t speak even to a very bright teenager.  Jason writes, “Learning how to think is a lifelong struggle, no matter how intelligent or educated you may be.  Books like these will help.  The chapter on time in St. Augustine’s Confessions, for instance, which I read 35 years ago, still guides me in understanding why past performance doesn’t predict future success.”  Tadas points folks to web services that specialize in long form writing, including Long Reads and The Browser.

Here’s my answer, for what interest that holds:

Marketplace, from American Public Media.  The Marketplace broadcast and podcast originate in Los Angeles and boast about 11 million listeners, mostly through the efforts of 500 public radio stations.  Marketplace, and its sister programs Marketplace Money and Marketplace Morning Report, are the only shows that I listen to daily.  Why?  Marketplace starts with the assumption that its listeners are smart and curious, but not obsessed with the day’s (or week’s) market twitches.  They help folks make sense of business and finance – personal and otherwise – and they do it in a way that makes you feel more confident of your own ability to make sense of things.  The style is lively, engaged and sometimes surprising.

Books, from publishers. I know this seems like a dodge, but it isn’t.  At Augustana, I teach about the effects of emerging technologies and on the ways they use us as much as we use them.  This goes beyond the creepiness of robots reading my mail (a process Google is now vastly extending) or organizations that can secretly activate my webcam or cellphone.  I’m concerned that we’re being rewired for inattention. Neurobiologists make it clear that our brains are very adaptive organs; when confronted with a new demand – whether it’s catching a thrown baseball or navigating the fact of constant connection – it assiduously begins reorganizing itself. We start as novices in the art of managing three email accounts, two calendars, a dozen notification sounds, coworkers we can never quite escape and the ability to continuously monitor both the market and the World Cup but, as our brains rewire, we become experts and finally we become dependent. That is, we get to a state where we need constant input.  Teens half wake at night to respond to texts. Adults feel “ghost vibrations” from phones in their pockets. Students check texts 11 times during the average class period. Board members stare quietly at devices on their laps while others present.  Dead phones become a source of physical anxiety. Electronic connectedness escapes control and intrudes on driving, meals, sleep, intimacy.  In trying never to miss anything, we end up missing everything.

Happily, that same adaptability works in the other direction.  Beyond the intrinsic value of encountering an argument built with breadth and depth, the discipline of intentionally disconnecting from boxes and reconnecting with other times and places can rebuild us.  It’s a slog at first, just as becoming dependent on your cell phone was, but with the patient willingness to set aside unconnected time each day – 20 minutes at first?  one chapter next? – we can begin distancing ourselves from the noise and from the frenetic mistakes it universally engenders.

And now the guys’ complete responses:

Thanks to them all for their generosity and cool leads.  I hadn’t looked at either The Browser or The Epicurean Dealmaker before (both look cool) though I’m not quite brave enough to try Feedly just yet for fear of becoming ensnared.

Despite the loud call of a book (Stuff Matters just arrived and is competing with The Diner’s Dictionary and A Year in Provence for my attention), I’ll get back to talking about fund stuff.

Top Developments in Fund Industry Litigation – June 2014

Fund advisors spend a surprising amount of time in court or in avoiding court.  We’ve written before about David Smith and FundFox, the only website devoted to tracking the industry’s legal travails.  I’ve asked David if he’d share a version of his monthly précis with us and he generously agreed.  Here’s his wrap up of the legal highlights from the month just passed.

For a complete list of developments last month, and for information and court documents in any case, log in at www.fundfox.com.  Fundfox is the only intelligence service to focus exclusively on litigation involving U.S.-registered investment companies, their directors and advisers—making it easy to remain specialized and aware in today’s fluid legal environment.

New Lawsuit

• A new excessive-fee lawsuit alleges that Davis provides substantially the same investment advisory services to subadvised funds for lower fees than its own New York Venture Fund. (Hebda v. Davis Selected Advisers, L.P.)

Settlements

• The court preliminarily approved a $14.95 million settlement of the ERISA class action regarding ING’s receipt of revenue-sharing payments. (Healthcare Strategies, Inc. v. ING Life Ins. & Annuity Co.)
• The court preliminarily approved a $22.5 million settlement of the ERISA class action alleging that Morgan Keegan defendants permitted Regions retirement plans to invest in proprietary RMK Select Funds despite excessive fees. (In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litig.)

Briefs

• A former portfolio manager filed his opposition to Allianz’s motion to dismiss his breach-of-contract suit regarding deferred compensation under two incentive plans; and Allianz filed a reply brief. (Minn v. Allianz Asset Mgmt. of Am. L.P.)
• BlackRock filed an answer and motion to dismiss an excessive-fee lawsuit alleging that two BlackRock funds charge higher fees than comparable funds subadvised by BlackRock. (In re BlackRock Mut. Funds Advisory Fee Litig.)
• Harbor filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss an excessive-fee lawsuit regarding a subadvised fund. (Zehrer v. Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc.)

Advisor Perspectives launches APViewpoint, a discussion board for advisors

We spent some time at Morningstar chatting with Justin Kermond, a vice president with Advisor Perspectives (AP).  We’ve collaborated with AP on other issues over the years, they’re exploring the possibility of using some of our fund-specific work their site and they’ve recently launched a discussion board that’s exclusive to the advisor community.   We talked for a while about MFO’s experience hosting a lively (oh so lively) discussion board and what AP might be doing to build on our experience.  For the sake of those readers in the advisor community, I asked Justin to share some information about their new discussion community.  Here’s his description>

[We] recently launched APViewpoint, a secure discussion forum and “online study group.” APViewpoint enables investment advisers, registered reps, and financial planners to learn from each other by sharing their experiences and knowledge on a wide range of topics of interest to the profession. Current topics of discussion include Thomas Pikkety’s views on inequality; whether small cap and value stocks truly outperform the market; the pros and cons of rebalancing; and the potential transformative effect of robo-advisors. APViewpoint is free to all financial advisors. The site formally launched mid May, 2014 and currently has more than 900 members.

One of APViewpoint’s key differentiators is the participation of more than 40 nationally recognized industry thought leaders, including Bob Veres, Carl Richards, Harold Evensky, Wade Pfau, Doug Short, Michael Kitces, Dan Solin, Michael Edesess, Geoff Considine, Marylin Capelli Dimitroff, Ron Rhoades, Sue Stevens and Advisor Perspectives CEO and editor Robert Huebscher. These thought leaders start and participate in discussions on a variety of topics, and advisors are invited to learn and share their own views, creating a vibrant, highly respectful environment that encourages the free exchange of ideas.

For advisors interested in discussing funds, APViewpoint automatically recognizes mutual fund and ETF symbols mentioned in discussions, permitting users to easily search for conversations about specific products. Users can also create a specific list of funds they wish to “follow,” and be alerted when these funds are mentioned in conversations.

APViewpoint is also designed to foster discussion of the content featured on the Advisor Perspectives web site and weekly newsletter. Every article now features a direct link to an associated discussion on APViewpoint, allowing members to provide spontaneous feedback.

Only advisors can be members of APViewpoint; investors may not join. A multi-step validation process ensures that only advisors are approved, and the content on APViewpoint is not accessible to the general public. This relieves advisors of some of the compliance issues that often restrict their ability to post their thoughts on social media platforms such as Linkedin, where investors can view messages posted in groups where advisors congregate.

Advisors can sign up today at www.apviewpoint.com. 

The piece in between the pieces

I’ve always been honored, and more than a little baffled, that folks as sharp as Charles, Chip and Ed have volunteered to freely and continually contribute so much to the Observer and, through us, to you. Perhaps they share my conviction that you’re a lot brighter than you know and that you’re best served by encountering smart folks who don’t always agree and who know that’s just fine. 

Our common belief is not that we learn by listening to a smart person with whom we agree (isn’t that the very definition of a smart person?  Someone who tells us we’re right?), but to listening to a variety of really first rate people whose perspectives are a bit complicated and whose argument might (gasp!) be more than one screen long.

The problem is that they’re often smarter than we are and often disagree, leaving us with the question “who am I to judge?”  That’s at the heart of my day job as a college professor: helping learners get past the simple, frustrated impulse of either (1) picking one side and closing your ears, or (2) closing your ears without picking either. 

One of the best expressions of the problem was offered by Leo Strauss,  a 20^th century political philosopher and classicist:

To repeat: liberal education consists of listening to the conversation among the greatest minds.  But here we are confronted with the overwhelming difficulty that this conversation does not take place without our help – that in fact we must bring about that conversation.  The greatest minds utter monologues.  We must transform their monologues into a dialogue, their “side by side” into a “together.”  The greatest minds utter dialogues even when they write monologues.

Let us face this difficulty, a difficulty so great that it seems to condemn liberal education to an absurdity.  Since the greatest minds contradict one another regarding the most important matters, they compel us to judge their monologues; we cannot take on trust what any one of them says.  On the other hand, we cannot be notice that we are not competent to be judges.  In Liberalism Ancient and Modern (1968)

The two stories that follow are quick attempts to update you on what a couple of first-rate guys have been thinking and doing.  The first is Charles’s update on Mebane Faber, co-founder and CIO of Cambria Funds and a prolific writer.  The second is my update on Andrew Foster, founder and CIO of Seafarer Funds.

Meb Faber gets it right in interesting ways

A quick follow-up to our feature on Mebane Faber in the May commentary, entitled “The Existential Pleasure of Engineering Beta.”

On May 16, Mebane posted on his blog “Skin in the Game – My Portfolio,” which states that he invests 100% of his liquid net worth in his firm’s funds: Global Tactical Hedge Fund (private), Global Value ETF (GVAL), Shareholder Yield ETF (SYLD), Foreign Shareholder Yield ETF (FYLD) – all offered by Cambria Investment Management.

His disclosure meets the “Southeastern Asset Management” rule, as coined and proposed by our colleague Ed Studzinski. It would essentially mandate that all employees of an investment firm limit their investments to funds offered by the firm. Ed proposes such a rule to better attune “investment professionals to what should be their real concern – managing risk with a view towards the potential downside, rather than ignoring risk with other people’s money.”

While Mr. Faber did not specify the dollar amount, he did describe it as “certainly meaningful.” The AdvisorShares SAI dated December 30, 2013, indicated he had upwards of $1M invested in his first ETF, Global Tactical ETF (GTAA), which was one of largest amounts among sub-advisors and portfolio managers at AdvisorShares.

Then, on June 5^th, more clarity: “The two parties plan on separating, and Cambria will move on” from sub-advising GTAA and launch its own successor Global Momentum ETF (GMOM) at a full 1% lower expense ratio. Here’s the actual announcement:

Same day, AdvisorShares announced: “After a diligent review and careful consideration, we have decided to propose a change of GTAA’s sub-advisor. At the end of the day, our sole focus remains our shareholders’ best interests…” The updated SAI indicates the planned split is to be effective end of July.

Given the success of Cambria’s own recently launched ETFs, which together represent AUM of $357M or more than 10 times GTAA, the split is not surprising. What’s surprising is that AdvisorShares is not just shuttering GTAA, but chose instead to propose a new sub-advisor, Mark Yusko of Morgan Creek Capital Management.

On the surface, Mr. Yusko and Mr. Faber could not be more different. The former writes 25 page quarterly commentaries without including a single data graph or table. The latter is more likely to give us 25 charts and tables without a single paragraph.

When Mebane does write, it is casual, direct, and easily understood, while Mr. Yusko seems to read from the corporate play book: “We really want to think differently. We really want to embrace alternative strategies. Not alternative investments but alternative strategies. To gain access to the best and brightest. To invest on that global basis. To take advantage of where we see biggest return opportunities around the world.”

When we asked Mebane for a recent photo to use in the May feature, he did not have one and sent us a self-photo taken with his cell phone. In contrast, Mark Yusko offers a professionally produced video introducing himself and his firm, accompanied with scenes of a lovely creek (presumably Morgan’s) and soft music.   

Interestingly, Morgan Creek launched its first retail fund last September, aptly named Morgan Creek Tactical Allocation Fund (MAGTX/MIGTX). MAGTX carries a 5.75% front-load with a 2% er. (Gulp.) But, the good news is institutional share class MIGTX waives load on $1M minimum and charges only 1.75% er.

Mr. Yusko says “I don’t mind paying [egregious] fees as long as my net return is really high.” While Mr. Faber made a point during the recent Wine Country Conference that a goal for Cambria is to “disrupt the traditional high fee mutual fund and hedge fund business, mostly through launching ETFs.”

The irony here is that GTAA was founded on the tenants described in Mebane’s first book “The Ivy Portfolio,” which includes attempting to replicate Yale’s endowment success with all-asset strategy using an ETF.

Mr. Yusko’s earned his reputation managing the endowments at Notre Dame and University of North Carolina, helping to transform them from traditional stock/bond/cash portfolios to alternative hedge fund/venture capital/private investment portfolios. But WSJ reports that he was asked to step-down last year as CIO of the $3.5B Endowment Fund, which also attempted to mimic endowments like Yale’s. He actually established the fund in partnership with Salient Partners LP in 2004. “After nearly a decade of working with our joint venture partner in Texas, we found ourselves differing on material aspects of how to best run an endowment portfolio and run the business…” Perhaps with AdvisorShares, Mark Yusko will once again be able to see eye-to-eye.

As for Mebane? We will look forward with interest to the launch of GMOM (a month or two away), his continued insights and investment advice shared generously, and wish him luck in his attempts to disrupt the status quo. 

Seafarer gets it right in interesting ways

Why am I not surprised?

Seafarer is an exceedingly independent, exceedingly successful young emerging markets fund run by an exceedingly thoughtful, exceedingly skilled manager (and team).  While most funds imply a single goal (“to make our investors rich, rich, rich!”), Seafarer articulated four.  In their most recent shareholder letter, Andrew and president Michelle Foster write:

Our abiding goal as an investment adviser is to deliver superior long-term performance to our clients. However, we also noted three ancillary objectives:

1. to increase the transparency associated with investment in developing countries;
2. to mitigate a portion of the volatility that is inherent to the emerging markets; and
3. to deliver lower costs to our clients, over time and with scale.

They’ve certainly done a fine job with their “abiding goal.”  Here’s the picture, with Seafarer represented by the blue line:

That success is driven, at least in part, by Seafarer’s dogged independence, since you can’t separate yourself from the herd by acting just like it. Seafarer’s median market cap ($4 billion) is one-fifth of its peers’ while still being spread almost evenly across all market capitalizations, it has no exposure at all to some popular countries (Russia: 0) and sectors (commodities: 0), and a simple glance at the portfolio stats (higher price, lower earnings)  belies the quality of the holdings.

Four developments worth highlighting just now:

Seafarer’s investment restrictions are being loosened

One can profit from developments in the emerging markets either by investing in firms located there or by investing in firms located here than do business there (for example, BMW’s earnings are increasingly driven by China). Seafarer does both and its original prospectus attempted to give investors a sense of the comparative weights of those two approaches by enunciating guideline ranges: firms located in developed nations might represent 20-50% of the portfolio and developing nations would be 50-80%.  Those numeric ranges will disappear with the new prospectus. The advisor’s experience was that it was confusing more investors than it was informing.  “I found in practice,” he writes, “that some shareholders were wrongly but understandably interpreting these percentages as precise restrictions, and so we removed the percentage ranges to reduce confusion.”

Seafarer’s gaining more flexibility to add bonds to the portfolio

Currently the fund’s principal investment strategy has it investing in “dividend-paying common stocks, preferred stocks, convertible securities and debt obligations of foreign companies.” Effective August 29, “the Fund may also pursue its investment objective by investing in the debt obligations of foreign governments and their agencies.” Andrew notes that “they help bolster liquidity, yield, and to some extent improve the portfolio’s stability — so we have made this change accordingly. Still, I think it’s unlikely they will become a big part of what we do here at Seafarer.”

Seafarer’s expenses are dropping (again)

Effective September 1, the expense ratio on retail shares drops from 1.49% to 1.25% and the management fee – the money the advisor actually gets to keep – drops from 0.85% to 0.75%.  Parallel declines occur in the Institutional shares.

Given their choice, Seafarer would scoot more investors into its lower cost institutional shares but agreements with major distributions (think “Schwab”) keep them from reducing the institutional minimum. That said, the current shareholder letter actually lists three ways that investors might legally dodge the $100k minimum and lower their expenses. Those are details in the final six paragraphs of the shareholder letter. If you’re a large individual investor or a smaller advisor, you might want to check out the possibilities.

Active management is working!

Seafarer’s most recent conference call was wide-ranging. For those unable to listen in (sadly, the mp3 isn’t available), the slide deck offers some startling information.  Here’s my favorite slide:

Dark blue: stocks the make money for the portfolio.  White: break-even.  Light blue: losers (“negative contributors”).  If you buy a broad-based EM index, exactly 38% of the stocks in your fund actually make you money. If you buy Seafarer, that proportion doubles.

That strikes me as incredibly cool.  Also consistent with my suspicion (and Andrew’s research) that indexes are often shockingly careless constructs.

Observer Fund Profiles

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

This month: fixed income investing from A to Z (or zed).

Artisan High Income (ARTFX): Artisan continues to attract highly-talented young managers with promises of integrity, autonomy and support. The latest emigrant is Bryan Krug, formerly the lead manager of the four star, $10 billion Ivy High Income fund. Mr. Krug is a careful risk manager who invests in a mix of high-yield bonds and secured and unsecured loans. And yes, he does know what everybody is saying about the high yield market.

Zeo Strategic Income (ZEOIX): Manager Venk Reddy has been honing his craft in private partnerships for years now as the guy who put the “hedging” in hedge funds but he aspires to more. He wanted to get out and pursue his own vision. In Latin, EXEO is pronounced “ek-zeo” and means something like “I’m outta here.” And so he left the world of high alpha for the land of low beta. Mr. Reddy is a careful risk manager who invests in an unusually compact portfolio of short term high-yield bonds and secured loans designed to produce consistent, safe inflation-beating returns for investors looking for “cash” that’s not trash.

Launch Alert: Touchstone Sands Emerging Markets Growth Fund

In May, 2014, Touchstone Investments launched the Touchstone Sands Capital Emerging Markets Growth Fund, sub-advised by Sands Capital Management. Sands Capital, with about $42 billion in AUM, has maintained an exclusive focus on growth-oriented equity investing since 1992. They began investing in the emerging markets in 2006 as part of their Global Growth strategy then launched a devoted EM strategy at the very end of 2012. Over time they’ve added resources to allow their EM team to handle ever greater responsibilities.

The EM composite has done exceedingly well since launch, substantially outperforming the standard EM index in both 2013 and 2014. The more important factor is that there are rational decisions which increase the prospect that the strategy’s success with be repeated in the fund. At base, there are good places to be in emerging markets and bad places to be.

Good places: small firms that tap into the growing affluence of the EMs and the emergence of their middle class.

Bad places: large firms that are state-owned or state-controlled that are economically tied to the slow-growing developed world. Banks, telecoms, and energy companies are pretty standard examples.

Structurally, indexes and many funds that benchmark themselves against the indexes tend to over-invest in the bad places because they are, well, big.  Cap-weighted means buy whatever’s big, corrupt and inefficient or not.

Steve Owens of Touchstone talked with me about Sands’ contrasting approach to EM investing:

Sands Capital’s investment philosophy is based on a belief that over time, common stock prices will reflect the earnings power and growth of the underlying businesses. Sands Capital utilizes the same six investment criteria to evaluate all current and potential business investments across its [three] strategies.

Sands Capital has found many innovative and distinctive businesses that are similar to those which the firm has historically invested in its developed market portfolios. Sands Capital seeks dominant franchises that are taking market share in a growing business space, while generating significant free cash flow to self-fund their growth. Sands Capital tends to avoid most commodity-based companies, state-owned enterprises or companies that are highly leveraged with opaque balance sheets (i.e. many Utilities and Financials). It seeks to avoid emerging market businesses that are levered to developed market demand rather than local consumption.

This process results in a benchmark agnostic, high active share, all-cap portfolio of 30-50 businesses which tends to behave differently from traditional Emerging Market indices. Sands Capital opportunistically invests in Frontier Market Equities when it finds a great business opportunity.

Sands other funds are high growth, low turnover four- and five-star funds, now closed to new investors.  The new fund is apt to be likewise.  The minimum initial investment in the retail class is $2500, reduced to $1000 for IRAs.  The expenses are capped at 1.49%. Here’s the fund’s homepage.

Sands will likely join Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income and Dreihaus Emerging Markets Small Cap Growth Fund on the short list of still-open EM funds that we keep a close eye on.  Investors who are more cautious but still interested in enhanced EM exposure should watch Amana Developing World as well. 

Funds in Registration

The summer doldrums continue with only nine new no-load funds in registration. The most interesting might be an institutional fund from T. Rowe Price which focuses on frontier markets. Given Price’s caution, the launch of this fund seems to signal the fact that the frontier markets are now mainstream investments.

Manager Changes

Fifty-six funds underwent partial or total manager changes this month, a substantial number that’s a bit below recent peaks. One change in particular piqued Chip’s curiosity. As you know, our esteemed technical director also tracks industry-wide manager changes. She notes, with some perplexity, that Wilmington Multi-Manager Alternative might well be renamed Wilmington Ever-changing Manager Alternative fund. She writes:

Normally, writing up the manager changes is relatively straight-forward. This month, one caught my eye. The Wilmington Multi-Manager Alternatives Fund (WRAAX) turned up with a manager change for the third month in a row. A quick check of the data shows that the fund has had 42 managers since its inception in 2012. Twenty-eight of them are no longer with the fund.

The fund currently sports 14 managers but they also dismiss about 14 managers a year. Our recommendation to the current crew: keep your resumes polished and your bags packed.

We’d be more sympathetic to the management churn if it resulted in superior returns for the fund’s investors, but we haven’t seen that yet. $10,000 invested in the fund at launch would have swollen to $10,914 today. In the average multialternatives fund, it would be $10,785. That’s a grand total of $129 in excess returns generated by almost constant staff turnover.

By way of an alternative, rather than paying a 5% load and 2.84% expenses here in order to hedge yourself, you might consider Vanguard Balanced Index (VBINX). The world’s dullest fund charges 0.24% and would have turned your $10,000 into $13,611.

Briefly Noted . . .

Special thanks, as always, to The Shadow for independently tracking down 14 or 15 fund changes this month, sometimes posting changes just before the fund companies realize they’re going to make them. That’s spooky-good.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

American Century Equity Income Fund (TWEIX) reopens to new investors on August 1. The folks on the discussion board react with three letters (WTF) and one question: Why? The fund’s assets have risen just a bit since the closure while its performance has largely been mediocre.

On July 1, 2014, ASTON/LMCG Emerging Markets Fund (ALEMX) reduced its expense ratio from 1.65% to 1.43% on its retail “N” shares and from 1.40% down to 1.18% on its institutional shares. The fund has had a tough first year. The fund returned about 9% over the past 12 months while its peers made 15%. A lower expense ratio won’t solve all that, but it’s a step in the right direction.

CCM Alternative Income (CCMNX) is lowering its investment minimum from $100,000 to $1,000. While the Morningstar snapshot of the fund trumpets expenses of 0.00%, they’re actually capped at 1.60%.

Effective June 23, 2014, Nuveen converted all of their funds’ “B” shares into “A” shares.

We should have mentioned this earlier: Effective May 7, 2014, Persimmon Long/Short (LSEAX/LSEIX) agreed to reduce its management fee from 2.50% to 1.99%. This is really a small win since the resulting total expense ratio remains around 3.25% and the fund sports a 5% sales load. Meaning no disrespect to the doubtless worthy folks behind the fund, but I’m baffled at how they expect to gain traction in the market with such structurally high expenses.

Good news for all Lutherans out there! For the month of August 2014 only, the sales load on the “A” shares of Thrivent Growth and Income Plus Fund (TEIAX), Thrivent Balanced Income Plus Fund (AABFX), Thrivent Diversified Income Plus Fund (AAHYX), Thrivent Opportunity Income Plus Fund (AAINX), and Thrivent Municipal Bond Fund (AAMBX) will be temporarily waived. Bad news for all Lutherans out there: other than Diversified Income, these really aren’t very good.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

As of August 1, 2014, AMG Managers Skyline Special Equities Fund (SKSEX) will close to new investors. In the nature of such things, the fund’s blistering performance in 2013 (up 51.6%) drew in a rush of eager new money. The newbies are now enjoying the fund’s bottom 10% performance YTD and might well soon head out again for greener pastures. These are, doubtless, folks who should have read Erma Bombeck’s classic The Grass Is Always Greener over the Septic Tank (1976) rather than watching CNBC.

As of July 11, 2014, Columbia Acorn Emerging Markets Fund (CAGAX) is closing to new investors. The fund reached the half billion plateau well before it reached its third birthday, driven by a surge in performance that began in May 2012.

On July 8, 2014, the $1.3 billion Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund (FBDIX) is closed to new folks as well.

The Board of Trustees approved the imposition of a 2% redemption fee on shares of the Hotchkis & Wiley High Yield Fund (HWHAX) that are redeemed or exchanged in 90 days or less. Given the fact that high yield is hot and overpriced (those two do go together), it strikes me as a good thing that H&W are trying to slow folks down a bit.

Any guesses about why Morningstar codes half of the H&W funds as “Hotchkis and Wiley” and the other half as “Hotchkis & Wiley”? It really goofs up my attempts to search the danged database.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

I’ve placed this note here because I hadn’t imagined the need for a section named “Coups and Other Uprisings.” Effective August 1, Forward Endurance Long/Short Fund (FENRX) becomes a new fund. The name changes (to Forward Equity Long/Short), the mandate changes, fees drop by 25 bps, it ceases to be “non-diversified” and the management team changes (the earlier co-manager left on one week’s notice in May, two new in-house guys are … well, in).

The old mandate was “to identify trends that may have a disruptive impact on and result in significant changes to global business markets, including new technology developments and the emergence of new industries.” The less disruptive new strategy is “to position the Fund in the stronger performing sectors using a proprietary relative strength model and in high conviction fundamental ideas.”

Other than for a few minutes in the spring of 2014, they were actually doing a pretty solid job.

On July 7, 2014, the Direxion Monthly Commodity Bull 2X Fund (DXCLX) will be renamed as Direxion Monthly Natural Resources Bull 2X Fund, with a corresponding change to the underlying index.

At the beginning of September, Dreyfus Select Managers Long/Short Equity Fund (DBNAX) becomes Dreyfus Select Managers Long/Short Fund. I’m deeply grateful for Dreyfus’s wisdom in choosing to select managers rather than randomly assigning them. Thanks, guy!

On October 1, 2014, SunAmerica High Yield Bond Fund (SHNAX) becomes SunAmerica Flexible Credit Fund, and that simultaneously make “certain changes to their principal investment strategy and techniques.” In particular, they won’t have to invest in high yield bonds if they don’t wanna. That good because, as a high yield bond fund, they’ve pretty much trail the pack by 50-100 bps over most trailing time periods.

At the end of July, the $300 million Vice Fund (VICEX) becomes the Barrier Fund. It’s a nice fund run by a truly good person, Gerry Sullivan. The new mandate does, however, muddy things a bit. First, the fund only commits to investing at least 25% of assets to its traditional group of alcohol, tobacco, gaming and defense (high barrier-to-entry) stocks but it’s not quite clear where else the money would go, or why. And the fund will reserve for itself the power to short and use options.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Apparently diversification isn’t working for everybody. Diversified Risk Parity Fund (DRPAX/DRPIX) will “cease operations, close and redeem all outstanding shares” on July 30, 2014. ASG Diversifying Strategies Fund (DSFAX) is slated to be liquidated about a week later, on August 8.   The omnipresent Jason Zweig has a thoughtful essay of the fund’s liquidation, “When hedging cuts both ways.”  At base, the ASG product was a hedge-like fund that … well, would actually hedge a portfolio.  Investors loved the theory but were impatient with the practice:

If you want an investment that can do well when stocks and bonds do badly, a liquid-alt fund can do that for you. But you will have nobody but yourself to blame when stocks and bonds do well and you get annoyed at your alternative fund for underperforming. That is what it is supposed to do.

If you can’t accept that, maybe you should just keep some of your money in cash.

Dreyfus is giving up on a variety of its funds: one bad hedge-y fund Global Absolute Return (DGPAX, which has returned absolutely nothing since launch), one perfectly respectable hedge-y fund, Satellite Alpha (DSAAX), with under a million in assets and the B and I of the BRICs: India (DIIAX) and Brazil (DBZAX) are all being liquidated in late August.

Driehaus Mid Cap Growth Fund (DRMGX) has closed to new investors and will liquidate at the end of August. It’s not a very distinguished fund but it’s undistinguished in an unDriehaus way. Normally Driehaus funds are high vol / high return, which is sometimes their undoing.

Got a call into Fidelity on this freak show: Strategic Advisers® U.S. Opportunity Fund (FUSOX) is about to be liquidated. It’s a four star fund with $5.5 billion in assets. Low expenses. Top tier long-term returns. Apparently that makes it a candidate for closure. Manager Robert Vick left on June 4^th, ahead of his planned retirement at the end of June. (Note to Bob: states with cities named Portland are really lovely places to spend your later years!). On June 6 they appointed two undertakers new managers to “oversee all activities relating to the fund’s liquidation and will manage the day-to-day operations of the fund until the final liquidation.” Wow. Fund Mortician.

Special note to Morningstar: tell your programmers to stop including the ® symbol in fund names. It makes it impossible to search for the fund since the ® is invisible, there’s no way to type it in the search box and the search will fail unless you type it.

JPMorgan International Realty Fund (JIRAX) experiences “liquidation and dissolution” on July 31, 2014

The $100 million Nationwide Enhanced Income Fund (NMEAX) and the $73 million Nationwide Short Duration Bond Fund (MCAPX)are both, simultaneously, merging into $300 million Nationwide Highmark Short Term Bond Fund (NWJSX). The Enhanced Duration shareholders must approve the move but “[s]hareholders of the Short Duration Bond Fund are not required, and will not be requested, to approve the Merger.” No timetable yet.

Legg Mason’s entire lineup of tiny, underperforming, overcharged retirement date funds (Legg Mason Target Retirement 2015 – 50 and Retirement Fund) “are expected to cease operations during the fourth quarter of 2014.”

Payden Tax Exempt Bond Fund (PYTEX) will be liquidated on July 22. At $6.5 million and an e.r. of 0.65%, the fund wasn’t generating enough income to pay its postage bills much less its manager.

On June 11, the Board of the Plainsboro China Fund (PCHFX) announced that the fund had closed and that it would be liquidated on the following day. Curious. The fund had under $2 million in assets, but top 1% returns over the past 12 months. The manager, Yang Xiang, used to be a portfolio manager for Harding Loevner. On whole, the “liquidated immediately and virtually without notice” sounds rather more like the Plainsboro North Korea Fund (JONGX).

RPg Emerging Market Sector Rotation Fund (EMSAX/EMSIX) spins out for the last time on July 30, 2014.

Royce Focus Value Fund (RYFVX) will be liquidated at the end of July “because it has not attracted and maintained assets at a sufficient level for it to be viable.” Whitney George, who runs seven other funds for Royce, isn’t likely even to notice that it’s gone.

SunAmerica GNMA Fund (GNMAX) is slated to merge into SunAmerica U.S. Government Securities Fund (SGTAX), a bit sad for shareholders since SGTAX seems the weaker of the two.

Voya doesn’t merge funds. They disappear them. And when some funds disappear, others are survivors. On no particular date, Voya Core Equity Research Fund disappears while Voya Large Cap Value Fund (IEDAX) survives. Presumably at the same time, Voya Global Opportunities Fund but Voya Global Equity Dividend Fund (IAGEX) doesn’t.

With the retirement of Matthew E. Megargel, Wellington Management’s resulting decision to discontinue its U.S. multi-cap core equity strategy. That affects some funds subadvised by Wellington.

William Blair Commodity Strategy Long/Short Fund (WCSNX)has closed and will liquidate on July 24, 2014. It’s another of the steadily shrinking cadre of managed futures funds, a “can’t fail” strategy backed by scads of research, modeling and backtested data. Oops.

In Closing . . .

A fund manager shared this screen cap from his browser:

It appears that T. Rowe is looking over us! I guess if I had to pick someone to be sitting atop up, they’d surely make the short list.  The manager speculates that Price might have bought the phrase “Mutual Fund Observer” as one they want to associate with in Google search results.  Sort of affirming if true, but no one knows for sure.

See ya in August!

Dear friends,

I love language, in both its ability to clarify and to mystify.

Take the phrase “think outside the box.”  You’ve heard it more times than you’d care to count but have you ever stopped to wonder: what box are they talking about?  Maybe someone invented it for good reason, so perhaps you should avoid breaking the box?

In point of fact, it’s this box:

Here’s the challenge that lies behind the aphorism: link all nine dots using four straight lines or fewer, without lifting the pen and without tracing the same line more than once.  There are only two ways to accomplish the feat: (1) rearrange the dots, which is obviously cheating, and (2) work outside the box.  For example:

As we interviewed managers this month, Ed Studzinski, they and I got to talking about investors’ perspectives on the future.  In one camp there are the “glass half-full” guys. Dale Harvey of Poplar Forest Partners Fund (PFPFX) allowed, for example, that there may come a time to panic about the stock market, but it’s not now. He looks at three indicators and finds them all pretty green:

1. His ability to find good investment ideas.  He’s still finding opportunities to add positions to the fund.
2. What’s going on with the Fed? “Don’t fight the Fed” is an axiom for good reason, he notes.  They’ve just slowing the rate of stimulus, not slowing the economy.  You get plenty of advance notice when they really want to start applying the brakes.
3. What’s going on with investor attitudes?  Folks aren’t all whipped-up about stocks, though there are isolated “story” stocks that folks are irrational over.

Against those folks are the “glass half-empty” guys.  Some of those guys are calling the alarm; others stoically endure that leaden feeling in the pit of their stomachs that comes from knowing they’ve seen this show before and it never ends well. By way of illustration:

1. The Leuthold Group believes that large cap stocks are more than 25% overvalued, small caps much more than that, that there could be a substantial correction and that corrections overshoot, so a 40% drop is not inconceivable.
2. Jeremy Grantham of GMO places the market at 65% overvalued. Fortunately, according to a Barron’s interview, it won’t become “a true bubble” until it inflates 30% more and individual investors, still skittish, become “gung-ho.”
3. Mark Hulbert notes that “true insider” stock sales have reached their highest level in a quarter century.  Hulbert notes that insider selling isn’t usually predictive because the term “insider” encompasses both true insiders (directors, presidents, founders, operating officers) and legal insides (any investor who controls more than 5% of the stock).  It turns out that “true” insider selling is predictive of a stock market fall a couple quarters later.  He makes his argument in two similar, but not quite identical, articles in Barron’s and MarketWatch.  (Go read them.)

And me, you ask?  I guess I’m neither quite a glass half full nor a glass half empty sort of investor.  I’m closer to a “don’t drop the glass!” guy.  My non-retirement portfolio remains about where it always is (25% US stocks with a value bias, 25% international stocks with a small/emerging bias, 50% income) and it’s all funded on auto-pilot.  I didn’t lose a mint in ’08, I didn’t make a mint in ’13 and I spend more time thinking about my son’s average (the season starts in the first week of April and he’ll either be on the mound or at second) than about the Dow’s.

“Judge Our Performance Over a Full Market Cycle”

Uh huh! Be careful of what you wish for, Bub. Charles did just check your performance across full market cycles, and it’s not as pretty as you’d like. Here are his data-rich findings:

Ten Market Cycles

In response to the article In Search of Persistence, published in our January commentary, NumbersGirl posted the following on the MFO board:

I am not enamored of using rolling 3-year returns to assess persistence.

A 3-year time period will often be all up or all down. If a fund manager has an investing personality or philosophy then I would expect strong relative performance in a rising market to be negatively correlated with poor relative performance in a falling market, etc.

It seems to me that the best way to measure persistence is over 1 (or better yet more) market cycles.

There followed good discussion about pros and cons of such an assessment, including lack of consistent definition of what constitutes a market cycle.

Echoing her suggestion, fund managers also often ask to be judged “over full cycle” when comparing performance against their peers.

A quick search of literature (eg., Standard & Poor’s Surviving a Bear Market and Doug Short’s Bear Markets in the S&P since 1950) shows that bear markets are generally “defined as a drop of 20% or more from the market’s previous high.” Here’s how the folks at Steele Mutual Fund Expert define a cycle:

Full-Cycle Return: A full cycle return includes a consecutive bull and bear market return cycle.

Up-Market Return (Bull Market): A Bull market in stocks is defined as a 20% rise in the S&P 500 Index from its previous trough, ending when the index reaches its peak and subsequently declines by 20%.

Down-Market Return (Bear Market): A Bear market in stocks is defined as a 20% decline in the S&P 500 Index from its previous peak, and ends when the index reaches its trough and subsequently rises by 20%.

Applying this definition to the SP500 intraday price index indicates there have indeed been ten such cycles, including the current one still in process, since 1956:

The returns shown are based on price only, so exclude dividends. Note that the average duration seems to match-up pretty well with so-called “short term debt cycle” (aka business cycle) described by Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio in the charming How the Economic Machine Works – In 30 Minutes video.

Here’s break-out of bear and bull markets:

The graph below depicts the ten cycles. To provide some historic context, various events are time-lined – some good, but more bad. Return is on left axis, measured from start of cycle, so each builds where previous left off. Short-term interest rate is on right axis.

Note that each cycle resulted in a new all-time market high, which seems rather extraordinary. There were spectacular gains for the 1980 and 1990 bull markets, the latter being 427% trough-to-peak! (And folks worry lately that they may have missed-out on the current bull with its 177% gain.) Seeing the resiliency of the US market, it’s no wonder people like Warren Buffett advocate a buy-and-hold approach to investing, despite the painful -50% or more drawdowns, which have occurred three times over the period shown.

Having now defined the market cycles, which for this assessment applies principally to US stocks, we can revisit the question of mutual fund persistence (or lack of) across them.

Based on the same methodology used to determine MFO rankings, the chart below depicts results across nine cycles since 1962:

Blue indicates top quintile performance, while red indicates bottom quintile. The rankings are based on risk adjusted return, specifically Martin ratio, over each full cycle. Funds are compared against all other funds in the peer group. The number of funds was rather small back in 1962, but in the later cycles, these same funds are competing against literally hundreds of peers.

(Couple qualifiers: The mural does not account for survivorship-bias or style drift. Cycle performance is determined using monthly total returns, including any loads, between the peak-to-peak dates listed above, with one exception…our database starts Jan 62 and not Dec 61.)

Not unexpectedly, the result is similar to previous studies (eg., S&P Persistence Scorecard) showing persistence is elusive at best in the mutual fund business. None of the 45 original funds in four categories delivered top-peer performance across all cycles – none even came close.

Looking at the cycles from 1973, a time when several now well know funds became established, reveals a similar lack of persistence – although one or two come close to breaking the norm. Here is a look at some of the top performing names:

MFO Great Owls Mairs & Powers Balanced (MAPOX) and Vanguard Wellington (VWELX) have enjoyed superior returns the last three cycles, but not so much in the first. The reverse is true for legendary Fidelity Magellan (FMAGX).

Even a fund that comes about as close to perfection as possible, Sequoia (SEQUX), swooned in the late ‘90s relative to other growth funds, like Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX), resulting in underperformance for the cycle. The table below details the risk and return metrics across each cycle for SEQUX, showing the -30% drawdown in early 2000, which marked the beginning of the tech bubble. In the next couple years, many other growth funds would do much worse.

So, while each cycle may rhyme, they are different, and even the best managed funds will inevitably spend some time in the barrel, if not fall from favor forever.

We will look to incorporate full-cycle performance data in the single-ticker MFO Risk Profile search tool. As suggested by NumbersGirl, it’s an important piece of due diligence and risk cognizance for all mutual fund investors.

26Mar14/Charles

Celebrating one-star funds, part 2!

Morningstar faithfully describes their iconic star ratings as a starting place for additional research, not as a one-stop judgment of a funds merit.  As a practical matter investors do use those star ratings as part of a two-step research process:

Step One: Eliminate those one- and two-star losers

Step Two: Browse the rest

In general, there are worse strategies you could follow. Nonetheless, the star ratings can seriously misrepresent the merits of individual funds.  If a fund is fundamentally misfit to its category (in March we highlighted the plight of short-term high income funds within the high-yield peer group) or if a fund is highly risk averse, there’s an unusually large chance that its star rating will conceal more than it will reveal.  After a long statistical analysis, my colleague Charles concluded in last month’s issue that:

 A consequence of Morningstar’s methodology is that low volatility funds with below average returns can quite possibly be out-ranked by average volatility funds with average returns. Put another way, the methodology generally penalizes funds with high volatility more so than it rewards funds with low volatility.

The Observer categorizes funds differently: our Great Owl funds are those whose risk-adjusted returns are in the top 20% of their peer group for every measurement period longer than one year.  Our risk-adjustment is based on a fund’s Martin ratio which “excels at identifying funds that have delivered superior returns while mitigating drawdowns.”  At base, we’ve made the judgment that investors are more sensitive to the size of a fund’s drawdown – its maximum peak to trough loss – than to the background noise of day-to-day volatility.  As a result, we reward funds that provide good returns while avoiding disastrous losses.

For those interested in a second opinion, here’s the list of all one-star Great Owl funds:

• American Century One Choice 2035 A (ARYAX)
• Aquila Three Peaks High Income A (ATPAX)
• ASTON/River Road Independent Value (ARIVX)
• BlackRock Allocation Target Shares (BRASX)
• Dividend Plus Income (MAIPX)
• Fidelity Freedom Index 2000 (FGIFX)
• Intrepid Income (ICMUX)
• Invesco Balanced-Risk Retire 2030 (TNAAX)
• Invesco Balanced-Risk Retire 2040 (TNDAX)
• Invesco Balanced-Risk Retire 2050 (TNEAX)
• PIMCO 7-15 Year U.S. Treasury Index ETF (TENZ)
• PIMCO Broad U.S. Treasury Index ETF (TRSY)
• RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX)
• Schwab Monthly Income Max Payout (SWLRX)
• SEI New Jersey Municipal Bond A (SENJX)
• SPDR Nuveen S&P VRDO Municipal Bond (VRD)
• Symons Value (SAVIX)
• Weitz Nebraska Tax-Free Income (WNTFX)
• Wells Fargo Advantage Dow Jones Target 2015 (WFQEX)
• Wells Fargo Advantage Short Term High-Yield Bond (STHBX)

Are we arguing that the Great Owl metric is intrinsically better than Morningstar’s?

Nope.  We do want to point out that every rating system contains biases, although we somehow pretend that they’re “purely objective.”  You need to understand that the fact that a fund’s biases don’t align with a rater’s preferences is not an indictment of the fund (any more than a five-star rating should be taken as an automatic endorsement of it).

Still waiting by the phone

Last month’s celebration of one-star funds took up John Rekenthaler’s challenge to propose new fund categories which were more sensible than the existing assignments and which didn’t cause “category bloat.”

Amiably enough, we suggested short-term high yield as an eminently sensible possibility.  It contains rather more than a dozen funds that act much more like aggressive short-term bond funds than like traditional high-yield bond funds, a category dominated by high-return, high-volatility funds with much longer durations.

So far, no calls of thanks and praise from the good folks in Chicago.  (sigh)

How about another try: emerging markets allocation, balanced or hybrid?  Morningstar’s own discipline is to separate pure stock funds (global or domestic) from stock-bond hybrid funds, except in the emerging markets.  Almost all of the dozen or so emerging markets hybrid funds are categorized as, and benchmarked against, pure equity funds.  Whether that advantages or disadvantages a hybrid fund at any given point isn’t the key; the question is whether it allows investors to accurately assess them.  The hybrid category is well worth a test.

Who’s watching the watchers?

Presidio Multi-Strategy Fund (PMSFX) will “discontinue operations” on April 10, 2014.  It’s a weird little fund with a portfolio about the size of my retirement account.  This isn’t the first time we’ve written about Presidio.  Presidio shared a board with Caritas All-Cap Growth (CTSAX, now Goodwood SMIDcap Discovery).   In July 2013, the Board decided to liquidate Caritas.  In August they reconsidered and turned both funds’ management over to Brenda Smith.  At that time, I expressed annoyance with their limited sense of responsibility:

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

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

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

By October, she was gone from Caritas but she’s stayed with Presidio to the bitter end which looks something like this:

This isn’t just a note about a tiny, failed fund.  It’s a note about the Trustees of your fund boards.  Your representatives.  Your voice.  Their failures become your failures.  Their failures cause your failures.

Presidio was overseen by a rent-a-board (more politely called “a turnkey board”); a group of guys who nominally oversee dozens of unrelated funds but who have stakes in none of them.  Here’s a quick snapshot of this particular board:

The Board members are paid $2,000 per fund overseen and meet seven times a year.  The manager received rather more: “For the fiscal year ended May 31, 2013, Presidio Capital Investments, LLC received fees for its services to the Fund in the amount of $101,510,” for managing a $500,000 portfolio.

What other funds do they guide?  There are 22 of them:

• CV Asset Allocation Fund (CVASX);
• Arin Large Cap Theta Fund (AVOAX) managed by Arin Risk Advisors, LLC;
• Crescent Large Cap Macro, Mid Cap Macro and Strategic Income Funds managed by Greenwood Capital Associates, LLC;
• Horizons West Multi-Strategy Hedged Income Fund (HWCVX, formerly known as the Prophecy Alpha Trading Fund);
• Matisse Discounted Closed-End Fund Strategy (MDCAX) managed by Deschutes Portfolio Strategies;
• Roumell Opportunistic Value Fund (RAMVX) managed by Roumell Asset Management, LLC;
• The 11 RX funds (Dynamic Growth, Dynamic Total Return, Non Traditional, High Income, Traditional Equity, Traditional Fixed Income, Tactical Rotation, Tax Advantaged, Dividend Income, and Premier Managers);
• SCS Tactical Allocation Fund (SCSGX) managed by Sentinel Capital Solutions, Inc.;
• Sector Rotation Fund (NAVFX) managed by Navigator Money Management, Inc.; and
• Thornhill Strategic Equity Fund (TSEQX) managed by Thornhill Securities, Inc.

Oh, wait.  Not quite.  Crescent Mid Cap Macro (GCMIX) is “inactive.”  Thornhill Strategic Equity (TSEQX)?  No, that doesn’t seem to be trading either. Can’t find evidence that CV Asset Allocation ever launched. Right, right: the manager of Sector Rotation Fund (NAVFX) is under SEC sanction for “numerous misleading claims,” including reporting on the performance of the fund for periods in which the fund didn’t exist.

The bottom line: directors matter. Good directors can offer a manager access to skills, perspectives and networks that are far beyond his or her native abilities.  And good directors can put their collective foot down on matters of fees, bloat and lackluster performance.

Every one of your funds has a board of directors and you really need to ask just three questions about these guys:

1. What evidence is there that the directors are bringing a meaningful skill set to their post?
2. What evidence is there that the directors have executed serious oversight of the management team?
3. What evidence is there that the directors have aligned their interests with yours?

You need to look at two documents to answer those questions.  The first is the Statement of Additional Information (SAI) which is updated every time the prospectus is.  The SAI lists the board members’ qualifications, compensation, the number of funds each director oversees and the director’s investment in each of them. Here’s a general rule: if they’re overseeing dozens of funds and investing in none of them, back away.  There are some very good funds that use what I refer to as rent-a-boards as a matter of administrative convenience and financial efficiency, but the use of such boards weakens a critical safeguard.  If the board isn’t deeply invested, you need to see that the management team is.

The second document is called the Renewal of Investment Advisory Contract.  Boards are legally required to document their due diligence and to explain to you, the folks who elected them, exactly what they looked at and what they concluded.  These are sometimes freestanding documents but they’re more likely included as a section of the fund’s annual report. Look for errant nonsense, rationalizations and wishful thinking.  If you find it, run away!  Here’s an example of the discussion of fees charged by a one-star fund that trails 96-98% of its peers but charges a mint:

Fee Rate and Profitability – The Trustees considered that the Fund’s advisory fee is the highest in its peer group, while its expense ratio is the second highest. The Trustees considered [the manager’s] explanation that several funds included in the Fund’s peer group are passive index funds, which have extremely low fees because, unlike the Fund, they are not actively managed. The Trustees also considered [the] explanation that the growth strategy it uses to manage the Fund is extremely expensive and labor intensive because it involves reviewing and evaluating 8,000+ stocks four times a year.

Here’s the argument that the board bought: the fund has some of the highest fees in its industry but that’s okay because (1) you can’t expect us to be as cheap as an index fund and (2) we work hard, apparently unlike the 98% of funds that outperform us or charge less.

If you had an employee who was paid more and produced less than anyone else, what would you do?  Then ask: “and why didn’t my board do likewise?”

It’s The Money, Stupid!

By Edward Studzinski

“To be clever enough to get a great deal of money, one must be stupid enough to want it.”

G.K. Chesterton

There is a repetitive scene in the movie “Shakespeare in Love” – an actor and a director are reading through one of young Master Shakespeare’s newest plays, with the ink still drying.  The actor asks how a particular transition is to be made from one scene to the next.  The answer given is, “I don’t know – it’s a mystery.”  Much the same might be said for the process of setting and then regularly reviewing, mutual fund fees. One of my friends made the Long March with Morningstar’s Joe Mansueto from a cave deep in western China to what should now be known now as Morningstar Abbey in Chicago. She used to opine about how for commodity products like equity mutual funds, in a world of perfect competition if one believed economic theory as taught at the University of Chicago, it was rather odd that the clearing price for management fees, rather than continually coming down, seemed mired at one per cent. That comment was made almost twenty years ago. The fees still seem mired there.

One argument might be that you get what you pay for. Unfortunately many actively-managed equity funds that charge that approximately one per cent management fee lag their benchmarks. This presents the conundrum of how index funds charging five basis points (which Seth Klarman used to refer to as “mindless investing”) often regularly outperform the smart guys charging much more. The public airing of personality clashes at bond manager PIMCO makes for interesting reading in this area, but is not necessarily illuminating. For instance, allegedly the annual compensation for Bill Gross is $200M a year. However, much of that is arguably for his role in management at PIMCO, as co-chief investment officer. Some of it is for serving on a daily basis as the portfolio manager for however many funds his name is on as portfolio manager. Another piece of it might be tied to his ownership interest in the business.

The issue becomes even more confusing when you have similar, nay even almost identical, funds being managed by the same investment firm but coming through different channels, with different fees. The example to contrast here again is PIMCO and their funds with multiple share classes and different fees, and Harbor, a number of whose fixed income products are sub-advised by PIMCO and have lower fees for what appear, to the unvarnished eye, to be very similar products often managed by the same portfolio manager. A further variation on this theme can be seen when you have an equity manager running his own firm’s proprietary mutual fund for which he is charging ninety basis points in management fees while his firm is running a sleeve of another equity mutual fund for Vanguard, for which the firm is being paid a management fee somewhere between twenty and thirty basis points, usually with incentives tied to performance. And while the argument is often made that the funds may have different investment philosophies and strategies and a different portfolio manager, there is often a lot of overlap in the securities owned (using  the same research process and analysts).

So, let’s assume that active equity management fees are initially set by charging what everyone else is charging for similar products. One can see by looking at a prospectus, what a competitor is charging. And I can assure you that most investment managers have a pretty good idea as to who their competitors are, even if they may think they really do not have competitors. How do the fees stay at the same level, especially as, when assets under management grow there should be economies of scale?

Ah ha!  Now we reach a matter that is within the purview of the Board of Trustees for a fund or fund group. They must look at the reasonableness of the fees being charged in light of a number of variables, including investment philosophy and strategy, size of assets under management, performance, etc., etc., etc.  And perhaps a principal underpinning driving that annual review and sign-off is the peer list of funds for comparison.

Probably one of the most important assignments for a mutual fund executive, usually a chief financial officer, is (a) making sure that the right consulting firm is hired to put together the peer list of similar mutual funds and (b) confirming that the consulting firm understands their assignment. To use another movie analogy, there is a scene early on in “Animal House” where during pledge week, two of the main characters visit a fraternity house and upon entering, are immediately sent to sit on a couch off in a corner with what are clearly a small group of social outliers. Peer group identification often seems to involve finding a similar group of outliers on the equivalent of that couch.

Given the large number of funds out there, one identifies a similar universe with similar investment strategies, similar in size, but mirabile dictu, the group somehow manages to have similar or inferior performance with similar or higher fees and expenses. What to do, what to do?  Well of course, you fiddle with the break points so that above a certain size of assets under management in the fund, the fees are reduced. And you never have to deal with the issue that the real money is not in the break points but in fees that are too high to begin with. Perish the thought that one should use common sense and look at what Vanguard or Dodge and Cox are charging for base fees for similar products.

There is another lesson to be gained from the PIMCO story, and that is the issue of ownership structure. Here, you have an offshore owner like Allianz taking a hands-off attitude towards their investment in PIMCO, other than getting whatever revenue or income split it is they are getting. It would be an interesting analysis to see what the return on investment to Allianz has been for their original investment. It would also be interesting to see what the payback period was for earning back that original investment. And where lies the fiduciary obligation, especially to PIMCO clients and fund investors, in addition to Allianz shareholders?  But that is a story for another time.

How is any of this to be of use to mutual fund investors and readers of the Observer. I am showing my age, but Vice President Hubert Humphrey used to be nick-named the “Happy Warrior.” One of the things that has become clear to me recently as David and I interview managers who have set up their own firms after leaving the Dark Side, LOOK FOR THE HAPPY WARRIORS. For them, it is not the process of making money. They don’t need the money. Rather they are doing it for the love of investing.  And if nobody comes, they will still do it to manage their own money.  Avoid the ones for whom the money has become an addiction, a way of keeping score. For supplementary reading, I commend to all an article that appeared in the New York Sunday Times on January 19, 2014 entitled “For the Love of Money” by Sam Polk. As with many of my comments, I am giving all of you more work to do in the research process for managing your money. But you need to do it if you serious about investing.  And remember, character and integrity always show through.

And those who can’t teach, teach gym (part 2)

Beginning in 1997, the iconically odd-looking Jim Jubak wrote the wildly-popular “Jubak’s Picks” column for MSN Money.  In 2010, he apparently decided that investment management looked awfully easy and so launched his own fund.

Which stunk.  Over the three years of its existence, it’s trailed 99% of its peers.   And so the Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved a Plan of Liquidation which authorizes the termination, liquidation and dissolution of the Jubak Global Equity Fund (JUBAX). The Fund will be T, L, and D’d on or about May 29, 2014. (It’s my birthday!)

Here’s the picture of futility, with Mr. Jubak on the blue line and mediocrity represented by the orange one:

Yup, $16 million in assets – none of it representing capital gains.

Mr. Jubak joins a long list of pundits, seers, columnists, prognosticators and financial porn journalists who have discovered that a facility for writing about investments is an entirely separate matter from any ability to actually make money.

Among his confreres:

Robert C. Auer, founder of SBAuer Funds, LLC, was from 1996 to 2004, the lead stock market columnist for the Indianapolis Business Journal “Bulls & Bears” weekly column, authoring over 400 columns, which discussed a wide range of investment topics.  As manager of Auer Growth (AUERX), he’s turned a $10,000 investment into $8500 over the course of six years.

Jonathan Clements left a high visibility post at The Wall Street Journal to become Director of Financial Education, Citi Personal Wealth Management.  Sounds fancy.  Frankly, it looks like was relegated to “blogger.”  Mr. Clements recently announced his return to journalism, and the launch of a weekly column in the WSJ.

John Dorfman, a Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal columnist, launched Dorfman Value Fund which finally became Thunderstorm Value Fund (THUNX). Having concluded that low returns, high expenses, a one-star rating, and poor marketing aren’t the road to riches, the advisor recommended that the Board close (on January 17, 2012) and liquidate (on February 29, 2012) the fund.

Ron Insana, who left CNBC in 2006 to form a hedge fund and returned to part-time punditry three years later.  He’s currently (March 28, 2014) prognosticating “a very nasty pullback” in the stock market.

Scott Martin, a contributor to FOX Business Network and a former columnist with TheStreet.com, co-managed Astor Long/Short ETF Fund (ASTLX) for one undistinguished year before moving on.

Steven J. Milloy, “lawyer, consultant, columnist, adjunct scholar,” managed the somewhat looney Free Enterprise Action Fund which merged with the somewhat looney $12 million Congressional Effect Fund (CEFFX), which never hired Mr. Milloy and just fired Congressional Effect Management.

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.

During March, Bro. Studzinski and I contacted a quartet of distinguished managers whose careers were marked by at least two phases: successfully managing large funds within a fund complex and then walking away to launch their own independent firms.  We wanted to talk with them both about their investing disciplines and current funds and about their bigger picture view of the world of independent managers.

Our lead story in May carries the working title, “Letter to a Young Fund Manager.”  We are hoping to share some insight into what it takes to succeed as a boutique manager running your own firm.  Our hope is that the story will be as useful for folks trying to assess the role of small funds in their portfolio as it will be to the (admittedly few) folks looking to launch such funds.

As a preview, we’d like to introduce the four managers and profile their funds:

Evermore Global Value (EVGBX): David Marcus was trained by Michael Price, managed Mutual European and co-managed two other Mutual Series funds, then spent time investing in Europe before returning to launch this remarkably independent “special situations” fund.

Huber Equity Income (HULIX): Joe Huber designed and implemented a state of the art research program at Hotchkis and Wiley and managed their Value Opportunities fund for five years before striking out to launch his own firm and, coincidentally, launched two of the most successful funds in existence.

Poplar Forest Partners (PFPFX): Dale Harvey is both common and rare.  He was a very successful manager for five American Funds who was disturbed by their size.  That’s common.  So he left, which is incredibly rare.  One of the only other managers to follow that path was Howard Schow, founder of the PrimeCap funds.

Walthausen Select Value (WSVRX): John Walthausen piloted both Paradigm Value and Paradigm Select to peer-stomping returns.  He left in 2007 to create his own firm which advises two funds that have posted, well, peer stomping returns.

Launch Alert: Artisan High Income (ARTFX)

On March 19^th, Artisan launched their first fixed-income fund.  The plan is for the manager to purchase a combination of high-yield bonds and other stuff (technically: “secured and unsecured loans, including, without limitation, senior and subordinated loans, delayed funding loans and revolving credit facilities, and loan participations and assignments”). There’s careful attention given to the quality and financial strength of the bond issuer and to the magnitude of the downside risks. The fund might invest globally.

The Fund is managed by Bryan C. Krug.  For the past seven years, Mr. Krug has managed Ivy High Income (WHIAX).  His record there was distinguished, especially for his ability to maneuver through – and profit from – a variety of market conditions.  A 2013 Morningstar discussion of the fund observes, in part:

[T]he fund’s 26% allocation to bonds rated CCC and below … is well above the 15% of its typical high-yield bond peer. Recently, though, Krug has been taking a somewhat defensive stance; he increased the amount of bank loans to nearly 34% as of the end of 2012, well above the fund’s 15% target allocation … Those kinds of calls have allowed the fund to mitigate losses well–performance in 2011’s third quarter and May 2012 are ready examples–as well as to deliver strong results in a variety of other environments. That record and relatively low expenses make for a compelling case here.

$10,000 invested at the beginning of Mr. Krug’s tenure would have grown to $20,700 by the time of his departure versus $16,700 at his average peer. The Ivy fund was growing by $3 – 4 billion a year, with no evident plans for closure.  While there’s no evidence that asset bloat is what convinced Mr. Krug to look for new opportunities, indeed the fund continued to perform splendidly even at $11 billion, a number of other managers have shifted jobs for that very reason.

The minimum initial investment is $1000 for the Investor class and $250,000 for Advisor shares.  Expenses for both the Investor and Advisor classes are capped at 1.25%.

Artisan’s hiring standard has remained unchanged for decades: they interview dozens of management teams each year but hire only when they think they’ve found “category killers.” With 10 of their 12 rated funds earning four- or five-stars, they seem to achieve that goal.  Investors seeking a cautious but opportunistic take on high income investing really ought to look closer.

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 May or early June 2014 and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

This month David Welsch tracked down five funds in registration, the lowest totals since we launched three years ago.  Curious.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 43 sets of fund manager changes. The most intriguing of those include Amit Wadhwaney’s retirement from managing Third Avenue International Value (TAVIX) and Jim Moffett’s phased withdrawal from Scout International (UMBWX).

Updates

Our friends at RiverRoad Asset Management report that they have entered a “strategic partnership” with Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.  RiverRoad becomes AMG’s 30^th partner. The roster also includes AQR, Third Avenue and Yacktman.  As part of this agreement, AMG will purchase River Road from Aviva Investors.  Additionally, River Road’s employees will acquire a substantial portion of the equity of the business. The senior professionals at RiverRoad have signed new 10-year employment agreements.  They’re good people and we wish them well.

Even more active share.

Last month we shared a list of about 50 funds who were willing to report heir current active share, a useful measure that allows investors to see how independent their funds are of the index.  We offered folks the chance to be added to the list. A dozen joined the list, including folks from Barrow, Conestoga, Diamond Hill, DoubleLine, Evermore, LindeHanson, Pinnacle, and Poplar Forest. We’ve given our active share table a new home.

ARE YOU ACTIVE?  WOULD YOU LIKE SOMEONE TO NOTICE?

We’ve been scanning fund company sites, looking for active share reports. If we’ve missed you, we’re sorry. Help us correct the oversight  by sending us the link to where you report your active share stats. We’d be more than happy to offer a permanent home for the web’s largest open collection of active share data.

Briefly Noted . . .

For reasons unexplained, GMO has added a “purchase premium” (uhhh… sales load?) and redemption fee of between 8 and 10 basis points to three of its funds: GMO Strategic Fixed Income Fund (GMFIX), GMO Global Developed Equity Allocation Fund (GWOAX) and GMO International Developed Equity Allocation Fund (GIOTX).  Depending on the share class, the GMO funds have investment minimums in the $10 million – $300 million range.  At the lower end, that would translate to an $8,000 purchase premium.  At the high end, it might be $100,000.

Effective April 1, 2014, the principal investment strategy of the Green Century Equity Fund (GCEQX) will be revised to change the index tracked by the Fund, so as to exclude the stocks of companies that explore for, process, refine or distribute coal, oil or gas.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

The Board of Mainstay Marketfield Fund (MFLDX) has voted to slash the management fee (slash it, I say!) by one basis point! So, in compensation for a sales load (5.75% for “A” shares), asset bloat (at $21 billion, the fund has put on nearly $17 billion since being acquired by New York Life) and sagging performance (it still leads its long/short peer group, but by a slim margin), you save $1 – every year – for every $10,000 you invest.  Yay!!!!!

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Robeco Boston Partners Long/Short Research Fund (BPRRX)  closed on a day’s notice at the end of March, 2014 because of “a concern that a significant increase in the size of the Fund may adversely affect the implementation of the Fund’s strategy.”  The advisor long-ago closed its flagship Robeco Boston Partners Long/Short Equity (BPLEX) fund.  At the beginning of January 2014 they launched a third offering, Robeco Boston Partners Global Long/Short (BGLSX) which is only available to institutional investors.

Effective as of the close of business on March 28, 2014, Perritt Ultra MicroCap Fund (PREOX) closed to new investors.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

On March 31, Alpine Innovators Fund (ADIAX) became Alpine Small Cap Fund.  It also ceased to be an all-cap growth fund oriented toward stocks benefiting from the “innovative nature of each company’s products, technology or business model.”  It was actually a pretty reasonable fund, not earth-shattering but decent.  Sadly, no one cared.  It’s not entirely clear that they’re going to swarm on yet another small-blend fund.  The upside is that the new managers have a stint with Lord Abbett Small Cap Blend Fund

Effective on or about April 28, 2014, BNY Mellon Small/Mid Cap Fund‘s (MMCIX) name will be changed to BNY Mellon Small/Mid Cap Multi-Strategy Fund and they’ll go all multi-manager on you.

Effective March 21, 2014, the ticker for the Giant 5 Total Investment System changed from FIVEX to CASHX. Cute.  The board had previously approved replacement of the phrase “Giant 5” with “Index Funds” (no, really), but that hasn’t happened yet.

At the end of April, 2014, Goldman Sachs has consented to modestly shorten the names of some of their funds.

They still don’t fit on one line.

Johnson Disciplined Mid-Cap Fund (JMDIX) is slated to become Johnson Opportunity on May 1, 2014.  At that point, it won’t be restricted to investing in mid-cap stocks anymore.  Good thing, too, since they’re only … how to say this? Intermittently excellent at that discipline.

On May 5, Laudus Mondrian Global Fixed Income Fund (LMGDX) becomes Laudus Mondrian Global Government Fixed Income Fund.  It’s already 90% in government bonds, so the change is mostly symbolic.  At the same time, Laudus Mondrian International Fixed Income Fund (LIFNX) becomes Laudus Mondrian International Government Fixed Income Fund.  It, too, invests now in government bonds.

Effective March 17, 2014, Mariner Hyman Beck Fund (MHBAX) was renamed the Mariner Managed Futures Strategy Fund.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Effective on or about May 16, 2014, AllianzGI Disciplined Equity Fund (ARDAX) and AllianzGI Dynamic Emerging Multi-Asset Fund (ADYAX) will be liquidated and dissolved. The former is tiny and mediocre, the latter tinier and worse.  Hasta!

Avatar Capital Preservation Fund (ZZZNX), Avatar Tactical Multi-Asset Income Fund (TAZNX), Avatar Absolute Return Fund (ARZNX) and Avatar Global Opportunities Fund (GOWNX) – pricey funds-of-ETFs – ceased operations on March 28, 2014.

Epiphany FFV Global Ecologic Fund (EPEAX) has closed to investors and will be liquidated on April 28, 2014.

Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund (GNIAX) is being merged “with and into” the Goldman Sachs Asia Equity Fund (GSAGX). The SEC filing mumbled indistinctly about “the second quarter of 2014” as a target date.

The $200 million Huntington Fixed Income Securities Fund (HFIIX) will be absorbed by the $5.6 billion Federated Total Return Bond Fund (TLRAX), sometime during the second quarter of 2014.  The Federated fund is pretty consistently mediocre, and still the better of the two.

On March 17, 2014, Ivy Asset Strategy New Opportunities Fund merged into Ivy Emerging Markets Equity Fund (IPOAX, formerly Ivy Pacific Opportunities Fund). On the same day, Ivy Managed European/Pacific Fund merged into Ivy Managed International Opportunities Fund (IVTAX).  (Run away!  Go buy a nice index fund!)

The $2 billion, four-star Morgan Stanley Focus Growth Fund (OMOAX) is merging with $1.3 billion, four-star Morgan Stanley Institutional Growth (MSEGX) at the beginning of April, 2014.  They are, roughly speaking, the same fund.

Parametric Currency Fund (EAPSX), $4 million in assets, volatile and unprofitable after two and a half years – closed on March 25, 2014 and was liquidated a week later.

Pax World Global Women’s Equality Fund (PXWEX) is slated to merged into a newly-formed Pax Global Women’s Index Fund.

On February 25, 2014, the Board of Trustees of Templeton Global Investment Trust on behalf of Templeton Asian Growth Fund approved a proposal to terminate and liquidate Templeton Asian Growth Fund (FASQX). The liquidation is anticipated to occur on or about May 20, 2014. I’m not sure of the story.  It’s a Mark Mobius production and he’s been running offshore versions of this fund since the early 1990s.  This creature, launched about four years ago, has been sucky performance and negligible assets.

Turner Emerging Markets Fund (TFEMX) is being liquidated on or about April 15, 2014.  Why? “This decision was made after careful consideration of the Fund’s asset size, strategic importance, current expenses and historical performance.”  Historical performance?  What historical performance?  Turner launched this fund in August of 2013.  Right.  After six months Turner pulled the plug.  Got long-term planning there, guys!

In Closing . . .

Happy anniversary to us all.  With this issue, the Observer celebrates its third anniversary.  In truth, we had no idea of what we were getting into but we knew we had a worthwhile mission and the support of good people.

We started with a fairly simple, research-based conviction: bloated funds are not good investments.  As funds swells, their investible universes contract, their internal incentives switch from investment excellence to avoiding headline risk, and their reward systems shift to reward asset growth and retention.  They become timid, sclerotic and unrewarding.

To be clear, we know of no reason which supports the proposition that bigger is better, most especially in the case of funds that place some or all of their portfolios in stocks.  And yet the industry is organized, almost exclusively, to facilitate such beasts.  Independent managers find it hard to get attention, are disadvantaged when it comes to distribution networks, and have almost no chance of receiving analyst coverage.

We’ve tried to be a voice for the little guy.  We’ve tried to speak clearly and honestly about the silly things that you’re tempted into doing and the opportunities that you’re likely overlooking.  So far we’ve reached over 300,000 readers who’ve dropped by for well over a million visits.  Which is pretty good for a site with neither commercial endorsements or pictures of celebrities in their swimwear.

In the year ahead, we’ll try to do better.  We’re taking seriously our readers’ recommendation.  One recommendation was to increase the number of fund profiles (done!) and to spend more time revisiting some of the funds we’ve previously written about (done!).  As we reviewed your responses to “what one change could we make to better serve you” question, several answers occurred over and over:

1. People would like more help in assembling portfolios, perhaps in form of model portfolios or portfolio templates.  A major goal for 2014, then, is working more with our friends in the industry to identify useful strategies for allowing folks to identify their own risk/return preferences and matching those to compatible funds.  We need to be careful since we’re not trained as financial advisors, so we want to offer models and illustrations rather than pretend to individual advice.
2. People would like more guidance on the resources already on-site.  We’ve done a poor job in accommodating the fact that we see about 10,000 first-time visitors each month.  As a result, people aren’t aware that we do maintain an archive of every audio-recording of our conference calls (check the Funds tab, then Featured Funds), and do have lists of recommended books (Resources -> Books!) and news sources (Best of the Web).  And so one of our goals for the year ahead is to make the Observer more transparent and more easily navigable.
3. Many people have asked about mid-month updates, at least in the case of closures or other developments which come with clear deadlines.  We might well be able to arrange to send a simple email, rarely more than once a month, if something compelling breaks.
4. Finally, many people asked for guidance for new investors.

Those are all wonderfully sensible suggestions and we take them very seriously.  Our immediate task is to begin inventorying our resources and capabilities; we need to ask “what’s the best we can do with what we’ve got today?” And “how can we work to strengthen our organizational foundation, so that we can help more?”

Those are great questions and we very much hope you join us as we shape the answers in the year ahead.

Finally, I’ll note that I’m shamefully far behind in extending thanks to the folks who’ve contributed to the Observer – by check or PayPal – in the past month.  I’ve launched on a new (and terrifying) adventure in home ownership; I spent much of the past month looking at houses in Davenport with the hopes of having a place by May 1.  I’m about 250 sets of signatures and initials into the process, with just one or two additional pallets of scary-looking forms to go!  Pray for me.

And thanks to you all.

Dear friends,

It’s not a question of whether it’s coming.  It’s just a question of whether you’ve been preparing intelligently.

A wave struck a lighthouse in Douro River in Porto, Portugal, Monday. The wave damaged some nearby cars and caused minor injuries. Pictures of the Day, Wall Street Journal online, January 6, 2014. Estela Silva/European Pressphoto Agency

There’s an old joke about the farmer with the leaky roof that never gets fixed.  When the sun’s out, he never thinks about the leak and when it’s raining, he can’t get up there to fix it anyway.  And so the leak continues.

Our investments likewise: people who are kicking themselves for not having 100% equity exposure in March 2009 and 200% exposure in January 2013 have been pulling money steadily from boring investments and adding them to stocks.  The domestic stock market has seen its 13^th consecutive month of inflows and the S&P 500 closed February at its highest nominal level ever.

I mention this now because the sun has been shining so brightly.  March 9, 2014 marches the five-year anniversary of the current bull market.  In those five years, a $10,000 investment in the S&P500 would have grown to $30,400.  The same amount invested in the NASDAQ on March 9 would have grown to $35,900. The last remnants of the ferocious bear markets of 2000-02 and 2007-09 have faded from the ratings.  And investors really want a do-over.  All the folks hiding under their beds in 2009 and still peering out from under the blankies in 2011 feel cheated and they want in on the action, and they want it now.

Hence inflows into an overpriced market.

Our general suggestion is to learn from the past, but not to live there.  Nothing we do today can capture the returns of the past five years for us.  Sadly, we still can damage the next five.  To help build a strong prospects for our future, we’re spending a bit of time this month talking about hedging strategies – ways to get into a pricey market without quite so much heartache – and cool funds that might be better positioned for the next five than you’d otherwise find.

And, too, we get to celebrate the onset of spring!

The search for active share

It’s much easier to lose in investing than to win.  Sometimes we lose because we’re offered poor choices and sometimes we lose because we make poor ones.  Frankly, it doesn’t take many poor choices to trash the best laid plans.

Winning requires doing a lot of things right.  One of those things is deciding whether – or to what extent – your portfolio should rely on actively and passively managed funds.  A lot of actively managed funds are dismal but so too are a lot of passive products: poorly constructed indexes, trendy themes, disciplines driven by marketing, and high fees plague the index and EFT crowd.

If you are going to opt for active management, you need to be sure that it’s active in more than name alone.  As we’ve shown before, many active managers – especially those trying to deploy billions in capital – offer no advantage over a broad market index, and a lot of disadvantages. 

One tool for measuring the degree to which your manager is active is called, appropriately enough, “active share.”  Active share measures the degree to which your fund’s holdings differ from its benchmark’s.  The logic is simple: you can’t beat an index by replicating it and if you can’t beat it, you should simply buy it.

The study “How Active Is Your Manager” (2009) by Cremers and Petajitso concluded that “Funds with high active share actually do outperform their benchmarks.” The researchers originally looked at an ocean of data covering the period from 1990 to 2003, then updated it through 2009.  They found that funds with active share of at least 90% outperformed their benchmarks by 1.13% (113 basis points per year) after fees. Funds with active share below 60% consistently underperformed by 1.42 percentage points a year, after accounting for fees.

Some researchers have suggested that the threshold for active share needs to be adjusted to account for differences in the fund’s investment universe: a fund that invests in large to mega-cap names should have an active share north of 70%, midcaps should be above 80% and small caps above 90%. 

So far, we’ve only seen research validating the 60% and 90% thresholds though the logic of the step system is appealing; of the 5008 publicly-traded US stocks, there are just a few hundred large caps but several thousand small and micro-caps.

There are three problems with the active share data.  We’d like to begin addressing one of them and warn you of the other two.

Problem One: It’s not available.  Morningstar has the data but does not release it, except in occasional essays. Fund companies may or may not have it, but almost none of them share it with investors. And journalists occasionally publish pieces that include an active share chart but those tend to be an idiosyncratic, one-time shot of a few funds. Nuts.

Problem Two: Active share is only as valid as the benchmark used. The calculation of active share is simply a comparison between a fund’s portfolio and the holdings in some index. Pick a bad index and you get a bad answer. By way of simple illustration, the S&P500 stock index has an active share of 100 (woo hoo!) if you benchmark it against the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.

Fund companies might have the same incentive and the same leverage with active share providers that the buyers of bond ratings did: bond issuers could approach three ratings agencies and say “tell me how you’ll rate my bond and I’ll tell you whether we’re paying for your rating.” A fund company looking for a higher active share might simply try several indexes until they find the one that makes them look good. Here’s the warning: make sure you know what benchmark was used and make sure it makes sense.

Problem Three: You can compare active share between two funds only if they’ve chosen to use the same benchmark. One large cap might have an active share of 70 against the Mergent Dividend Achievers Index while another has a 75 against the Russell 1000 Value Index. There’s no way, from that data, to know whether one fund is actually more active than the other. So, look for comparables.

To help you make better decisions, we’ve begun gathering publicly-available active share data released by fund companies.  Because we know that compact portfolios are also correlated to higher degrees of independence, we’ve included that information too for all of the funds we could identify.  A number of managers and advisors have provided active share data since our March 1^st launch.  Thanks!  Those newly added funds appear in italics.

*        Linde Hansen notes that their active share is 98 if you count stocks and cash, 87 if you look only at the stock portion of their portfolio.  To the extent that cash is a conscious choice (i.e., “no stock in our investable universe meets our purchase standards, so we’ll buy cash”), count both makes a world of sense.  I just need to find out how other investors have handled the matter.

Who’s not on the list? 

A lot of firms, some of whose absences are in the ironic-to-hypocritical range. Firms not choosing to disclose active share include:

BlackRock – which employs Anniti Petajisto, the guy who invented active share, as a researcher and portfolio manager in their Multi-Asset Strategies group. (They do make passing reference to an “active share buyback” on the part on one of their holdings, so I guess that’s partial credit, right?)

Fidelity – whose 5 Tips to Pick a Winning Fund tells you to look for “stronger performers [which are likely to] have a high ‘active share’”.  (They do reprint a Reuters article ridiculing a competitor with a measly 56% active share, but somehow skip the 48% for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth, 47% for Growth & Income, the 37% for MegaCap Stock or the under 50% for six of their Strategic Advisers funds). (per the Wall Street Journal, Is Your Fund a Closet Index Fund, January 14, 2014).

Oakmark – which preens about “Harris Associates and Active Share” without revealing any.

Are you active?  Would you like someone to notice?

We’ve been scanning fund company sites for the past month, looking for active share reports. If we’ve missed you, we’re sorry. Help us correct the oversight  by sending us the link to where you report your active share stats. We’d be more than happy to offer a permanent home for the web’s largest open collection of active share data.

Does Size Matter?

By Edward Studzinski

“Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

                    Nietzsche

One of the more interesting consequences of the performance of equities in 2013 is the ramp-up of the active investment management marketing machines to explain why their performance in many instances lagged that of inexpensive index funds. This has resulted in a manure storm media blitz with terms and phrases such as “stock picker’s market” or “active share” or “concentrated portfolios.” 

“Stock picker’s market” is generally a euphemism for active management. That is, why you should pay me 100 basis points for investing in a subset of the S&P 500, rather than pay Vanguard or some other index fund provider 5 basis points for their product. One of the rationales I used to regularly hear to justify active management fees was that the active manager will know when to get out of the market and when to get back in, whereas the small investor will always go in and out at the wrong time. The period of 2008-2009 puts paid to that argument when one looks at maximum drawdown numbers.  The question it raises however is whether the time horizon most investment managers and investors use is far too short. I think it clearly is and that rather than three years or three to five years, we should be thinking of ten years at a minimum.  Unfortunately, given personnel turnover in many investment organizations, it is difficult for the investing public to know or understand that the people who gave a fund its long-term performance, looking in the rear-view mirror, are not the ones doing the analysis or selecting the investments going forward. And if they are, often their time and attention is pulled in many other directions.  This is why I now, sitting on an endowment investment committee, appreciate why an integral part of the investment consultant’s report covers stability of personnel and succession planning at current firms invested in as well as firms proposed for consideration. Of course, if you are the average retail investor, you are far better off to focus on your risk tolerance, true time horizon, and asset allocation, again making use of low cost index products if you are not going to spend the time and effort to replicate the work of the consultants used by endowments and pension funds.

I am going to leave it to others to discuss “active share.”  I do think the question of “concentrated portfolios” is worth a few thoughts.  I once asked a friend of mine, at a large East Coast fund complex, how he managed to keep track of the two hundred or so stocks in his fund portfolio. His answer was illuminating.  He said that his firm had a very large research department and prided itself on its selection and training of analysts.  Politically then, over time he had to use an idea or two from everyone or every area. His preference would have been to have a much more concentrated portfolio.  I will refer to that then as the “ark” approach to investment management. Other firms, such as Longleaf, have tended from the get-go to have truly concentrated portfolios, say somewhere between twenty to twenty five stocks, given that the benefits of diversification run-out at a certain number of securities. Their rationale has been that rarely, when you are building a portfolio from the bottom up based on what are the most undervalued ideas, do ideas number thirty to forty have the same expected return potential as ideas number one to ten. (That is even more the case with the S&P 500 hitting new all time highs now).

There is another way to look at this which I think makes it more understandable for the average person.  In 2006, Huber Capital Managed LLC performed a study, looking at value-oriented investors, entitled “Limited Assets Under Management is a Competitive Advantage.”   The study assumed an equal weighted portfolio of 2.5% positions (forty stocks) to show how the investable universe of securities shrank at certain asset levels. It looked at the Russell 1000 Value Index and the Russell 2000 Value Index. The conclusion of the study was that as assets under management grew, portfolio managers faced increasingly unpleasant choices. One choice of course was to shrink the investment universe, what I have referred to in the past as the rule limiting investments to securities that can be bought or sold in five days average trading volume.

Another alternative was to increase the number of stocks held in the portfolio. You can see whether your manager has done this by going back five or ten years and looking at annual reports.  When the fund was $5B in asset size, did it own thirty stocks? Do you really believe that with the fund at $10B or $15B in asset size, that it has found another twenty or thirty undervalued stocks?  Look also to see if the number of research analysts has increased materially. Are roughly the same number of analysts covering more names? 

The third choice was to make the fund very concentrated or even non-diversified by SEC standards, with individual positions greater than five per cent. That can work, but it entails taking on career risk for the analysts and fund managers, and enterprise risk for the management company. A fund with $10B in assets under management has available only 50% of the investable set of stocks to invest in, assuming it is going to continue to focus on liquidity of the investment as an implicit criteria. That is why you see more and more pension funds, endowments, and family office managers shifting to low-cost index or ETF vehicles for their large cap investments. The incremental return is not justified by the incremental fee over the low-cost vehicle. And with a long-term time horizon, the compounding effect of that fee differential becomes truly important to returns.

My thanks to Huber Capital Manangement LLC for doing this study, and to Long Short Advisors for making me aware of it in one of their recent reports. Both firms are to be commended for their integrity and honesty. They are truly investment managers rather than asset gatherers. 

On the impact of fund categorization: Morningstar’s rejoinder

Morningstar’s esteemed John Rekenthaler replied to MFO’s February commentary on categorization, although officially “his views are his own.” His February 5 column is entitled How Morningstar Categorizes Funds.

Snowball’s gloss: John starts with a semantic quibble (Charles: “Morningstar says OSTFX is a mid-cap blend fund,” John: “Morningstar does not say what a fund is,” just what category it’s been assigned to), mischaracterizes Charles’s article as “a letter to MFO” (which I mention only because he started the quibble-business) and goes on to argue that the assignment of OSTFX to its category is about as reasonable a choice as could be made. Back to Charles:

Mr. R. uses BobC’s post to frame an explanation of what Morningstar does and does not do with respect to fund categorization. In his usual thoughtful and self-effacing manner, he defends the methodology, while admitting some difficulty in communicating. Fact is, he remains one of Morningstar’s best communicators and Rekenthaler Report is always a must read.

I actually agree with his position on Osterweis. Ditto for his position on not having an All Cap category (though I suspect I’m in the minority here and he actually admits he may be too). He did not address the (mis-)categorization of River Park Short Term High Yield Fund (RPHYX/RPHIX, closed). Perhaps because he is no longer in charge of categorization at Morningstar.

The debate on categorization is never-ending, of course, as evidenced by the responses to his report and the many threads on our own board. For the most part, the debate remains a healthy one. Important for investors to understand the context, the peer group, in which prospective funds are being rated.

In any case and as always, we very much appreciate Mr. Rekenthaler taking notice and sharing his views.

Snowball’s other gloss: geez, Charles is a lot nicer than I am. I respect John’s work but frankly I don’t really tingle at the thought that he “takes notice.” Well, except maybe for that time at the Morningstar conference when he swerved at the last minute to avoid crashing into me. I guess there was a tingle then.

Snowball’s snipe: at the sound of Morningstar’s disdain, MFWire did what MFWire does. They raised high the red-and-white banner, trumpeting John’s argument and concluding with a sharp “grow up, already!” I would have been much more impressed with them if they’d read Charles’s article beforehand. They certainly might have, but there’s no evidence in the article that they felt that need.

One of the joys of writing for the Observer is the huge range of backgrounds and perspectives that our readers bring to the discussion. A second job is the huge range of backgrounds and perspectives that my colleagues bring. Charles, in particular, can hear statistics sing. (He just spent a joyful week in conference studying discounted cash-flow models.) From time to time he tries, gently, to lift the veil of innumeracy from my eyes. The following essay flows from our extended e-mail exchanges in which I struggled to understand the vastly different judgments of particular funds implied by different ways of presenting their risk-adjusted statistics. 

We thought some of you might like to overhear that conversation.  

Morningstar’s Risk Adjusted Return Measure

Central to any fund rating system is the performance measure used to determine percentile rank order. MFO uses Martin ratio, as described Rating System Definitions. Morningstar developed its own risk adjusted return (MRAR), which Nobel Laureate William Sharpe once described as a measure that “…differs significantly from more traditional ones such as various forms of the Sharpe ratio.” While the professor referred to an earlier version of MRAR, the same holds true today.

Here is how Morningstar describes MRAR on its Data FAQ page: Morningstar adjusts for risk by calculating a risk penalty for each fund based on “expected utility theory,” a commonly used method of economic analysis. Although the math is complex, the basic concept is relatively straightforward. It assumes that investors are more concerned about a possible poor outcome than an unexpectedly good outcome and that those investors are willing to give up a small portion of an investment’s expected return in exchange for greater certainty. A “risk penalty” is subtracted from each fund’s total return, based on the variation in its month-to-month return during the rating period, with an emphasis on downward variation. The greater the variation, the larger the penalty. If two funds have the exact same return, the one with more variation in its return is given the larger risk penalty.

For the curious and mathematically inclined, the detailed equations are well documented in The Morningstar Rating Methodology. The following figure illustrates how MRAR behaves for three hypothetical funds over a 3 year period ending Dec 2013:

Each fund in the illustration delivers the same total return, but with varying levels of volatility. The higher the volatility, the lower the risk adjusted return. Fund 0 delivers consistent returns every month with zero volatility; consequently, it receives the highest MRAR, which in this case is the fund’s annualized total return minus the risk-free T-Bill (i.e., it’s the annualized “excess” return).

Morningstar computes MRAR for all funds over equivalent periods, and then percentile ranks them within their respective categories to assign appropriate levels, 1 star for those funds in the lowest group and the coveted 5 star rating for the highest.

It also computes a risk measure MRisk and performs a similar ranking to designate “low” to “high” risk funds within each category. MRisk is simply the difference between the annualized excess return of the fund and its MRAR.

The following figure provides further insight into how MRAR behaves for funds of varying volatility. This time, fund total returns have been scaled to match their category averages, again for the 3 year period ending Dec 2013. The figure includes results from several categories showing MRAR versus the tradition volatility measure, annualized standard deviation.

Once again we see that funds with higher volatility generally receive lower MRARs and that the highest possible MRAR is equal to a fund’s annualized excess return, which occurs at zero standard deviation.

A consequence of Morningstar’s methodology is that low volatility funds with below average returns can quite possibly be out-ranked by average volatility funds with average returns. Put another way, the methodology generally penalizes funds with high volatility more so than it rewards funds with low volatility, since with the latter the benefit is “capped.”

This behavior is different from other risk adjusted return measures based on say Sharpe ratio, as can be seen in the figure below. Here the same funds from above are plotted against Sharpe, but now funds with low volatility are rewarded handsomely, even if they have below average total returns.

Revisiting the Morningstar risk measure MRisk, one finds another observation: it appears to correlate rather satisfactorily against a simple function based on standard deviation (up to about 30% for funds of positive total return without load):

Which means that Morningstar’s risk adjusted return can be estimated from the following:

This simple approximation may come in handy, like when David wonders: “Why do RPHIX and ICMYX, which have superior 3 year Sharpe ratios, rate a very inferior 1 star by Morningstar?” He can use the above calculation to better understand, as illustrated here:

While both do indeed have great 3 year Sharpe ratios – RPHIX is highest of any US fund – they both have below average total returns relative to their current peer group, as represented by say VWEHX, a moderate risk and average returning high yield bond “reference” fund.

Their low volatilities simply get no love from Morningstar’s risk adjusted return measure.

27Feb2014/Charles

Celebrating one-starness

I was having a nice back-channel conversation with a substantially frustrated fund manager this week. He read Charles’s piece on fund categorization and wrote to express his own dismay with the process. He’s running a small fund. It hit its three-year mark and earned five stars. People noticed. Then Morningstar decided to recategorize the fund (into something he thinks he isn’t). And it promptly became one star. And, again, people – potential investors – noticed, but not in a good way.

Five to one, with the stroke of a pen? It happens, but tends not to get trumpeted. After all, it rather implies negligence on Morningstar’s part if they’ve been labeling something as, say, a really good conservative allocation fund for years but then, on further reflection, conclude that it’s actually a sucky high-yield bond or preferred stock fund.

Here’s what Morningstar’s explanation for such a change looks like in practice:

Morningstar Alert

Osterweis Strategic Income Fund OSTIX

12-03-13 01:00 PM

Change in Morningstar Fund Star Rating: The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 4 stars to 2 stars. For details, go to http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Fund/RatingsAndRisk.asp?Symbol=OSTIX.

Sadly, when you go to that page there are no details that would explain an overnight drop of that magnitude. On the “performance” page, you will find the clue:

I don’t have an opinion on the appropriateness of the category assignment but it would be an awfully nice touch, given the real financial consequences of such a redesignation, if Morningstar would take three sentences to explain their rationale at the point that they make the change.

Which got me to thinking about my own favorite one-star fund (RiverPark Short Term High Yield RPHYX and RPHIX, which is closed) and Charles’s favorite one-shot stat on a fund’s risk-adjusted returns (its Sharpe ratio).

And so, here’s the question: how many funds have a higher (i.e., better) Sharpe ratio than does RPHYX?

And, as a follow-up, how many have a Sharpe ratio even half as high as RiverPark’s?

That would be “zero” and “seven,” respectively, out of 6500 funds.

Taking up Rekenthaler’s offer

In concluding his response to Charles’s essay, John writes:

A sufficient critique is one that comes from a fund that truly does not behave like others in its category, that contains a proposal for a modification to the existing category system, that does not lead to rampant category proliferation, and that results in a significantly closer performance comparison between the fund and its new category. In such cases, Morningstar will consider the request carefully–and sometimes make the suggested change.

Ummm … short-term high-yield? In general, those are funds that are much more conservative than the high-yield group. The manager at RiverPark Short-Term High Yield (RPHYX) positions the fund as a “cash management” account. The managers at Intrepid Income (ICMYX) claim to be “absolute return” investors. Wells Fargo Advantage Short-Term High-Yield Bond (STHBX) seems similarly positioned. All are one-star funds (as of February 2014) when judged against the high-yield universe.

“Does not behave like others in its category” but “results in a significantly closer performance comparison [within] its new category.” The orange line is the high-yield category. That little cluster of parallel, often overlapping lines below it are the three funds.

“Does not lead to rampant category proliferation.” You mean, like creating a “preferred stock” category with seven funds? That sort of proliferation? If so, we’re okay – there are about twice as many short-term high-yield candidates as preferred stock ones.

I’m not sure this is a great idea. I am pretty sure that dumping a bunch of useful, creative funds into this particular box is a pretty bad one.

Next month’s unsought advice will highlight emerging markets balanced (or multi-asset) funds. We’re up to a dozen of them now and the same logic that pulled US balanced funds out of the equity category and global balanced funds out of the international equity category, seems to be operating here.

Two things you really should read

In general, most writing about funds has the same problem as most funds do: it’s shallow, unoriginal, unreflective. It contributes little except to fill space and get somebody paid (both honorable goals, by the way). Occasionally, though, there are pieces that are really worth some of our time, thought and reflection. Here are two.

I’m not a great fan of ETFs. They’ve always struck me as trading vehicles, tools for allowing hedge funds and others to “make bets” rather than to invest. Chuck Jaffe had a really solid piece entitled “The growing case against ETFs” (Feb. 23, 2014) that makes the argument that ETFs are bad for you. Why? Because the great advantage of ETFs are that you can trade them all day long. And, as it turns out, if you give someone a portfolio filled with ETFs that’s precisely – and disastrously – what they do.

The Observer was founded on the premise that small, independent, active funds are the only viable alternative to a low-cost indexed portfolio. As funds swell, two bad things happen: their investable universe shrinks and the cost of making a mistake skyrockets, both of which lead to bad investment choices. There’s a vibrant line of academic research on the issue. John Rekenthaler began dissecting some of that research – in particular, a recent study endorsing younger managers and funds – in a four-part series of The Rekenthaler Report. At this writing, John had posted two essays: “Are Young Managers All That?” (Feb. 27, 2014) and “Has Your Fund Become Too Large, Or Is Industry Size the Problem?” (Feb. 28, 2014).  The first essay walks carefully through the reasons why older, larger funds – even those with very talented managers – regress. To my mind, he’s making a very strong case for finding capacity-constrained strategies and managers who will close their funds tight and early. The second picks up an old argument made by Charles Ellis in his 1974 “The Loser’s Game” essay; that the growth and professionalization of the investment industry is so great that no one – certainly not someone dragging a load – can noticeably outrun the crowd. The problem is less, John argues, the bloat of a single fund as the effect of “$3 trillion in smart money chasing the same ideas.”  

Regardless of whether you disdain or adore ETFs, or find the industry’s difficulties located at the level of undisciplined funds or an unwieldy industry, you’ll come away from these essays with much to think about.

RiverPark Strategic Income: Another set of ears

I’m always amazed by the number of bright and engaging folks who’ve been drawn to the Observer, and humbled by their willingness to freely share some of their time, insights and experience with the rest of us. One of those folks is an investor and advisor named “Mark” who is responsible for extended family money, a “multi-family office” if you will. He had an opportunity to spend some time chatting with David Sherman in mid-January as he contemplated a rather sizeable investment in RiverPark Strategic Income (RSIVX) for some family members who would benefit from such a strategy. Herewith are some of the reflections he shared over the course of a series of emails with me.

Where he’s coming from

Mark wrote that to him it’s important to understand the “context” of RSIVX. Mr. Sherman manages private strategies and hedge fund monies at Cohanzick Management, LLC. He cut his teeth at Leucadia National (whose principal Ian Cumming is sometimes referred to as Canada’s Warren Buffett) and is running some sophisticated and high entry strategies that have big risks and big rewards. His shop is not as large as some, sure, but Mr. Sherman seems to prefer it that way.

Some of what Mr. Sherman does all day “informs” RSIVX. He comes across an instrument or an idea that doesn’t fit in one strategy but may in another. It has the risk/reward characteristics that he wants for a particular strategy and so he and his team perform their due diligence on it. More on that later.

Where he is

RSIVX only exists, according to Mr. Sherman, because it fills a need. The need is for an annuity like stream of income at a rate that “his mother could live off” and he did not see such a thing in the marketplace. (In 2007 you could park money at American Express Bank in a jumbo CD at 5.5%. No such luck today.) He saw many other total return products out there in the high yield space where an investor can get a bit higher returns than what he envisions. But some of those returns will be from capital appreciation, i.e., returns from in essence trading. Mr. Sherman did not want to rely on that. He wants a lower duration portfolio (3-4 years) that he can possibly but not necessarily hold to get nice, safe, relatively high coupons from. As long as his investor has that timeframe, Mr. Sherman believes he can compound the money at 6-8% annually, and the investor gets his money back plus his return.

Shorter timeframes, because of impatience or poor timing choices, carry no such assurances. It’s not a CD, it’s not a guaranteed annuity from an insurer, but it’s what is available and what he is able to get for an investor.

How? Well, one inefficiency he hopes to exploit is in the composition of SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond (JNK) and iShares High Yield Corporate Bond (HYG). He doesn’t believe they reflect the composition of high yield space accurately with their necessary emphasis on the most liquid names. He will play in a different sandbox with different toys. And he believes it’s no more risky and thinks it is less so. In addition, when the high yield market moves, especially down, those names move fast.

Mark wrote that he asked David whether the smoothness of his returns exhibited in RPHYX and presumably in RSIVX in the future was due or would be due to a laddering strategy that he employed. He said that it was not – RSIVX’s portfolio was more of a barbell presently- and he did not want to be pigeonholed into a certain formula or strategy. He would do whatever it took to produce the necessary safe returns and that may change from time to time depending upon the market.

What changing interest rates might mean

What if rates fall? If rates fall then, sure, the portfolio will have some capital appreciation. What if rates rise? Well, every day and every month, David said, the investor will grind toward the payday on the shorter duration instruments he is holding. Mark-to-market they will be “worth” less. The market will be demanding higher interest rates and what hasn’t rolled off yet will not be as competitive as the day he bought them. The investor will still be getting a relatively high 6-8% return and as opportunities present themselves and with cash from matured securities and new monies the portfolio will be repopulated over time in the new interest rate environment. Best he can do. He does not intend to play the game of hedging. 

Where he might be going

Mark said he also asked about a higher-risk follow-on to RSIVX. He said that David told him that if he doesn’t have something unique to bring that meets a need, he doesn’t want to do it. He believes RPHYX and RSIVX to be unique. He “knew” he could pull off RPHYX, that he could demonstrate its value, and then have the credibility to introduce another idea. That idea is the Strategic Income Fund.

He doesn’t see a need for him to step out on the spectrum right now. There are a hundred competitors out there and a lot of overlap. People can go get a total return fund with more risk of loss. Returns from them will vary a lot from year to year unless conditions are remarkably stable. This [strategy] almost requires a smaller, more nimble fund and manager. Here he is. Here it is. So the next step out isn’t something he is thinking [immediately] about, but he continually brings ideas to Morty.

Mark concludes: “We discussed a few of his strategies that had more risk. They are fascinating but definitely not vanilla or oatmeal and a few I had to write out by hand the mechanics afterward so I could “see” what he was doing. One of them took me about an hour to work through where the return came from and where it could go possibly wrong.

But he described it to me because working on it gave him the inspiration for a totally different situation that, if it came to pass, would be appropriate for RSIVX. It did, is much more vanilla and is in the portfolio. Very interesting and shows how he thinks. Would love to have a beer with this guy.”

Mark’s bottom line(s)

Mark wanted me to be sure to disclose that he and his family have a rather large position in RiverPark Strategic Income now, and will be holding it for an extended period assuming all goes well (years) so, yeah, he may be biased with his remarks. He says “the strategy is not to everyone’s taste or risk tolerance”. He holds it because it exactly fills a need that his family has.

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.

Driehaus Emerging Markets Small Cap Growth (DRESX): There’s a lot to be said for EM small caps. They provide powerful diversification and performance benefits for a portfolio. The knock of them is that they’re too hot to handle. Driehaus’s carefully constructed, hedged portfolio seems to have cooled the handle by a lot.

Guinness Atkinson Inflation Managed Dividend (GAINX): It’s easy to agree that owning the world’s best companies, especially if you buy them on the cheap, is a really good strategy. GAINX approaches the challenge of constructing a very compact, high quality, low cost portfolio with quantitative discipline and considerable thought.

Intrepid Income (ICMUX): What’s not to like about this conservative little short-term, high-yield fund. It’s got it all: solid returns, excellent risk management and that coveted one-star rating! Intrepid, like almost all absolute value investors, is offering an object lesson on the important of fortitude in the face of frothy markets and serial market records.

RiverPark Gargoyle Hedged Value (RGHVX): The short story is this. Gargoyle’s combination of a compact, high quality portfolio and options-based hedging strategy has, over time, beaten just about every reasonable comparison group. Unless you anticipate a series of 20 or 30% gains in the stock market over the rest of the decade, it might be time to think about protecting some of what you’ve already made.

Elevator Talk: Ted Gardner, Salient MLP & Energy Infrastructure II (SMLPX)

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.

Master limited partnerships (MLPs) are an intriguing asset class which was, until very recently, virtually absent from both open-end fund and ETF portfolios.

MLPs are a form of business organization, in the same way corporations are a form of organization. Their shares trade on US exchanges (NYSE and NASDAQ) and they meet the same SEC security registration requirements as corporations do. They were created in the 1980s primarily as a tool to encourage increased energy production in the country and the vast majority of MLPs (75% or so) are in the energy sector.

MLPs are distinct from corporations in a number of ways:

• They’re organized around two groups: the limited partners (i.e., investors) and the general partners (i.e., managers). The limited partners provide capital and receive quarterly distributions.
• MLPs are required, by contract, to pay minimum quarterly distributions to their limited partners. That means that they produce very consistent streams of income for the limited partners.
• MLPs are required, by law, to generate at least 90% of their income from “qualified sources.” Mostly that means energy production and distribution.

The coolest thing about MLPs is the way they generate their income: they operate hugely profitable, economically-insensitive monopolies whose profits are guaranteed by law. A typical midstream MLP might own a gas or oil pipeline. The MLP receives a fee for every gallon of oil or cubic foot of gas moving through the pipe. That rate is set by a federal agency and that rate rises every year by the rate of inflation plus 1.3%. It doesn’t matter whether the price of oil soars or craters; the MLP gets its toll regardless. And it doesn’t really matter whether the economy soars or craters: people still need warm homes and gas to get to work. At worst, bad recessions eliminate a year’s demand rise but haven’t yet caused a net demand decrease. As the population grows and energy consumption rises, the amount moving through the pipelines rise and so does the MLPs income.

Those profits are protected by enormously high entry barriers: building new pipelines cost billions, require endless hearings and permits, and takes years. As a result, the existing pipelines function as de facto a regional monopoly, which means that the amount of material traveling through the pipeline won’t be driven down by competition for other pipelines.

Quick highlights of the benchmark Alerian MLP index:

• From inception through early 2013, the index returned 16% annually, on average.
• For that same period, it had a 7.1% yield which grew 7% annually.
• There is a low correlation – 50 – between the stock market and the index. REITs say at around 70 and utility stocks at 25, but with dramatically lower yield and returns.

Only seven of the 17 funds with “MLP” in their names have been around long enough to quality for a Morningstar rating; all seven are four- or five-star funds, measured against an “energy equity” peer group. Here’s a quick snapshot of Salient (the blue line) against the two five-star funds (Advisory Research MLP & Energy Income INFIX and MLP & Energy Infrastructure MLPPX) and the first open-end fund to target MLPs (Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP Alpha MLPAX):

The quick conclusion is that Salient was one of the best MLP funds until autumn 2013, at which point it became the best one. I did not include the Alerian MLP index or any of the ETFs which track it because they lag so far behind the actively-managed funds. Over the past year, for example, Salient has outperformed the Alerian MLP Index – delivering 20% versus 15.5%.

High returns and substantial diversification. Sounds perfect. It isn’t, of course. Nothing is. MLP took a tremendous pounding in the 2007-09 meltdown when credit markets froze and dropped again in August 2013 during a short-lived panic over changes in MLP’s favorable tax treatment. And it’s certainly possible for individual MLPs to get bid up to fundamentally unattractive valuations.

Ted Gardner is the co‐portfolio manager for Salient’s MLP Complex, one manifestation of which is SMLPX. He oversees and coordinates all investment modeling, due diligence, company visits, and management conferences. Before joining Salient he was both Director of Research and a portfolio manager for RDG Capital and a research analyst with Raymond James. Here are his 200 words on why you should consider getting into the erl bidness:

Our portfolio management team has many years of experience with MLP investing, as managers and analysts, in private funds, CEFs and separate accounts. We considered both the state of the investment marketplace and our own experiences and thought it might translate well into an open-end product.

As far as what we saw in the marketplace, most of the funds out there exist inside a corporate wrapper. Unfortunately C-Corp funds are subject to double taxation and that can create a real draw on returns. We felt like going the traditional mutual fund, registered investment company route made a lot of sense.

We are very research-intensive, our four analysts and I all have a sell side background. We take cash flow modeling very seriously. It’s a fundamental modeling approach, modeling down to the segment levels to understand cash flows. And, historically, our analysts have done a pretty good job at it.

We think we do things a bit differently than many investors. What we like to see is visible growth, which means we’re less yield-oriented than others might be. We typically like partnerships that have a strategic asset footprint with a lot of organic growth opportunities or those with a dropdown story, where a parent company drops more assets into a partnership over time. We tend to avoid firms dependent on third-party acquisitions for growth. And we’ve liked investing in General Partners which have historically grown their dividends at approximately twice the rate of the underlying MLPs.

The fund has both institutional and retail share classes. The retail classes (SMAPX, SMPFX) nominally carry sales loads, but they’re available no-load/NTF at Schwab. The minimum for the load-waived “A” shares is $2,500. Expenses are 1.60% on about $630 million in assets. Here’s the fund’s homepage, but I’d recommend that you click through to the Literature tab to grab some of the printed documentation.

River Park/Gargoyle Hedged Value Conference Call Highlights

On February 12th we spoke for an hour with Alan Salzbank and Josh Parker, both of the Gargoyle Group, and Morty Schaja, CEO of RiverPark Funds. Here’s a brief recap of the highlights:

Alan handles the long portfolio. Josh, a securities lawyer by training, handles the options portfolio. He’s also an internationally competitive bridge player (Gates, Buffett, Parker…) and there’s some reason to believe that the habits of mind that make for successful bridge play also makes for successful options trading. They have 35 and 25 years of experience, respectively, and all of the investment folks who support them at Gargoyle have at least 20 years of experience in the industry. Morty has been investigating buy-write strategies since the mid-1980s and he described the Gargoyle guys as “the team I’ve been looking for for 25 years.”

The fund combines an unleveraged long portfolio and a 50% short portfolio, for a steady market exposure of 50%. The portfolio rebalances between those strategies monthly, but monitors and trades its options portfolio “in real time” throughout the month.

The long portfolio is 80-120 stocks, and stock selection is algorithmic. They screen the 1000 largest US stocks on four valuation criteria (P/B, P/E, P/CF, P/S) and then assign a “J score” to each stock based on how its current valuation compares with (1) its historic valuation and (2) its industry peers’ valuation. They then buy the 100 more undervalued stocks, but maintain sector weightings that are close to the S&P 500’s.

The options portfolio is a collection of index call options. At base, they’re selling insurance policies to nervous investors. Those policies pay an average premium of 2% per month and rise in value as the market falls. That 2% is a long-term average, during the market panic in the fall of 2008, their options were generating 8% per month in premiums.

Why index calls? Two reasons: (1) they are systematically mispriced, and so they always generate more profit than they theoretically should. In particular, they are overpriced by about 35 basis points/month 88% of the time. For sellers, that means something like a 35 bps free lunch. And (2) selling calls on their individual stocks – that is, betting that the stocks in their long portfolio will fall – would reduce returns. They believe that their long portfolio is a collection of stocks superior to any index and so they don’t want to hedge away any of their upside.

And it works. Their long portfolio has outperformed the S&P 500 by an average of 5% per year for 15 years. The entire strategy has outperformed the S&P in the long-term and has matched its returns, with less volatility, in the shorter term. Throughout, it has sort of clubbed its actively-managed long-short peers. It also anticipates clubbing the emerging bevy of buy-write ETFs.

The guys identify two structural advantages they have over an ETF: (1) they buy stocks superior to those in broad indexes and (2) they manage their options portfolio moment by moment, while the ETF just sits and takes hits for 29 out of 30 days each month.

There’s evidence that they’re right. The ETFs are largely based on the CBOE S&P Buy-Write Index (BXM). Between 2000-12, the S&P 500 returned 24% and the BXM returned 52%; the options portion of the Gargoyle portfolio returned 110% while the long portfolio crushed the S&P.

Except not so much in 2008. The fund’s maximum drawdown was 48%, between 10/07 and 03/08. The guys attributed that loss to the nature of the fund’s long portfolio: it buys stocks in badly dented companies when the price of the stock is even lower than the company’s dents would warrant. Unfortunately in the meltdown, those were the stocks people least wanted to own so they got killed. The fund’s discipline kept them from wavering: they stayed 100% invested and rebalanced monthly to buy more of the stocks that were cratering. The payback comes in 2009 when they posted a 42% return against the S&P’s 26% and again in 2010 when they made 18% to the index’s 15%.

The managers believe that ’08 was exceptional, and note that the strategy actually made money from 2000-02 when the market suffered from the bursting of the dot-com bubble.

In general, the strategy fares poorest when the market has wild swings. It fares best in gently rising markets, since both the long and options portfolios can make money if the market rises but less than the strike price of the options – they can earn 2% a month on an option that’s triggered if the market rises by more than 1%. If the market rises but by less than 1%, they pay out nothing, pocket the 2% and pocket the capital appreciation from their long portfolio.

What’s the role of the fund in a portfolio? They view it as a substitute for a large-cap value investment; so if your asset allocation plan is 20% LCV, then you could profitably invest up to 20% of your portfolio in Gargoyle. For the guys, it’s 100% of their US equity exposure.

Morty Speaks!  The rationale for hedging a long-term portfolio.

The Gargoyle call sparked – here’s a surprise – considerable commentary on our discussion board. Some were impressed with Josh and Alan’s fortitude in maintaining their market exposure during the 2007-09 meltdown but others had a more quizzical response. “Expatsp” captured it this way: “Though this seems the best of the long/short bunch, I just don’t see the appeal of long/short funds for anyone who has a long-term horizon.”

No. Not Morty.

There’s a great scene in Big Bang Theory where the brilliant but socially-inept Sheldon clears up a misunderstanding surrounding a comment he made about his roommate: “Ah, I understand the confusion. Uh, I have never said that you are not good at what you do. It’s just that what you do is not worth doing.” Same theme.

Morty Schaja, RiverPark’s president, is in an interesting position to comment on the question. His firm not only advises a pure long/short fund (RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity RLSFX) and a long hedged with options fund (RiverPark Gargoyle), but it also runs a very successful long-only fund (RiverPark Large Cap Growth RPXFX, which he describes as “our five-star secret weapon”).

With the obvious disclaimer that Morty has a stake in the success of all of the RiverPark funds (and the less-obvious note that he has invested deeply in each), we asked him the obvious question: Is it worth doing?

Since RiverPark is one of the very few investment advisors to offer the whole range of hedged funds, I asked Morty to share a quick snapshot of each to illustrate how the different strategies are likely to play out in various sets of market conditions.

Let’s start with the RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity Fund.

How does this compare with the RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund?

And finally, tell us about the new Structural Alpha Fund.

Is the Structural Alpha Fund an absolute return strategy?

Conference Call Upcoming

We haven’t scheduled a call for March. We only schedule calls when we can offer you the opportunity to speak with someone really interesting and articulate.  No one has reached that threshold this month, but we’ll keep looking on your behalf.

Conference call junkies might want to listen in on the next RiverNorth call, which focuses on the RiverNorth Managed Volatility Fund (RNBWX). Managed Volatility started life as RiverNorth Dynamic Buy-Write Fund. Long/short funds comes in three very distinct flavors, but are all lumped in the same performance category. For now, that works to the detriment of funds like Managed Volatility that rely on an options-based hedging strategy. The fund trails the long/short peer group since inception but has performed slightly better than the $8 billion Gateway Fund (GATEX). If you’re interested in the potential of an options-hedged portfolio, you’ll find the sign-up link on RiverNorth’s Events page.  The webcast takes place March 13, 2014 at 3:15 Central.

Launch Alert: Conestoga SMid Cap (CCSMX)

On February 28, 2014, Conestoga Mid Cap (CCMGX) ceased to be. Its liquidation was occasioned by negative assessments of its “asset size, strategic importance, current expenses and historical performance.” It trailed its peers in all seven calendar quarters since inception, in both rising and falling periods. With under $2 million in assets, its disappearance is not surprising.

Two things are surprising, however. First, its poor relative performance is surprising given the success of its sibling, Conestoga Small Cap (CCASX). CCASX is a four-star fund that received a “Silver” designation from Morningstar’s analysts. Morningstar lauds the stable management team, top-tier long-term returns, low volatility (its less volatile than 90% of its peers) and disciplined focus on high quality firms. And, in general, small cap teams have had little problem in applying their discipline successfully to slightly-larger firms.

Second, Conestoga’s decision to launch (on January 21, 2014) a new fund – SMid Cap – in virtually the same space is surprising, given their ability simply to tweak the existing fund. It smacks of an attempt to bury a bad record.

My conclusion after speaking with Mark Clewett, one of the Managing Directors at Conestoga: yeah, pretty much. But honorably.

Mark made two arguments.

1. Conestoga fundamentally mis-fit its comparison group. Conestoga targeted stocks in the $2 – 10 billion market cap range. Both its Morningstar peers and its Russell Midcap Growth benchmark have substantial investments in stocks up to $20 billion. The substantial exposure to those large cap names in a mid-cap wrapper drove its peer’s performance.

   The evidence is consistent with that explanation. It’s clear from the portfolio data that Conestoga was a much purer mid-cap play that either its benchmark or its peer group.

   Portfolio	Conestoga Mid Cap	Russell Mid-cap Growth	Mid-cap Growth Peers
   % large to mega cap	0	35	23
   % mid cap	86	63	63
   % small to micro cap	14	2	14
   Average market cap	5.1M	10.4M	8.4M

    By 2013, over 48% of the Russell index was stocks with market caps above $10 billion.

   Mark was able to pull the attribution data for Conestoga’s mid-cap composite, which this fund reflects. The performance picture is mixed: the composite outperformed its benchmark in 2010 and 2011, then trailed in 2013 and 2013. The fund’s holdings in the $2-5 billion and $5–10 billion bands sometimes outperformed their peers and sometimes trailed badly.

2. Tweaking the old fund would not be in the shareholders’ best interest.  The changes would be expensive and time-consuming. They would, at the same time, leave the new fund with the old fund’s record; that would inevitably cause some hesitance on the part of prospective investors, which meant it would be longer before the fund reached an economically viable size.

The hope is that with a new and more appropriate benchmark, a stable management team, sensible discipline and clean slate, the fund will achieve some of the success that Small Cap’s enjoyed.  I’m hopeful but, for now, we’ll maintain a watchful, sympathetic silence.

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 April or early May 2014 and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

This month David Welsch battled through wicked viruses and wicked snowstorms to track down eight funds in registration, one of the lowest totals since we launched three years ago.

The clear standout in the group is Dodge & Cox Global Bond, which the Dodge & Cox folks ran as “a private fund” since the end of December 2012.  It did really well in its one full year of operation – it gained 2.6% while its benchmark lost the same amount – and it comes with D&C’s signature low minimum, low expenses, low drama, team management.

Three other income funds are at least mildly interesting: Lazard Emerging Markets Income, Payden Strategic Income and Whitebox Unconstrained Income.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 50 sets of fund manager changes. The most intriguing of those include fallout from the pissing match at Pimco as Marc Seidner, an El-Erian ally, leaves to become GMO’s head of fixed-income operations.

Updates: The Observer here and there

I had a long conversation with a WSJ reporter which led to a short quotation in “Infrastructure funds are intriguing, but ….” The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 4 2014.  My bottom line was “infrastructure funds appear to be an incoherent mish-mash, with no two funds even agreeing on what sectors are worth including much less what stocks.  I don’t see any evidence of them adding value to a portfolio,” an observation prompted in part by T. Rowe Price’s decision to close their own Global Infrastructure fund. The writer, Lisa Ward, delicately quotes me as saying “you probably already own these same stocks in your other funds.” 

I was quoted as endorsing Artisan Global Small Cap (ARTWX) in Six promising new funds (though the subtitle might have been: “five of which I wouldn’t go near”), Kiplinger’s, Feb. 12 2014.  ARTWX draws on one of the most storied international management teams around, led by Mark Yockey.  The other funds profiled include three mutual funds and two ETFs.  The funds are Miller Income Opportunity (I’ve written elsewhere that “The whole enterprise leaves me feeling a little queasy since it looks either like Miller’s late-career attempt to prove that he’s not a dinosaur or Legg’s post-divorce sop to him”), Fidelity Event-Driven (FARNX: no record that Fido can actually execute with new funds anymore, much less with niche funds and untested managers), and Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility (VMVFX: meh – they work backward from a target risk level to see what returns they can generate).  The ETFs are two of the “smart beta” sorts of products, iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor (QUAL) and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market (FNDB). 

Finally, there was a very short piece entitled “Actively managed funds with low volatility,” in Bottom Line, Feb. 15 2014.  The publication is not online, at least not in an accessible form.  The editors were looking for funds with fairly well-established track records that have a tradition of low volatility.  I offered up Cook & Bynum Fund (COBYX, I’ve linked to our 2013 profile of them), FPA Crescent (FPACX, in which I’m invested) and Osterweis Fund (OSTWX).

Updates: Forbes discovers Beck, Mack & Oliver Partners (BMPEX)

Forbes rank a nice article on BMPEX, “Swinging at Strikes,” in their February 10, 2014 issue. Despite the lunacy of describing a $175 million fund as “puny” and “tiny,” the author turns up some fun facts to know and tell (the manager, Zac Wydra, was a premed student until he discovered that the sight of blood made him queasy) and gets the fund’s basic discipline right. Zac offers some fairly lively commentary in his Q4 shareholder letter, including a nice swipe at British haughtiness and a reflection on the fact that the S&P 500 is at an all-time high at the same time that the number of S&P 500 firms issuing negative guidance is near an all-time high.

Briefly Noted . . .

BlackRock has added the BlackRock Emerging Markets Long/Short Equity Fund (BLSAX) and the BlackRock Global Long/Short Equity Fund (BDMAX) as part of the constituent fund lineup in its Aggressive Growth, Conservative , Growth and Moderate Prepared Portfolios, and its Lifepath Active-Date series. Global has actually made some money for its investors, which EM has pretty much flatlined while the emerging markets have risen over its lifetime.  No word on a target allocation for either.

Effective May 1, Chou Income (CHOIX) will add preferred stocks to the list of their principal investments: “fixed-income securities, financial instruments that provide exposure to fixed-income securities, and preferred stocks.” Morningstar categorizes CHOIX as a World Bond fund despite the fact that bonds are less than 20% of its current portfolio and non-U.S. bonds are less than 3% of it.

Rydex executed reverse share splits on 13 of its funds in February. Investors received one new share for between three and seven old shares, depending on the fund.

Direxion will follow the same path on March 14, 2014 with five of their funds. They’re executing reverse splits on three bear funds and splits on two bulls.  They are: 

 SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Auxier Focus (AUXIX) is reducing the minimum initial investment for their Institutional shares from $250,000 to $100,000. Investor and “A” shares remain at $5,000. The institutional shares cost 25 basis points less than the others.

TFS Market Neutral Fund (TFSMX) reopened to new investors on March 1, 2014.

At the end of January, Whitebox eliminated its Advisor share class and dropped the sales load on Whitebox Tactical. Their explanation: “The elimination of the Advisor share class was basically to streamline share classes … eliminating the front load was in the best interest of our clients.” The first makes sense; the second is a bit disingenuous. I’m doubtful that Whitebox imposed a sales load because it was “in the best interest of our clients” and I likewise doubt that’s the reason for its elimination.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Artisan Global Value (ARTGX) closed on Valentine’s Day.

Grandeur Peak will soft close the Emerging Markets Opportunities (GPEOX) and hard close the Global Opportunities (GPGOX) and International Opportunities (GPIOX) strategies on March 5, 2014.

 Effective March 5, 2014, Invesco Select Companies Fund (ATIAX) will close to all investors.

Vanguard Admiral Treasury Money Market Fund (VUSSX) is really, really closed.  It will “no longer accept additional investments from any financial advisor, intermediary, or institutional accounts, including those of defined contribution plans. Furthermore, the Fund is no longer available as an investment option for defined contribution plans. The Fund is closed to new accounts and will remain closed until further notice.”  So there.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective as of March 21, 2014, Brown Advisory Emerging Markets Fund (BIAQX) is being changed to the Brown Advisory – Somerset Emerging Markets Fund. The investment objective and the investment strategies of the Fund are not being changed in connection with the name change for the Fund and the current portfolio managers will continue. At the same time, Brown Advisory Strategic European Equity Fund (BIAHX) becomes Brown Advisory -WMC Strategic European Equity Fund.

Burnham Financial Industries Fund has been renamed Burnham Financial Long/Short Fund (BURFX).  It’s a tiny fund (with a sales load and high expenses) that’s been around for a decade.  It’s hard to know what to make of it since “long/short financial” is a pretty small niche with few other players.

Caritas All-Cap Growth Fund has become Goodwood SMID Cap Discovery Fund (GAMAX), a name that my 13-year-old keeps snickering at.  It’s been a pretty mediocre fund which gained new managers in October.

Compass EMP Commodity Long/Short Strategies Fund (CCNAX) is slated to become Compass EMP Commodity Strategies Enhanced Volatility Weighted Fund in May. Its objective will change to “match the performance of the CEMP Commodity Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index.”  It’s not easily searchable by name at Morningstar because they’ve changed the name in their index but not on the fund’s profile.

Eaton Vance Institutional Emerging Markets Local Debt Fund (EELDX) has been renamed Eaton Vance Institutional Emerging Markets Debt Fund and is now a bit less local.

Frost Diversified Strategies and Strategic Balanced are hitting the “reset” button in a major way. On March 31, 2014, they change name, objective and strategy. Frost Diversified Strategies (FDSFX) becomes Frost Conservative Allocation while Strategic Balanced (FASTX) becomes Moderate Allocation. Both become funds-of-funds and discover a newfound delight in “total return consistent with their allocation strategy.” Diversified currently is a sort of long/short, ETFs, funds and stocks, options mess … $4 million in assets, high expense, high turnover, indifferent returns, limited protection. Strategic Balanced, with a relatively high downside capture, is a bit bigger and a bit calmer but ….

Effective on or about May 30, 2014, Hartford Balanced Allocation Fund (HBAAX) will be changed to Hartford Moderate Allocation Fund.

At the same time, Hartford Global Research Fund (HLEAX) becomes Hartford Global Equity Income Fund, with a so far unexplained “change to the Fund’s investment goal.” 

Effective March 31, 2014, MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (MHOAX) will change its name to MFS Global High Yield Fund.

In mid-February, Northern Enhanced Large Cap Fund (NOLCX) became Northern Large Cap Core Fund though, at last check, Morningstar hadn’t noticed. Nice little fund, by the way.

Speaking of not noticing, the folks at Whitebox have accused of us ignoring “one of the most important changes we made, which is Whitebox Long Short Equity Fund is now the Whitebox Market Neutral Equity Fund.” We look alternately chastened by our negligence and excited to report such consequential news.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

BCM Decathlon Conservative Portfolio, BCM Decathlon Moderate Portfolio and BCM Decathlon Aggressive Portfolio have decided that they can best serve their shareholders by liquidating.  The event is scheduled for April 14, 2014.

BlackRock International Bond Portfolio (BIIAX) has closed and will liquidate on March 14, 2014.  A good move given the fund’s dismal record, though you’d imagine that a firm with BlackRock’s footprint would want a fund of this name.

Pending shareholder approval, City National Rochdale Diversified Equity Fund (AHDEX) will merge into City National Rochdale U.S. Core Equity Fund (CNRVX) of the Trust. I rather like the honesty of their explanation to shareholders:

This reorganization is being proposed, among other reasons, to reduce the annual operating expenses borne by shareholders of the Diversified Fund. CNR does not expect significant future in-flows to the Diversified Fund and anticipates the assets of the Diversified Fund may continue to decrease in the future. The Core Fund has significantly more assets [and] … a significantly lower annual expense ratio.

Goldman Sachs Income Strategies Portfolio merged “with and into” the Goldman Sachs Satellite Strategies Portfolio (GXSAX) and Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund with and into the Goldman Sachs Asia Equity Fund (GSAGX) in mid-February.

Huntington Rotating Markets Fund (HRIAX) has closed and will liquidate by March 28, 2014.

Shareholders of Ivy Asset Strategy New Opportunities Fund (INOAX) have been urged to approve the merger of their fund into Ivy Emerging Markets Equity Fund (IPOAX).  The disappearing fund is badly awful but the merger is curious because INOAX is not primarily an emerging markets fund; its current portfolio is split between developed and developing.

The Board of Trustees of the JPMorgan Ex-G4 Currency Strategies Fund (EXGAX) has approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund on or about March 10, 2014.  The “strategies” in question appear to involve thrashing around without appreciable gain.

After an entire year of operation (!), the KKR Board of Trustees of the Fund approved a Plan of Liquidation with respect to KKR Alternative Corporate Opportunities Fund (XKCPX) and KKR Alternative High Yield Fund (KHYZX). Accordingly, the Fund will be liquidated in accordance with the Plan on or about March 31, 2014 or as soon as practicable thereafter. 

Loomis Sayles Mid Cap Growth Fund (LAGRX) will be liquidated on March 14^th, a surprisingly fast execution given that the Board approved the action just the month before.

On February 13, 2014, the shareholders of the Quaker Small Cap Growth Tactical Allocation Fund (QGASX) approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund. 

In Closing . . .

We asked you folks, in January, what made the Observer worthwhile.  That is, what did we offer that brought you back each month?  We poured your answers into a Wordle in hopes of capturing the spirit of the 300 or so responses.

Three themes recurred:  (1) the Observer is independent. We’re not trying to sell you anything.  We’re not trying to please advertisers. We’re not desperate to write inflated drivel in order to maximize clicks. We don’t have a hidden agenda. 

(2) We talk about things that other folks do not. There’s a lot of appreciation for our willingness to ferret out smaller, emerging managers and to bring them to you in a variety of formats. There’s also some appreciate of our willingness to step back from the fray and try to talk about important long-term issues rather than sexy short-term ones.

(3) We’re funny. Or weird. Perhaps snarky, opinionated, cranky and, on a good day, curmudgeonly.

And that helps us a lot.  As we plan for the future of the Observer, we’re thinking through two big questions: where should we be going and how can we get there? We’ll write a bit next time about your answer to the final question: what should we be doing that we aren’t (yet)?

We’ve made a couple changes under the hood to make the Observer stronger and more reliable.  We’ve completed our migration to a new virtual private server at Green Geeks, which should help with reliability and allow us to handle a lot more traffic.  (We hit records again in January and February.)  We also upgraded the software that runs our discussion board.  It gives the board better security and a fresher look.  If you’ve got a bookmarked link to the discussion board, we need you to reset your link to http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussions.  If you use your old bookmark you’ll just end up on a redirect page.  

In April we celebrate our third anniversary. Old, for a website nowadays, and so we thought we’d solicit the insights of some of the Grand Old Men of the industry: well-seasoned, sometimes storied managers who struck out on their own after long careers in large firms. We’re trying hard to wheedle our colleague Ed, who left Oakmark full of years and honors, to lead the effort. While he’s at that, we’re planning to look again at the emerging markets and the almost laughable frenzy of commentary on “the bloodbath in the emerging markets.”  (Uhh … Vanguard’s Emerging Market Index has dropped 8% in a year. That’s not a bloodbath. It’s not even a correction. It’s a damned annoyance. And, too, talking about “the emerging markets” makes about as much analytic sense as talking about “the white people.”  It’s not one big undifferentiated mass).  We’ve been looking at fund flow data and Morningstar’s “buy the unloved” strategy.  Mr. Studzinski has become curious, a bit, about Martin Focused Value (MFVRX) and the arguments that have led them to a 90% cash stake. We’ll look into it.

Please do bookmark our Amazon link.  Every bit helps! 

 As ever,

Dear friends,

Given the intensity of the headlines, you’d think that Black Monday had revisited us weekly or, perhaps, that Smaug had settled his scaly bulk firmly atop our portfolios.  But no, the market wandered down a few percent for the month.  I have the same reaction to the near-hysterical headlines about the emerging markets (“rout,” “panic” and “sell-off” are popular headline terms). From the headlines, you’d think the emerging markets had lost a quarter of their value and that their governments were back to defaulting on debts and privatizing companies. They haven’t and they aren’t.  It makes you wonder how ready we are for the inevitable sharp correction that many are predicting and few are expecting.

Where are the customers’ yachts: The power of asking the wrong question

In 1940, Fred Schwed penned one of the most caustic and widely-read finance books of its time.  Where Are the Customers’ Yachts, now in its sixth edition, opens with an anecdote reportedly set in 1900 and popular on Wall Street in the 1920s.

That’s an almost irresistibly attractive tale since it so quickly captures the essence of what we all suspect: finance is a game rigged to benefit the financiers, a sort of reverse Robin Hood scheme in which we eagerly participate. Disclosure of rampant manipulation of the London currency exchanges is just the most recent round in the game.

As charming as it is, it’s also fundamentally the wrong question.  Why?  Because “buying a yacht” was not the goal for the vast majority of those customers.  Presumably their goals were things like “buying a house” or “having a rainy day cushion,” which means the right question would have been “where are the customer’s houses?”

We commit the same fallacy today when we ask, “can your fund beat the market?”  It’s the question that drives hundreds of articles about the failure of active management and of financial advisors more generally.  But it’s the wrong question.  Our financial goals aren’t expressed relative to the market; they’re expressed in terms of life goals and objectives to which our investments might contribute.

In short, the right question is “why does investing in this fund give me a better chance of achieving my goals than I would have otherwise?”  That might redirect our attention to questions far more important than whether Fund X lags or leads the S&P500 by 50 bps a year.  Those fractions of a percent are not driving your investment performance nearly as much as other ill-considered decisions are.  The impulse to jump in and out of emerging markets funds (or bond funds or U.S. small caps) based on wildly overheated headlines are far more destructive than any other factor.

Morningstar calculates “investor returns” for hundreds of funds. Investor returns are an attempt to answer the question, “did the investors show up after the party was over and leave as things got dicey?”  That is, did investors buy into something they didn’t understand and weren’t prepared to stick with? The gap between what an investor could have made – the fund’s long-term returns – and what the average investor actually seems to have made – the investor returns – can be appalling.  T. Rowe Price Emerging Market Stock (PRMSX) made 9% over the past decade, its average investor made 4%. Over a 15 year horizon the disparity is worse: the fund earned 10.7% while investors were around for 4.3% gains.  The gap for Dodge & Cox Stock (DODGX) is smaller but palpable: 9.2% for the fund over 15 years but 7.0% for its well-heeled investors. 

My colleague Charles has urged me to submit a manuscript on mutual fund investing to John Wiley’s Little Book series, along with such classics as The Little Book That Makes You Rich and The Little Book That Beats the Market. I might. But if I do, it will be The Little Book That Doesn’t Beat the Market: And Why That’s Just Fine. Its core message will be this:

If you spend less time researching your investments than you spend researching a new kitchen blender, you’re screwed.  If you base your investments on a belief in magical outcomes, you’re screwed.  And if you think that 9% returns will flow to you with the smooth, stately grace of a Rolls Royce on a country road, you’re screwed.

But if you take the time to understand yourself and you take the time to understand the strategies that will be used by the people you’re hiring to provide for your future, you’ve got a chance.

And a good, actively managed mutual fund can make a difference but only if you look for the things that make a difference.  I’ll suggest four:

Understanding: do you know what your manager plans to do?  Here’s a test: you can explain it to your utterly uninterested spouse and then have him or her correctly explain it back?  Does your manager write in a way that draws you closer to understanding, or are you seeing impenetrable prose or marketing babble?  When you have a question, can you call or write and actually receive an intelligible answer?

Alignment: is your manager’s personal best interests directly tied to your success?  Has he limited himself to his best ideas, or does he own a bit of everything, everywhere?  Has he committed his own personal fortune to the fund?  Have his Board of Directors?  Is he capable of telling you the limits of his strategy; that is, how much money he can handle without diluting performance? And is he committed to closing the fund long before you reach that sad point?

Independence: does your fund have a reason to exist? Is there any reason to believe that you couldn’t substitute any one of a hundred other strategies and get the same results? Does your fund publish its active share; that is, the amount of difference between it and an index? Does it publish its r-squared value; that is, the degree to which it merely imitates the performance of its peer group? 

Volatility: does your manager admit to how bad it could get? Not just the fund’s standard deviation, which is a pretty dilute measure of risk. No, do they provide their maximum drawdown for you; that is, the worst hit they ever took from peak to trough.  Are the willing to share and explain their Sharpe and Sortino ratios, key measures of whether you’re getting reasonably compensated for the hits you’ll inevitable take?  Are they willing to talk with you in sharply rising markets about how to prepare for the sharply falling ones?

The research is clear: there are structural and psychological factors that make a difference in your prospects for success.  Neither breathless headlines nor raw performance numbers are among them.

Then again, there’s a real question of whether it could ever compete for total sales with my first book, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (total 20-year sales: 650 copies).

Absolute value’s sudden charm

Jeremy Grantham often speaks of “career risk” as one of the great impediments to investment success. The fact that managers know they’re apt to be fired for doing the right thing at the wrong time is a powerful deterrent to them. For a great many, “the right thing” is refusing to buy overvalued stocks. Nonetheless, when confronted by a sharply rising market and investor ebullience, most conclude that it’s “the wrong time” to act on principle. In short, they buy when they know  they probably shouldn’t.

A handful of brave souls have refused to succumb to the pressure. In general, they’re described as “absolute value” investors. That is, they’ll only buy stocks that are selling at a substantial discount to their underlying value; the mere fact that they’re “the best of a bad lot” isn’t enough to tempt them.

And, in general, they got killed – at least in relative terms – in 2013. We thought it would be interesting to look at the flip side, the performance of those same funds during January 2014 when the equity indexes dropped 3.5 – 4%.  While the period is too brief to offer any major insights, it gives you a sense of how dramatically fortunes can reverse.

THE ABSOLUTE VALUE GUYS

Motion, not progress

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.

                                                                                                         Ambrose Bierce

One of the joys of having entered the investment business in the 1980’s is that you came in at a time when the profession was still populated by some really nice and thoughtful people, well-read and curious about the world around them.  They were and are generally willing to share their thoughts and ideas without hesitation. They were the kind of people that you hoped you could keep as friends for life.  One such person is my friend, Bruce, who had a thirty-year career on the “buy side” as both an analyst and a director of research at several well-known money management firms. He retired in 2008 and divides his time between homes in western Connecticut and Costa Rica.

Here in Chicago in January, with snow falling again and the wind chill taking the temperature below zero, I see that Bruce, sitting now in Costa Rica, is the smart one.  Then I reflected on a lunch we had on a warm summer day last August near the Mohawk Trail in western Massachusetts.  We stay in touch regularly but this was the first time the two of us had gotten together in several years. 

The first thing I asked Bruce was what he missed most about no longer being active in the business.  Without hesitation he said that it was the people. For most of his career he had interacted daily with other smart investors as well as company management teams.  You learned how they thought, what kind of people they were, whether they loved their businesses or were just doing it to make money, and how they treated their shareholders and investors. Some of his best memories were of one-on-one meetings or small group dinners.  These were events that companies used to hold for their institutional shareholders.  That ended with the implementation of Regulation FD (full disclosure), the purpose of which was to eliminate the so-called whisper number that used to be “leaked” to certain brokerage firm analysts ahead of earnings reporting dates. This would allow those analysts to tip-off favored clients, giving them an edge in buying or selling a position. Companies now deal with this issue by keeping tight control on investor meetings and what can be said in them, tending to favor multi-media analyst days (timed, choreographed, scripted, and rehearsed events where you find yourself one of three hundred in a room being spoon-fed drivel), and earnings conference calls (timed, choreographed, scripted, and rehearsed events where you find yourself one of a faceless mass listening to reporting without seeing any body language).  Companies will still visit current and potential investors by means of “road shows” run by a friendly brokerage firm coincidentally looking for investment banking business.  But the exchange of information can be less than free-flowing, especially if the brokerage analyst sits in on the meeting.  And, to prevent accidental disclosure, the event is still heavily scripted.  It has however created a new sideline business for brokerage firms in these days of declining commission rates.  Even if you are a large existing institutional shareholder, the broker/investment bankers think you should pay them $10,000 – $15,000 in commissions for the privilege of seeing the management of a company you already own.  This is apparently illegal in the United Kingdom, and referred to as “pay to play” there.  Here, neither the SEC nor the compliance officers have tumbled to it as an apparent fiduciary violation.

Next I asked him what had been most frustrating in his final years. Again without hesitation he said that it was difficult to feel that you were actually able to add value in evaluating large cap companies, given how the regulatory environment had changed. I mentioned to him that everyone seemed to be trying to replace the on-site leg work part of fundamental analysis with screening and extensive earnings modeling, going out multiple years. Unfortunately many of those using such approaches appear to have not learned the law of significant numbers in high school chemistry. They seek exactitude while in reality adding complexity.  At the same time, the subjective value of sitting in a company headquarters waiting room and seeing how customers, visitors, and employees are treated is no longer appreciated.

Bruce, like many value investors, favors private market value as the best underpinning for security valuation. That is, based on recent transactions to acquire a comparable business, what was this one worth? But you need an active merger & acquisition market for the valuation not to be tied to stale inputs. He mentioned that he had observed the increased use of dividend discount models to complement other valuation work. However, he thought that there was a danger in a low interest-rate environment that a dividend discount model could produce absurd results. One analyst had brought him a valuation write-up supported by a dividend discount model. Most of the business value ended up being in the terminal segment, requiring a 15 or 16X EBITDA multiple to make the numbers work.  Who in the real world pays that for a business?  I mentioned that Luther King, a distinguished investment manager in Texas with an excellent long-term record, insisted on meeting as many company managements as he could, even in his seventies, as part of his firm’s ongoing due diligence. He did not want his investors to think that their investments were being followed and analyzed by “three guys and a Bloomberg terminal.”  And in reality, one cannot learn an industry and company solely through a Bloomberg terminal, webcasts, and conference calls. 

Bruce then mentioned another potentially corrupting factor. His experience was that investment firms compensate analysts based on idea generation, performance of the idea, and the investment dollars committed to the idea. This can lead to gamesmanship as you get to the end of the measurement period for compensation. E.g., we tell corporate managements they shouldn’t act as if they were winding up and liquidating their business at the end of a quarter or year. Yet, we incent analysts to act that way (and lock in a profitable bonus) by recommending sale of an idea much too early. Or at the other extreme, they may not want to recommend sale of the idea when they should. I mentioned that one solution was to eliminate such compensation performance assessments as one large West Coast firm is reputed to have done after the disastrous 2008 meltdown. They were trying to restore a culture that for eighty years had been geared to producing the best long-term compounding investment ideas for the clients. However, they also had the luxury of being independent.      

Finally I asked Bruce what tipped him over the edge into retirement. He said he got tired of discussions about “scalability.” A brief explanation is in order. After the dot-com disaster at the beginning of the decade, followed by the debacle years of 2008-2009, many investment firms put into place an implicit policy. For an idea to be added to the investment universe, a full investment position had to be capable of being acquired in five days average trading volume for that issue. Likewise, one had to also be able to exit the position in five days average trading volume. If it could not pass those hurdles, it was not a suitable investment. This cuts out small cap and most mid-cap ideas, as well as a number of large cap ideas where there is limited investment float. While the benchmark universe might be the S&P 500, in actuality it ends up being something very different. Rather than investing in the best ideas for clients, one ends up investing in the best liquid ideas for clients (I will save for another day the discussion about illiquid investments consistently producing higher returns long-term, albeit with greater volatility). 

From Bruce’s perspective, too much money is chasing too few good ideas. This has resulted in what we call “style drift”.  Firms that had made their mark as small cap or mid cap investors didn’t want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs by shutting off new money, so they evolved to become large cap investors. But ultimately that is self-defeating, for as the assets come in, you either have to shut down the flows or change your style by adding more and larger positions, which ultimately leads to under-performance.

I mentioned to Bruce that the other problem of too much money chasing too few good new ideas was that it tended to encourage “smart guy investing,” a term coined by a mutual friend of ours in Chicago. The perfect example of this was Dell. When it first appeared in the portfolios of Southeastern Asset Management, I was surprised. Over the next year, the idea made its way in to many more portfolios at other firms. Why? Because originally Southeastern had made it a very large position, which indicated they were convinced of its investment merits. The outsider take was “they are smart guys – they must have done the work.” And so, at the end of the day after making their own assessments, a number of other smart guys followed. In retrospect it appears that the really smart guy was Michael Dell.

A month ago I was reading a summary of the 2013 annual investment retreat of a family office investment firm with an excellent reputation located in Vermont. A conclusion reached was that the incremental value being provided by many large cap active managers was not justified by the fees being charged. Therefore, they determined that that part of an asset allocation mix should make use of low cost index funds. That is a growing trend. Something else that I think is happening now in the industry is that investment firms that are not independent are increasingly being run for short-term profitability as the competition and fee pressures from products like exchange traded funds increases. Mike Royko, the Chicago newspaper columnist once said that the unofficial motto of Chicago is “Ubi est meum?” or “Where’s mine?” Segments of the investment management business seemed to have adopted it as well. As a long-term value investor in New York recently said to me, short-termism is now the thing. 

The ultimate lesson is the basic David Snowball raison d’etre for the Mutual Fund Observer. Find yourself funds that are relatively small and independent, with a clearly articulated philosophy and strategy. Look to see, by reading the reports and looking at the lists of holdings, that they are actually doing what they say they are doing, and that their interests are aligned with yours. Look at their active share, the extent to which the holdings do not mimic their benchmark index. And if you cannot be bothered to do the work, put your investments in low cost index vehicles and focus on asset allocation.  Otherwise, as Mr. Buffet once said, if you are seated at the table to play cards and don’t identify the “mark” you should leave, as you are it.

Edward Studzinski    

Impact of Category on Fund Ratings

The results for MFO’s fund ratings through quarter ending December 2013, which include the latest Great Owl and Three Alarm funds, can be found on the Search Tools page. The ratings are across 92 fund categories, defined by Morningstar, and include three newly created categories:

Corporate Bond. “The corporate bond category was created to cull funds from the intermediate-term and long-term bond categories that focused on corporate bonds,” reports Cara Esser.  Examples are Vanguard Interm-Term Invmt-Grade Inv (VFICX) and T. Rowe Price Corporate Income (PRPIX).

Preferred Stock. “The preferred stock category includes funds with a majority of assets invested in preferred stock over a three-year period. Previously, most preferred share funds were lumped in with long-term bond funds because of their historically high sensitivity to long-term yields.” An example is iShares US Preferred Stock (PFF).

Tactical Allocation. “Tactical Allocation portfolios seek to provide capital appreciation and income by actively shifting allocations between asset classes. These portfolios have material shifts across equity regions and bond sectors on a frequent basis.” Examples here are PIMCO All Asset All Authority Inst (PAUIX) and AQR Risk Parity (AQRIX).

An “all cap” or “all style” category is still not included in the category definitions, as explained by John Rekenthaler in Why Morningstar Lacks an All-Cap Fund Category. The omission frustrates many, including BobC, a seasoned contributor to the MFO board:

Osterweis (OSTFX) is a mid-cap blend fund, according to M*. But don’t say that to John Osterweis. Even looking at the style map, you can see the fund covers all of the style boxes, and it has about 20% in foreign stocks, with 8% in emerging countries. John would tell you that he has never managed the fund to a style box. In truth he is style box agnostic. He is looking for great companies to buy at a discount. Yet M* compares the fund with others that are VERY different.

In fairness, according to the methodology, “for multiple-share-class funds, each share class is rated separately and counted as a fraction of a fund within this scale, which may cause slight variations in the distribution percentages.” Truth is, fund managers or certainly their marketing departments are sensitive to what category their fund lands-in, as it can impact relative ratings for return, risk, and price.

As reported in David’s October commentary, we learned that Whitebox Funds appealed to the Morningstar editorial board to have its Tactical Opportunities Fund (WBMIX) changed from aggressive allocation to long/short equity. WBMIX certainly has the latitude to practice long/short; in fact, the strategy is helping the fund better negotiate the market’s rough start in 2014. But its ratings are higher and price is lower, relatively, in the new category.

One hotly debated fund on the MFO board, ASTON/River Road Independent Small Value (ARIVX), managed by Eric Cinnamond, would also benefit from a category change. As a small cap, the fund rates a 1 (bottom quintile) for 2013 in the MFO ratings system, but when viewed as a conservative or tactical allocation fund – because of significant shifts to cash – the ratings improve. Here is impact on return group rank for a couple alternative categories:

Of course, a conservative tactical allocation category would be a perfect antidote here (just kidding).

Getting It Wrong. David has commented more than once about the “wildly inappropriate” mis-categorization of Riverpark Short Term High Yield Fund (RPHIX), managed by David Sherman, which debuted with just a single star after its first three years of operation. The MFO community considers the closed fund more of a cash alternative, suited best to the short- or even ultrashort-term bond categories, but Morningstar placed it in the high yield bond category.

Exacerbating the issue is that the star system appears to rank returns after deducting for a so-called “risk penalty,” based on the variation in month-to-month return during the rating period. This is good. But it also means that funds like RPHIX, which have lower absolute returns with little or no downside, do not get credit for their very high risk-adjusted return ratios, like Sharpe, Sortino, or Martin.

Below is the impact of categorization, as well as return metrics, on its performance ranking. The sweet irony is that its absolute return even beat the US bond aggregate index!

RPHIX is a top tier fund by just about any measure when placed in a more appropriate bond category or when examined with risk-adjusted return ratios. (Even Modigliani’s M2, a genuinely risk-adjusted return, not a ratio, that is often used to compare portfolios with different levels of risk, reinforces that RPHIX should still be top tier even in the high yield bond category.) Since Morningstar states its categorizations are “based strictly on portfolio statistics,” and not fund names, hopefully the editorial board will have opportunity to make things right for this fund at the bi-annual review in May.

A Broader View. Interestingly, prior to July 2002, Morningstar rated funds using just four broad asset-class-based groups: US stock, international stock, taxable bond, and municipal bonds. It switched to (smaller) categories to neutralize market tends or “tailwinds,” which would cause, for example, persistent outperformance by funds with value strategies.

A consequence of rating funds within smaller categories, however, is more attention goes to more funds, including higher risk funds, even if they have underperformed the broader market on a risk-adjusted basis. And in other cases, the system calls less attention to funds that have outperformed the broader market, but lost an occasional joust in their peer group, resulting in a lower rating.

Running the MFO ratings using only the four board legacy categories reveals just how much categorization can alter the ratings. For example, the resulting “US stock” 20-year Great Owl funds are dominated by allocation funds, along with a high number of sector equity funds, particularly health. But rate the same funds with the current categories (Great Owl Funds – 4Q2013), and we find more funds across the 3 x 3 style box, plus some higher risk sector funds, but the absence of health funds.

Fortunately, some funds are such strong performers that they appear to transcend categorization. The eighteen funds listed below have consistently delivered high excess return while avoiding large drawdown and end-up in the top return quintile over the past 20, 10, 5, and 3 year evaluation periods using either categorization approach:

 Roy Weitz grouped funds into only five equity and six specialty “benchmark categories” when he established the legacy Three Alarm Funds list. Similarly, when Accipiter created the MFO Miraculous Multi-Search tool, he organized the 92 categories used in the MFO rating system into 11 groups…not too many, not too few. Running the ratings for these groupings provides some satisfying results:

A more radical approach may be to replace traditional style categories altogether! For example, instead of looking for best performing small-cap value funds, one would look for the best performing funds based on a risk level consistent with an investor’s temperament. Implementing this approach, using Risk Group (as defined in ratings system) for category, identifies the following 20-year Great Owls:

Bottom Line. Category placement can be as important to a fund’s commercial success as its people, process, performance, price and parent. Many more categories exist today on which peer groups are established and ratings performed, causing us to pay more attention to more funds. And perhaps that is the point. Like all chambers of commerce, Morningstar is as much a promoter of the fund industry, as it is a provider of helpful information to investors. No one envies the enormous task of defining, maintaining, and defending the rationale for several dozen and ever-evolving fund categories. Investors should be wary, however, that the proliferation may provide a better view of the grove than the forest.

28Jan2014/Charles

Our readers speak!

And we’re grateful for it. Last month we gave folks an opportunity to weigh-in on their assessment of how we’re doing and what we should do differently. Nearly 350 of you shared your reactions during the first week of the New Year. That represents a tiny fraction of the 27,000 unique readers who came by in January, so we’re not going to put as much weight on the statistical results as on the thoughts you shared.

We thought we’d share what we heard. This month we’ll highlight the statistical results.  In March we’ll share some of your written comments (they run over 30 pages) and our understanding of them.

Who are you?

80% identified themselves as private investors, 18% worked in the financial services industry and 2% were journalists, bloggers and analysts.

How often do you read the Observer?

The most common answer is “I just drop by at the start of the month” (36%). That combines with “I drop by once every month, but not necessarily at the start”) (14%) to explain about half of the results. At the same time, a quarter of you visit four or more times every month. (And thanks for it!)

Which features are most (or least) interesting to you?

By far, the greatest number of “great, do more!” responses came under “individual fund profiles.” A very distant second and third were the longer pieces in the monthly commentary (such as Motion, Not Progress and Impact of Category on Fund Ratings) and the shorter pieces (on fund liquidations and such) in the commentary. Folks had the least interest in our conference calls and funds in registration.

Hmmm … we’re entirely sympathetic to the desire for more fund profiles. Morningstar has an effective monopoly in the area and their institutional biases are clear: of the last 100 fund analyses posted, only 13 featured funds with under one billion in assets. Only one fund launched since January 2010 was profiled. In response, we’re going to try to increase the number of profiles each month to at least four with a goal of hitting five or six. 

We’re not terribly concerned about the tepid response to the conference calls since they’re useful in writing our profiles and the audience for them continues to grow. If you haven’t tried one, perhaps it might be worthwhile this month?

And so, in response to your suggestion, here’s the freshly expanded …

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. 

ASTON/River Road Long Short (ARLSX): measured in the cold light of risk-return statistics, ARLSX is as good as it gets. We’d recommend that interested parties look at both this profile and at the conference call highlights, below.

Artisan Global Small Cap (ARTWX): what part of “phenomenally talented, enormously experienced management team now offers access to a poorly-explored asset class” isn’t interesting to you?

Grandeur Peak Emerging Opportunities (GPEOX): ditto!

RiverNorth Equity Opportunity (RNEOX): ditto! Equity Opportunity is a redesigned and greatly strengthened version of an earlier fund.  This new edition is all RiverNorth and that is, for folks looking for buffered equity exposure, a really interesting option.

We try to think strategically about which funds to profile. Part of the strategy is to highlight funds that might do you well in the immediate market environment, as well as others that are likely to be distinctly out of step with today’s market but very strong additions in the long-run. We reached out in January to the managers of two funds in the latter category: the newly-launched Meridian Small Cap Growth (MSGAX) and William Blair Emerging Markets Small Cap (WESNX). Neither has responded to a request for information (we were curious about strategy capacity, for instance, and risk-management protocols). We’ll continue reaching out; if we don’t hear back, we’ll profile the funds in March with a small caution flag attached.

RiverNorth conference call, February 25 2014

RiverNorth’s opportunistic CEF strategy strikes us as distinctive, profitable and very crafty. We’ve tried to explain it in profiles of RNCOX and RNEOX. Investors who are intrigued by the opportunity to invest with RiverNorth should sign up for their upcoming webcast entitled RiverNorth Closed-End Fund Strategies: Capitalizing on Discount Volatility. While this is not an Observer event, we’ve spoken with Mr. Galley a lot and are impressed with his insights and his ability to help folks make sense of what the strategy can and cannot do.

Navigate over to http://www.rivernorthfunds.com/events/ for free registration.

Conference Call Highlights:  ASTON River Road Long/Short (ARLSX)

We spoke with Daniel Johnson and Matt Moran, managers for the River Road Long-Short Equity strategy which is incorporated in Aston River Road Long-Short Fund (ARLSX). Mike Mayhew, one of the Partners at Aston Asset, was also in on the call to answer questions about the fund’s mechanics. About 60 people joined in.

The highlights, for me, were:

the fund’s strategy is sensible and straightforward, which means there aren’t a lot of moving parts and there’s not a lot of conceptual complexity. The fund’s stock market exposure can run from 10 – 90% long, with an average in the 50-70% range. The guys measure their portfolio’s discount to fair value; if their favorite stocks sell at a less than 80% of fair value, they increase exposure. The long portfolio is compact (15-30), driven by an absolute value discipline, and emphasizes high quality firms that they can hold for the long term. The short portfolio (20-40 names) is stocked with poorly managed firms with a combination of a bad business model and a dying industry whose stock is overpriced and does not show positive price momentum. That is, they “get out of the way of moving trains” and won’t short stocks that show positive price movements.

the fund grew from $8M to $207M in a year, with a strategy capacity in the $1B – 1.5B range. They anticipate substantial additional growth, which should lower expenses a little (and might improve tax efficiency – my note, not theirs). Because they started the year with such a small asset base, the expense numbers are exaggerated; expenses might have been 5% of assets back when they were tiny, but that’s no longer the case. 

shorting expenses were boosted by the vogue for dividend-paying stocks, which  drove valuations of some otherwise sucky stocks sharply higher; that increases the fund’s expenses because they’ve got to repay those dividends but the managers believe that the shorts will turn out to be profitable even so.

the guys have no client other than the fund, don’t expect ever to have one, hope to manage the fund until they retire and they have 100% of their liquid net worth in it.

their target is “sleep-at-night equity exposure,” which translates to a maximum drawdown (their worst-case market event) of no more than 10-15%. They’ve been particularly appalled by long/short funds that suffered drawdowns in the 20-25% range which is, they say, not consistent with why folks buy such funds.

they’ve got the highest Sharpe ratio of any long-short fund, their longs beat the market by 900 bps, their shorts beat the inverse of the market by 1100 bps and they’ve kept volatility to about 40% of the market’s while capturing 70% of its total returns.

A lot of the Q&A focused on the fund’s short portfolio and a little on the current state of the market. The guys note that they tend to generate ideas (they keep a watchlist of no more than 40 names) by paging through Value Line. They focus on fundamentals (let’s call it “reality”) rather than just valuation numbers in assembling their portfolio. They point out that sometimes fundamentally rotten firms manage to make their numbers (e.g., dividend yield or cash flow) look good but, at the same time, the reality is that it’s a poorly managed firm in a failing industry. On the flip side, sometimes firms in special situations (spinoffs or those emerging from bankruptcy) will have little analyst coverage and odd numbers but still be fundamentally great bargains. The fact that they need to find two or three new ideas, rather than thirty or sixty, allows them to look more carefully and think more broadly. That turns out to be profitable.

Bottom Line: this is not an all-offense all the time fund, a stance paradoxically taken by some of its long-short peers.  Neither is it a timid little “let’s short an ETF or two and hope” offering.”  It has a clear value discipline and even clearer risk controls.  For a conservative equity investor like me, that’s been a compelling combination.

Folks unable to make the call but interested in it can download or listen to the .mp3 of the call, which will open in a separate window.

As with all of these funds, we have a featured funds page for ARLSX which provides a permanent home for the mp3 and highlights, and pulls together all of the best resources we have for the fund.

Would An Additional Heads Up Help?

Over 220 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.

Conference Call Upcoming:  Joshua B. Parker and Alan Salzbank, RiverPark / Gargoyle Hedged Value

Josh Parker and Alan Salzbank, Co-Portfolio Managers of the RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund (RGHVX) and Morty Schaja, RiverPark’s CEO; are pleased to join us for a conference call scheduled for Wednesday, February 12 from 7:00 – 8:00 PM Eastern. We profiled the fund in June 2013, but haven’t spoken with the managers before.  

Why speak with them now?  Three reasons.  First, you really need to have a strategy in place for hedging the substantial gains booked by the stock market since its March 2009 low. There are three broad strategies for doing that: an absolute value strategy which will hold cash rather than overpriced equities, a long-short equity strategy and an options-based strategy. Since you’ve had a chance to hear from folks representing the first two, it seems wise to give you access to the third. Second, RiverPark has gotten it consistently right when it comes to both managers and strategies. I respect their ability and their record in bringing interesting strategies to “the mass affluent” (and me). Finally, RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund ranks as a top performing fund within the Morningstar Long/Short category since its inception 14 years ago. The Fund underwent a conversion from its former partnership hedge fund structure in April 2012 and is managed using the same approach by the same investment team, but now offers daily liquidity, low  minimums and a substantially lower fee structure for shareholders.

I asked Alan what he’d like folks to know ahead of the call. Here’s what he shared:

Alan and Josh have spent the last twenty-five years as traders and managers of options-based investment strategies beginning their careers as market makers on the option floor in the 1980’s. The Gargoyle strategy involves using a disciplined quantitative approach to find and purchase what they believe to be undervalued stocks. They have a unique approach to managing volatility through the sale of relatively overpriced index call options to hedge the portfolio. Their strategy is similar to traditional buy/write option strategies that offer reduced volatility and some downside protection, but gains an advantage by selling index rather single stock options. This allows them to benefit from both the systemic overpricing of index options while not sacrificing the alpha they hope to realize on their bottom-up stock picking, 

The Fund targets a 50% net market exposure and manages the option portfolio such that market exposure stays within the range of 35% to 65%. Notably, using this conservative approach, the Fund has still managed to outperform the S&P 500 over the last five years. Josh and Alan believe that over the long term shareholders can continue to realize returns greater than the market with less risk. Gargoyle’s website features an eight minute video “The Options Advantage” describing the investment process and the key differences between their strategy and a typical single stock buy-write (click here to watch video).

That call is scheduled for Wednesday, February 12, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern. We’ll provide additional details in our February issue.  

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.

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 March or early April 2014, and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

This month David Welsch celebrated a newly-earned degree from SUNY-Sullivan and still tracked down 18 no-load retail funds in registration, which represents our core interest.

Four sets of filings caught our attention. First, DoubleLine is launching two new and slightly edgy funds (the “wherever I want to go” Flexible Income Fund managed by Mr. Gundlach and an emerging markets short-term bond fund). Second, three focused value funds from Pzena, a well-respected institutional manager. Third, Scout Equity Opportunity Fund which will be managed by Brent Olson, a former Aquila Three Peaks Opportunity Growth Fund (ATGAX) manager. While I can’t prove a cause-and-effect relationship, ATGAX vastly underperformed its mid-cap growth peers for the decade prior to Mr. Olson’s arrival and substantially outperformed them during his tenure. 

Finally, Victory Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund will join the small pool of EM small cap funds. I’d normally be a bit less interested, but their EM small cap separate accounts have substantially outperformed their benchmark with relatively low volatility over the past five years. The initial expense ratio will be 1.50% and the minimum initial investment is $2500, reduced to $1000 for IRAs.

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 39 sets of fund manager changes. The most intriguing of those include what appears to be the surprising outflow of managers from T. Rowe Price, Alpine’s decision to replace its lead managers with an outsider and entirely rechristen one of their funds, and Bill McVail’s departure after 15 years at Turner Small Cap Growth.

Updates

We noted a couple months ago that DundeeWealth was looking to exit the U.S. fund market and sell their funds. Through legal maneuvers too complicated for me to follow, the very solid Dynamic U.S. Growth Fund (Class II, DWUHX) has undergone the necessary reorganization and will continue to function as Dynamic U.S. Growth Fund with Noah Blackstein, its founding manager, still at the helm. 

Briefly Noted . . .

Effective March 31 2014, Alpine Innovators Fund (ADIAX) transforms into Alpine Small Cap Fund.  Following the move, it will be repositioned as a domestic small cap core fund, with up to 30% international.  Both of Innovator’s managers, the Liebers, are being replaced by Michael T. Smith, long-time manager of Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend Fund (LSBAX).  Smith’s fund had a very weak record over its last five years and was merged out of existence in July, 2013; Smith left Lord Abbett in February of that year.

Effective April 1, 2014, the principal investment strategy of the Green Century Equity Fund (GCEQX) will be revised to change the index tracked by the Fund, so as to exclude the stocks of companies that explore for, process, refine or distribute coal, oil or gas. 

The Oppenheimer Steelpath funds have decided to resort to English. It’s kinda refreshing. The funds’ current investment Objectives read like this:

The investment objective of Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP Alpha Fund (the “Fund” or “Alpha Fund”) is to provide investors with a concentrated portfolio of energy infrastructure Master Limited Partnerships (“MLPs”) which the Advisor believes will provide substantial long-term capital appreciation through distribution growth and an attractive level of current income.

As of February 28, it becomes:

The Fund seeks total return.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

The Board of Trustees of the Fund has approved an increase in the Congressional Effect Fund’s (CEFFX) expense cap from 1.50% to 3.00%. Since I think their core strategy – “go to cash whenever Congress is in session” – is not sensible, a suspicion supported by their 0.95% annual returns over the past five years, becoming less attractive to investors is probably a net good.

Driehaus Mutual Funds’ Board approved reductions in the management fees for the Driehaus International Discovery Fund (DRIDX) and the Driehaus Global Growth Fund (DRGGX) which became effective January 1, 2014.  At base, it’s a 10-15 bps drop. 

Effective February 3, 2014, Virtus Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund (HEMZX) will be open to new investors. Low risk, above average returns but over $7 billion in the portfolio. Technically that’s capped at “two cheers.”

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Effective February 14, 2014, American Beacon Stephens Small Cap Growth Fund (STSGX) will act to limit inflows by stopping new retirement and benefit plans from opening accounts with the fund.

Artisan Global Value Fund (ARTGX) will soft-close on February 14, 2014.  Its managers were just recognized as Morningstar’s international-stock fund managers of the year for 2013. We’ve written about the fund four times since 2008, each time ending with the same note: “there are few better offerings in the global fund realm.”

As of the close of business on January 28, 2014, the GL Macro Performance Fund (GLMPX) will close to new investments. They don’t say that the fund is going to disappear, but that’s the clear implication of closing an underperforming, $5 million fund even to folks with automatic investment plans.

Effective January 31, the Wasatch International Growth Fund (WAIGX) closed to new investors.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Effective February 1, 2014, the name of the CMG Tactical Equity Strategy Fund (SCOTX) will be changed to CMG Tactical Futures Strategy Fund.

Effective March 3, 2014, the name of the Mariner Hyman Beck Portfolio (MHBAX) has been changed to Mariner Managed Futures Strategy Portfolio.

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

On January 24, 2014, the Board of Trustees approved the closing and subsequent liquidation of the Fusion Fund (AFFSX, AFFAX).

ING will ask shareholders in June 2014 to approve the merger of five externally sub-advised funds into three ING funds.   

The Board of Trustees of iShares voted to close and liquidate ten international sector ETFs, effective March 26, 2014.  The decedents are:  

• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Consumer Discretionary ETF (AXDI)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Consumer Staples ETF (AXSL)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Energy ETF (AXEN)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Financials ETF (AXFN)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Healthcare ETF (AXHE)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Industrials ETF (AXID)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Information Technology ETF (AXIT)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Materials ETF (AXMT)
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Telecommunication Services ETF (AXTE) and
• iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Utilities ETF (AXUT)

The Nomura Funds board has authorized the liquidation of their three funds:

• Nomura Asia Pacific ex Japan Fund (NPAAX)
• Nomura Global Emerging Markets Fund (NPEAX)
• Nomura Global Equity Income Fund (NPWAX)

The liquidations will occur on or about March 19, 2014.

On January 30, 2014, the shareholders of the Quaker Akros Absolute Return Fund (AARFX) approved the liquidation of the Fund which has banked five-year returns of (0.13%) annually. 

The Vanguard Growth Equity Fund (VGEQX)is to be reorganized into the Vanguard U.S. Growth Fund (VWUSX) on or about February 21, 2014. The Trustees helpfully note: “The reorganization does not require shareholder approval, and you are not being asked to vote.”

Virtus Greater Asia ex Japan Opportunities Fund (VGAAX) is closing on February 21, 2014, and will be liquidated shortly thereafter.  Old story: decent but not stellar returns, no assets.

In Closing . . .

Thanks a hundred times over for your continued support of the Observer, whether through direct contributions or using our Amazon link.  I’m a little concerned about Amazon’s squishy financial results and the risk that they’re going to go looking for ways to pinch pennies. Your continued use of that program provides us with about 80% of our monthly revenue.  Thanks, especially, to the folks at Evergreen Asset Management and Gardey Financial Advisors, who have been very generous over the years; while the money means a lot, the knowledge that we’re actually making a difference for folks means even more.

The next month will see our migration to a new, more reliable server, a long talk with the folks at Gargoyle and profiles of four intriguing small funds.  Since you make it all possible, I hope you join us for it all.

As ever,

Dear friends,

Welcome to the New Year.  At least as we calculate it.  The Year of the Horse begins January 31, a date the Vietnamese share.  The Iranians, like the ancient Romans, sensibly celebrate the New Year at the beginning of spring.  A bunch of cultures in South Asia pick mid-April. Rosh Hashanah (“head of the year”) rolls around in September.  My Celtic ancestors (and a bunch of modern Druidic wannabees) preferred Samhain, at the start of November.

Whatever your culture, the New Year is bittersweet.  We seem obsessed with looking back in regret at all the stuff we didn’t do, as much as we look forward to all of the stuff we might yet do.

My suggestion: can the regrets, get off yer butt, and do the stuff now that you know you need to do.  One small start: get rid of that mutual fund.  You know the one.  You’ve been regretting it for years.  You keep thinking “maybe I’ll wait to let it come back a bit.”  The one that you tend to forget to mention whenever you talk about investments.

Good gravy.  Dump it!  It takes about 30 seconds on the phone and no one is going to hassle you about it; it’s not like the manager is going to grab the line and begin pleading for a bit more time.  Pick up a lower cost replacement.  Maybe look into a nice ETF or index fund. Track down a really good fund whose manager is willing to put his own fortune and honor at risk along with yours.

You’ll feel a lot better once you do.

We can talk about your gym membership later.

Voices from the bottom of the well

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

Thos. Paine, The Crisis, 23 December 1776

Investors highly value managers who are principled, decisive, independent, active and contrarian.  Right up to the moment that they have one. 

Then they’re appalled.

There are two honorable approaches to investing: relative value and absolute value.  Relative value investors tend to buy the best-priced securities available, even if the price quoted isn’t very good.  They tend to remain fully invested even when the market is pricey and have, as their mantra, “there’s always a bull market in something.”  They’re optimistic by nature, enjoy fruity wines and rarely wear bowties.

Absolute value investors tend to buy equities only when they’re selling for cheap.  Schooled in the works of Graham and Dodd, they’re adamant about having “a margin of safety” when investing in an inherently risk asset class like stocks.  They tend to calculate the fair value of a company and they tend to use cautious assumptions in making those calculations.  They tend to look for investments selling at a 30% discount to fair value, or to firms likely to produce 10% internal returns of return even if things turn ugly.  They’re often found sniffing around the piles that trendier investors have fled.  And when they find no compelling values, they raise cash.  Sometimes lots of cash, sometimes for quite a while.  Their mantra is, “it’s not ‘different this time’.”  They’re slightly-mournful by nature, contemplate Scotch, and rather enjoyed Andy Rooney’s commentaries on “60 Minutes.”

If you’re looking for a shortcut to finding absolute value investors today, it’s a safe bet you’ll find them atop the “%age portfolio cash” list.  And at the bottom of the “YTD relative return” list.  They are, in short, the guys you’re now railing against.

But should you be?

I spent a chunk of December talking with guys who’ve managed five-star funds and who were loved by the crowds but who are now suspected of having doubled-up on their intake of Stupid Pills.  They are, on whole, stoic. 

Take-aways from those conversations:

1. They hate cash.  As a matter of fact, it’s second on their most-hated list behind only “risking permanent impairment of capital”.
2. They’re not perma-bears. They love owning stocks. These are, by and large, guys who sat around reading The Intelligent Investor during recess and get tingly at the thought of visiting Omaha. But they love them for the prospect of the substantial, compounded returns they might generate.  The price of those outsized returns, though, is waiting for one of the market’s periodic mad sales.
3. They bought stocks like mad in early 2009, around the time that the rest of us were becoming nauseated at the thought of opening our 401(k) statements. Richard Cook and Dowe Bynum, for example, were at 2% cash in March 2009.  Eric Cinnamond was, likewise, fully invested then.
4. They’ve been through this before though, as Mr. Cinnamond notes, “it isn’t very fun.”  The market moves in multi-year cycles, generally five years long more or less. While each cycle is different in composition, they all have similar features: the macro environment turns accommodative, stocks rise, the fearful finally rush in, stocks overshoot fair value by a lot, there’s an “oops” and a mass exit for the door.  Typically, the folks who arrived late inherit the bulk of the pain.
5. And they know you’re disgusted with them. Mr. Cinnamond, whose fund has compounded at 12% annually for the past 15 years, allows “we get those long-term returns by looking very stupid.”  Richard Cook agrees, “we’re going to look silly, sometimes for three to five years at a stretch.”  Zac Wydra admits that he sometimes looks at himself in the mirror and asks “how can you be so stupid?”

And to those investors who declare, “but the market is reasonably priced,” they reply: “we don’t buy ‘the market.’  We buy stocks.  Find the individual stocks that meet the criteria that you hired us to apply, and we’ll buy them.”

What do they think you should do now?  In general, be patient.  Mr. Cook points to Charlie Munger’s observation:

I think the [Berkshire Hathaway’s] record shows the advantage of a peculiar mind-set – not seeking action for its own sake, but instead combining extreme patience with extreme decisiveness. It takes character to sit there with all that cash and do nothing. I didn’t get to where I am by going after mediocre opportunities.

Which is hard.  Several of the guys pointed to Seth Klarman’s decision to return $4 billion in capital to his hedge fund investors this month. Klarman made the decision in principle back in September, arguing that if there were no compelling investment opportunities, he’d start mailing out checks.  Two things are worth noting about Klarman: (1) his hedge funds have posted returns in the high teens for over 30 years and (2) he’s willing to sit at 33-50% cash for a long time if that’s what it takes to generate big long-term returns.

Few managers have Klarman’s record or ability to wait out markets.  Mr. Cinnamond noted, “there aren’t many fund managers with a long track record doing this because you’re so apt to get fired.”  Jeremy Grantham of GMO nods, declaring that “career risk” is often a greater driver of a manager’s decisions than market risk is.

In general, the absolute value guys suggest you think differently about their funds than you think about fully-invested relative value ones.  Cook and Bynum’s institutional partners think of them as “alternative asset managers,” rather than equity guys and they regard value-leaning hedge funds as their natural peer group.  John Deysher, manager of Pinnacle Value (PVFIX), recommends considering “cash-adjusted returns” as a viable measure, though Mr. Cinnamond disagrees since a manager investing in unpopular, undervalued sectors in a momentum driven market is still going to look inept.

Our bottom line: investors need to take a lot more responsibility if they’re going to thrive.  That means we’ve got to look beyond simple return numbers and ask, instead, about what decisions led to those returns.  That means actually reading your managers’ commentaries, contacting the fund reps with specific questions (if your questions are thoughtful rather more than knee-jerk, you’d be surprised at the quality of answers you receive) and asking the all-important question, “is my manager doing precisely what I hired him to do: to be stubbornly independent, fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful?” 

Alternately: buy a suite of broadly diversified, low-cost index funds.  There are several really solid funds-of-index-funds that give you broad exposure to market risk with no exposure to manager risk.  The only thing that you need to avoid at all costs is the herd: do not pay active management prices for the services of managers whose only goal is to be no different than every other timid soul out there.

The Absolute Value Guys

* FPACX’s “moderate allocation” competitors were caught holding bonds this year, dumber even than holding cash.

Don’t worry, relative value guys.  Morningstar’s got your back.

Earnings at S&P500 companies grew by 11% in 2013, through late December, and they paid out a couple percent in dividends.  Arguably, then, stocks are worth about 13% more than they were in January.  Unfortunately, the prices paid for those stocks rose by more than twice that amount.  Stocks rose by 32.4% in 2013, with the Dow setting 50 all-time record highs in the process. One might imagine that if prices started at around fair value and then rose 2.5 times as much as earnings did, valuations would be getting stretched.  Perhaps overvalued by 19% (simple subtraction of the earnings + dividend rise from the price + dividend rise)?

Not to worry, Morningstar’s got you covered.  By their estimation, valuations are up only 5% on the year – from fully valued in January to 5% high at year’s end.  They concluded that it’s certainly not time to reconsider your mad rush into US equities.  (Our outlook for the stock market, 12/27/2013.) While the author, Matthew Coffina, did approvingly quote Warren Buffett on market timing:

Charlie and I believe it’s a terrible mistake to try to dance in and out of it based upon the turn of tarot cards, the predictions of “experts,” or the ebb and flow of business activity. The risks of being out of the game are huge compared to the risks of being in it.

He didn’t, however, invoke what Warren Buffett terms “the three most important words in all of investing,” margin of safety.  Because you can’t be sure of a firm’s exact value, you always need to pay less than you think it’s worth – ideally 30 or 40% less – in order to protect your investors against your own fallible judgment. 

Quo Vadis Japan

I go out of the darkness

Onto a road of darkness

Lit only by the far off

Moon on the edge of the mountains.

Izumi

One of the benefits of having had multiple careers and a plethora of interests is that friends and associates always stand ready with suggestions for you to occupy your time. In January of 2012, a former colleague and good friend from my days with the Navy’s long-range strategic planning group suggested that I might find it interesting to attend the Second China Defense and Security Conference at the Jamestown Foundation. That is how I found myself seated in a conference room in February with roughly a hundred other people. My fellow attendees were primarily from the various alphabet soup governmental agencies and mid-level military officers. 

The morning’s presentations might best be summed up as grudging praise about the transformation of the Chinese military, especially their navy, from a regional force to one increasingly able to project power throughout Asia and beyond to carry out China’s national interests. When I finally could not stand it any longer, after a presentation during Q&A, I stuck my hand up and asked why there was absolutely no mention of the 600 pound gorilla in the corner of the room, namely Japan and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force. The JMSDF was and is either the second or third largest navy in the world. It is considered by many professional observers to be extraordinarily capable. The silence that greeted my question was akin to what one would observe if I had brought in a dog that had peed on the floor. The moderator muttered a few comments about the JMSDF having fine capabilities. We then went on with no mention of Japan again. At that point I realized I had just learned the most important thing that I was going to take from the conference, that Japan (and its military) had become the invisible country of Asia. 

The New Year is when as an investor you reflect back on successes and mistakes. And if one is especially introspective, one can ponder why. For most of 2013, I was banging the drum on two investment themes that made sense to me:  (a) the Japanese equity market and (b) the Japanese currency – the yen – hedged back into U.S. dollars. The broad Japanese market touched highs this month not seen before this century. The dollar – yen exchange rate moved from 89.5 at the beginning of the year to 105.5. In tandem, the themes have proven to be quite profitable. Had an investment been made solely in the Wisdom Tree: Japan Hedged Equity ETF, a total return of 41.8% would have been achieved by the U.S. dollar investor. So, is this another false start for both the Japanese stock market and economy? Or is Japan on the cusp of an economic and political transformation?   

When I mention to institutional investors that I think the change in Japan is real, the most common response I get is a concern about “Abenomics.” This is usually expressed as “They are printing an awful lot of money.”  Give me a break.  Ben Bernanke and his little band of merry Fed governors have effectively been printing money with their various QE efforts. Who thinks that money will be repaid or the devaluation of the U.S. dollar will be reversed?  The same can be said of the EU central bankers.  If anything, the U.S. has been pursuing a policy of beggar thy creditor, since much of our debt is owed to others.  At least in Japan, they owe the money to themselves. They have also gone through years of deflation without the social order and fabric of society breaking down. One wonders how the U.S. would fare in a similar long-term deflationary environment. 

I think the more important distinction is to emphasize what “Abenomics” is not.  It is not a one-off program of purchasing government bonds with a view towards going from a multi-year deflationary spiral to generating a few points of inflation.  It is a comprehensive program aimed at reversing Japan’s economic, political, and strategic slide of the past twenty years. Subsumed under the rubric of “Abenomics” are efforts to increase and widen the acceptance of child care facilities to enable more of Japan’s female talent pool to actively participate in the workforce, a shift in policy for the investments permitted in pension funds to dramatically increase domestic equity exposure, and incentives to transform the Japanese universities into research and resource engines. Similarly, the Japanese economy is beginning to open from a closed economy to one of free trade, especially in agriculture, as Japan has joined the Trans Pacific Partnership. Finally, public opinion has shifted dramatically to a willingness to contemplate revision of Japan’s American-drafted post-war Constitution. This would permit a standing military and a more active military posture. It would normalize Japan as a global nation, and restore a balance of interests and power in East Asia. The ultimate goal then is to restore the self-confidence of the Japanese nation.  So, what awakened Japan and the Japanese?

Strangely enough, the Chinese did it. I have been in Japan four times in the last twenty-two months, which does not make me an expert on anything. But it has allowed me to discern a shift in the mood of the country. Long-time Japan hands had told me that when public opinion in Japan shifts, it shifts all at once and moves together in the same direction. Several months ago, I asked a friend and investment manager who is a long-time resident of Tokyo what had caused that shift in opinion. His response was that most individuals, he as well, traced it to the arrest and detention by the Japanese Coast Guard, of a Chinese fishing vessel and its captain who had strayed into Japanese waters. China responded aggressively, embargoing rare earth materials that the Japanese electronics and automobile industries needed, and made other public bellicose noises. Riots and torching of Japanese plants in China followed, with what seemed to be the tacit approval of the Chinese government. Japan released the ship and its captain, and in Asian parlance, lost face. As my friend explained it, the Japanese public came to the conclusion that the Chinese government was composed of bad people whose behavior was unacceptable. Concurrently, Japan Inc. began to relocate its overseas investment away from China and into countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore.

From an investment point of view, what does it all mean? First, one should not look at Prime Minister Abe, Act II (remember that he was briefly in office for 12 months in 2006-2007) in a vacuum. Like Reagan and Churchill, he used his time in the “wilderness years” to rethink what he wanted to achieve for Japan and how he would set about doing it. Second, one of the things one learns about Japan and the Japanese is that they believe in their country and generally trust their government, and are prepared to invest in Japan. This is in stark contrast to China, where if the rumors of capital flows are to be believed, vast sums of money are flowing out of the country through Hong Kong and Singapore. So, after the above events involving China, Abe’s timing in return to office was timely. 

While Japanese equities have surged this year, that surge has been primarily in the large cap liquid issues that are easily studied and invested in by global firms. Most U.S. firms follow the fly-by approach. Go to Tokyo for a week of company meetings, and invest accordingly. Few firms make the commitment of having resources on the ground. That is why if you look at most U.S.-based Japan specialist mutual funds, they all own pretty much the same large cap liquid names, with only the percentages and sector weightings varying. There are tiers of small and mid-cap companies that are under-researched and under-invested in.  If this is the beginning of a secular bull market, as we saw start in the U.S. in 1982, Japan will just be at the beginnings of eliminating the value gap between intrinsic value and the market price of securities, especially in the more inefficiently-traded and under-researched companies. 

So, as Lenin once famously asked, “What is to be done?”  For most individuals, individual stock investments are out of the question, given the currency, custody, language, trading, and tax issues. For exposure to the asset class, there is a lot to be said for a passive approach through an index fund or exchange-traded fund, of which there are a number with relatively low expense ratios. Finally, there are the fifteen or so Japan-only mutual funds. I am only aware of three that are small-cap vehicles – DFA, Fidelity, and Hennessy. There are also two actively-managed closed end funds. I will look to others to put together performance numbers and information that will allow you to research the area and draw your own conclusions.  

Finally, it should be obvious that Japan does not lend itself to simple explanations. As Americans, we are often in a time-warp, thinking that with the atomic bombs, American Occupation and force-fed Constitution, we successfully transformed Japan into a pacifist democratically-styled Asian theme park.  My conclusion is rather that what you see in Japan is not reality (whatever that is) but what they are comfortable with you seeing. I think for instance of the cultural differences with China in a business sense.  With the Chinese businessman, a signed contract is in effect the beginning of the negotiation.  For the Japanese businessman, a signed contract is a commitment to be honored to the letter.

I will leave you with one thing to ponder shared with me by a Japanese friend. She told me that the samurai have been gone for a long time in Japan. But, everyone in Japan still knows who the samurai families are and everyone knows who is of those families and who is not. And she said, everyone from those families still tends to marry into other samurai families.  So I thought, perhaps they are not gone after all.  

Edward Studzinski

From Day One …

… the Observer’s readers were anxious to have us publish lists of Great Funds, as FundAlarm did with its Honor Roll funds.  For a long time I demurred because I was afraid folks would take such a list too seriously.  That is, rather than viewing it as a collection of historical observations, they’d see it as a shopping list. 

After two years and unrelenting inquires, I prevailed upon my colleague Charles to look at whether we could produce a list of funds that had great track records but, at the same time, highlight the often-hidden data concerning those funds’ risks.  With that request and Charles’s initiative, the Great Owl Funds were launched.

And now Charles returns to that troubling original question: what can we actually learn about the future from a fund’s past?

In Search of Persistence

It outperformed nearly 3/4ths of the time, while it under-performed only 5%. NAINX essentially equaled or beat its peers 194 out of 205 periods. Encouraged, the investor purchases the fund making a long-term commitment to buy-and-hold.

It’s now 2013, twenty years later. How has NAINX performed? To the investor’s horror, Virtus Tactical Allocation underperformed 3/4ths of the time since purchased! And the fund that outperformed most persistently? Mairs & Power Balanced (MAPOX), of course.

Back to 1993. This time a more aggressive investor applies the same methodology to the large growth category and finds an extraordinary fund, named Fidelity Magellan (FMAGX).  This fund outperformed nearly 100% of the time across 205 rolling 3-year periods over 20 years versus 31 other long-time peers. But during the next 20 years…? Not well, unfortunately. This investor would have done better choosing Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX). How can this be? Most industry experts would attribute the colossal shift in FMAGX performance to the resignation of legendary fund manager Peter Lynch in 1990.

MJG, one of the heavy contributors to MFO’s discussion board, posts regularly about the difficulty of staying on top of one’s peer group, often citing results from Standard & Poor’s Index Versus Active Indexing (SPIVA) reports. Here is the top lesson-learned from ten years of these reports:

“Over a five-year horizon…a majority of active funds in most categories fail to outperform indexes. If an investing horizon is five years or longer, a passive approach may be preferable.”

The December 2013 SPIVA “Persistence Scorecard” has just been published, which Joshua Brown writes insightfully about in “Persistence is a Killer.” The scorecard once again shows that only a small fraction of top performing domestic equity mutual funds remain on top across any 2, 3, or 5 year period.

What does mutual fund non-persistence look like across 40 years? Here’s one depiction:

The image (or “mural”) represents monthly rank by color-coded quintiles of risk-adjusted returns, specifically Martin Ratio, for 101 funds across five categories. The funds have existed for 40 years through September 2013. The calculations use total monthly returns of oldest share class only, ignoring any load, survivor bias, and category drift.  Within each category, the funds are listed alphabetically.

There are no long blue/green horizontal streaks. If anything, there seem to be more extended orange/red streaks, suggesting that if mutual fund persistence does exist, it’s in the wrong quintiles! (SPIVA actually finds similar result and such bottom funds tend to end-up merged or liquated.)

Looking across the 40 years of 3-year rolling risk-adjusted returns, some observations:

• 98% of funds spent some periods in every rank level…top, bottom, and all in-between
• 35% landed in the bottom two quintiles most of the time…that’s more than 1/3^rd of all funds
• 13% were in the top two bottom quintiles…apparently harder to be persistently good than bad
• Sequoia (SEQUX) was the most persistent top performer…one of greatest mutual funds ever
• Wall Street (WALLX) was the most persistent cellar dweller…how can it still exist?

The difference in overall return between the most persistent winner and loser is breathtaking: SEQUX delivered 5.5 times more than SP500 and 16 times more than WALLX. Put another way, $10K invested in SEQUX in October 1973 is worth nearly $3M today. Here’s how the comparison looks:

So, while attaining persistence may be elusive, the motivation to achieve it is clear and present.

The implication of a lack of persistence strikes at the core of all fund rating methodologies that investors try to use to predict future returns, at least those based only on historical returns. It is, of course, why Kiplinger, Money, and Morningstar all try to incorporate additional factors, like shareholder friendliness, experience, and strategy, when compiling their Best Funds lists. An attempt, as Morningstar well states, to identify “funds with the highest potential of success.”

The MFO rating system was introduced in June 2013. The current 20-year Great Owls, shown below for moderate allocation and large growth categories, include funds that have achieved top performance rank over the past 20, 10, 5, and 3 year evaluation periods. (See Rating Definitions.)

But will they be Great Owls next year? The system is strictly quantitative based on past returns, which means, alas, a gentle and all too ubiquitous reminder that past performance is not a guarantee of future results. (More qualitative assessments of fund strategy, stewardship, and promise are provided monthly in David’s fund profiles.) In any case and in the spirit of SPIVA, we will plan to publish periodically a Great Owl “Persistence Scorecard.”

31Dec2013/Charles

It’s not exciting just because the marketers say it is

Most mutual funds don’t really have any investment reason to exist: they’re mostly asset gathering tools that some advisor created in support of its business model. Even the funds that do have a compelling case to make often have trouble receiving a fair hearing, so I’m sympathetic to the need to find new angles and new pitches to try to get journalists’ and investors’ attention.

But the fact that a marketer announces it doesn’t mean that journalists need to validate it through repetition. And it doesn’t mean that you should just take in what we’ve written.

Case in point: BlackRock Emerging Markets Long/Short Fund (BLSAX).  Here’s the combination of reasonable and silly statements offered in a BlackRock article justifying long/short investing:

For example, our access to information relies on cutting edge infrastructure to compile vast amounts of obvious and less-obvious sources of publicly available information. In fact, we consume a massive amount of data from more than 25 countries, with a storage capacity 4 times the Library of Congress and 8 times the size of Wikipedia. We take that vast quantity of publicly available information and filter and identify relevant pieces.

Reasonable statement: we do lots of research.  Silly statement: we have a really big hard drive on our computer (“a storage capacity of…”).  Why on earth would we care?  And what on earth does it mean?  “4 times the Library of Congress”?  The LoC digital collection – a small fraction of its total collection – holds three petabytes of data, a statement that folks immediately recognize as nonsensical.  3,000,000 gigabytes.  So the BlackRock team has a 12 petabyte hard drive?  12 petabytes of data?  How’s it used?  How much is reliable, consistent, contradictory or outdated?  How much value do you get from data so vast that you’ll never comprehend it?

NSA’s biggest “data farm” consumes 65 megawatts of power, has melted down 10 times, and – by the fed’s own reckoning – still hasn’t produced demonstrable security gains.  Data ≠ knowledge.

The Google, by the way, processes 20 petabytes of user-generated content per day.

Nonetheless, Investment News promptly and uncritically gloms onto the factoid, and then gets it twice wrong:

The Scientific Active Equity team takes quantitative investing to a whole new level. In fact, the team has amassed so much data on publicly traded companies that its database is now four times the size of Wikipedia and eight times the size of the Library of Congress (Jason Kephart, Beyond black box investing: Fund uses database four times the size of Wikipedia, 12/26/13).

Error 1: reversing the LoC and the Wikipedia.  Error 2: conflating “storage capacity” with “data.” (And, of course, confusing “pile o’ data” with “something meaningful.”)

MFWire promptly grabs the bullhorn to share the errors and the credulity:

This Fund Uses the Data of Eight Libraries of Congress (12/26/13, Boxing Day for our British friends)

The team managing the fund uses gigantic amounts of data — four times the size of Wikipedia and eight times the size of the Library of Congress — on public company earnings, analyst calls, news releases, what have you, to gain on insights into different stocks, according to Kephart.

Our second, perhaps larger, point of disagreement with Jason (who, in fairness, generally does exceptionally solid work) comes in his enthusiasm for one particular statistic:

That brings us to perhaps the fund’s most impressive stat, and the one advisers really need to keep their eyes on: its correlation to global equities.

Based on weekly returns through the third quarter, the most recent data available, the fund has a correlation of just 0.38 to the MSCI World Index and a correlation of 0.36 to the S&P 500. Correlations lower than 0.5 lead to better diversification and can lead to better risk-adjusted returns for the entire portfolio.

Uhhh.  No?

Why, exactly, is correlation The Golden Number?  And why is BlackRock’s correlation enough to make you tingle?  The BlackRock fund has been around just one year, so we don’t know its long-term correlation.  In December, it had a net market exposure of just 9% which actually makes a .36 correlation seem oddly high. BlackRock’s correlation is not distinctively low (Whitebox Long/Short WBLSX has a three-year correlation of 0.33, for instance). 

Nor is low correlation the hallmark of the best long-term funds in the group.  By almost any measure, the best long/short fund in existence is the closed Robeco Boston Partners L/S Equity Fund (BPLEX).  BPLEX is a five-star fund, a Lipper Leader, a Great Owl fund, with returns in the top 4% of its peer group over the past decade. And its long term correlation to the market: 75.  Wasatch Long/Short (FMLSX), another great fund with a long track record: 90. Marketfield (MFLDX), four-star, Great Owl: 67.

The case for BlackRock EM L/S is it’s open. It’s got a good record, though a short one.  In comparison to other, more-established funds, it substantially trails Long-Short Opportunity (LSOFX) since inception, is comparable to ASTON River Road (ARLSX) and Wasatch Long Short (FMLSX), while it leads Whitebox Long-Short (WBLSX), Robeco Boston Partners (BPLEX) and RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity (RLSFX). The fund has nearly $400 million in assets after one year and charges 2% expenses plus a 5.25% front load.  That’s more than ARLSX, WBLSX or FMLSX, though cheaper than LSOFX. 

Bottom Line: as writers, we need to guard against the pressures created by deadlines and the desire for “clicks.”  As readers, you need to realize we have good days and bad and you need to keep asking the questions we should be asking: what’s the context of this number?  What does it mean?  Why am I being given it? How does it compare?  And, as investors, we all need to remember that magic is more common in the world of Harry Potter than in the world we’re stuck with.

Wells Fargo and the Roll Call of the Wretched

Our Annual Roll Call of the Wretched highlights those funds which consistently, over a period of many years, trail their benchmark.  We noted that inclusion on the list signaled one of two problems:

• Bad fund or
• Bad benchmark.

The former problem is obvious.  The latter takes a word of explanation.  There are 7055 distinct mutual funds, each claiming – more or less legitimately – to be different from all of the others.   For the purpose of comparison, Morningstar and Lipper assign them to one of 108 categories.  Some funds fit easily and well, others are laughably misfit.  One example is RiverPark Short-Term High Yield Fund (RPHYX), which is a splendid cash management fund whose performance is being compared to the High-Yield group which is dominated by longer-duration bonds that carry equity-like risks and returns.

You get a sense of the mismatch – and of the reason that RPHYX was assigned one-star – when you compare the movements of the fund to the high-yield group.

That same problem afflicts Wells Fargo Advantage Short-Term High Yield Bond (SSTHX), an entirely admirable fund that returns around 4% per year over the long term in a category that delivers 50% greater returns with 150% greater volatility.  In Morningstar’s eyes, one star.

Joel Talish, one of the managing directors at Wells Fargo Advisors, raised the entirely reasonable objection that SSTHX isn’t wretched – it’s misclassified – and it shouldn’t be in the Roll Call at all. He might well be right. Our strategy has been to report all of the funds that pass the statistical screen, then to highlight those whose performance is better than the peer data suggest.  We don’t tend to remove funds from the list just because we believe that the ratings agencies are wrong. We’ve made that decision consciously: investors need to read these ubiquitous statistical screens more closely and more skeptically.  A pattern of results arises from a series of actions, and they’re meaningful only if you take the time to understand what’s going on. By highlighting solid funds that look bad because of a rater’s unexplained assignments, we’re trying to help folks learn how to look past the stars.

It might well be the case that highlighting and explaining SSTHX’s consistently one-star performance did a substantial disservice to the management team. It was a judgment call on our part and we’ll revisit it as we prepare future features.  For now, we’re hopeful that the point we highlighted at the start of the list: 

Use lists like the Roll Call of the Wretched or the Three Alarm Funds as a first step, not a final answer.  If you see a fund of yours on either list, find out why.  Call the adviser, read the prospectus, try the manager’s letter, post a question on our board.  There might be a perfectly good reason for their performance, there might be a perfectly awful one.  In either case, you need to know.

Observer Fund Profile

Each month the Observer provides in-depth profiles of notable funds that you’d otherwise not hear of.  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 Strategic Income (RSIVX): RSIVX sits at the core of Cohanzick’s competence, a conservative yet opportunistic strategy that they’ve pursued for two decades and that offers the prospect of doubling the returns of its very fine Short-Term High Yield Fund.

Elevator Talk: Oliver Pursche, GMG Defensive Beta Fund (MPDAX)

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. 

The traditional approach to buffering the stock market’s volatility without entirely surrendering the prospect of adequate returns was to divide the portfolio between (domestic, large cap) stocks and (domestic, investment grade) bonds, at a ratio of roughly 60/40.  That strategy worked passably well as long as stocks could be counted on to produce robust returns and bonds could be counted on to post solid though smaller gains without fail.  As the wheels began falling off that strategy, advisors began casting about for alternative strategies. 

Some, like the folks at Montebello Partners, began drawing lessons from the experience of hedge funds and institutional alternatives managers.  Their conclusion was that each asset class had one or two vital contributions to make to the health of the portfolio, but that exposure to those assets had to be actively managed if they were going to have a chance of producing equity-like (perhaps “equity-lite”) returns with substantial downside protection.

Their strategy is manifested in GMG Defensive Beta, which launched in the summer of 2009.  Its returns have generally overwhelmed those of its multi-alternative peers (top 3% over the past three years, substantially higher returns since inception) though at the cost of substantially higher volatility.  Morningstar rates it as a five-star fund, while Lipper gives it four stars for both Total Return and Consistency of Return and five stars for Capital Preservation.

Oliver Pursche is the president of Gary M Goldberg Financial Services (hence GMG) one of the four founding co-managers of MPDAX.  Here are his 218 words (on whole, durn close to target) on why you should consider a multi alternative strategy:

Markets are up, and as a result, so are the risks of a correction. I don’t think that a 2008-like crash is in the cards, but we could certainly see a 20% correction at some point. If you agree with me, protecting your hard fought gains makes all the sense in the world, which is why I believe low-volatility and multi-alternative funds like our GMG Defensive Beta Fund will continue to gain favor with investors. The problem is that most of these new funds have no, or only a short track-record, so it’s difficult to know how they will actually perform in a prolonged downturn. One thing is certain, in the absence of a longer-term track record, low fees and low turnover tend to be advantageous to investors. This is why our fund is a no-load fund and we cap our fees at 1.49%, well below most of our peers, and our cap gain distributions have been minimal.

From my perspective, if you’re looking to continue to have market exposure, but don’t want all of the risks associated with investing in the S&P 500, our fund is ideally suited. We’re strategic and tactical at the same time and have demonstrated our ability to remain disciplined, which is (I think) why Morningstar has awarded us a 5 Star ranking.

MPDAX is a no-load fund with a single share class.  The minimum initial investment is $1,000.   Expenses are 1.49% on about $27 million in assets.

The fund’s website is functional but spare.  You get the essential information, but there’s no particular wealth of insight or commentary on this strategy.  There’s a Morningstar reprint available but you should be aware that the file contains one page of data reporting and five pages of definitions and disclaimers.

Our earlier Elevator Talks were:

1. February 2013: Tom Kerr, Rocky Peak Small Cap Value (RPCSX), whose manager has a 14 year track record in small cap investing and a passion for discovering “value” in the intersection of many measures.  We’re saddened to report that Tom chose to liquidate the fund.
2. March 2013: Dale Harvey, Poplar Forest Partners (PFPFX and IPFPX), a concentrated, contrarian value stock fund that offers “a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest with a successful American Funds manager who went out on his own.”
3. April 2013: Bayard Closser, Vertical Capital Income Fund (VCAPX), “a closed-end interval fund, VCAPX invests in whole mortgage loans and first deeds of trust. We purchase the loans from lenders at a deep discount and service them ourselves.”
4. May 2013: Jim Hillary, LS Opportunity Fund (LSOFX), a co-founder of Marsico Capital Management whose worry that “the quality of research on Wall Street continues to decline and investors are becoming increasingly concerned about short-term performance” led to his faith in “in-depth research and long-term orientation in our high conviction ideas.”
5. July 2013: Casey Frazier, Versus Capital Multi-Manager Real Estate Income Fund (VCMRX), a second closed-end interval fund whose portfolio “includes real estate private equity and debt, public equity and debt, and broad exposure across asset types and geographies. We target a mix of 70% private real estate with 30% public real estate to enhance liquidity, and our objective is to produce total returns in the 7 – 9% range net of fees.”
6. August 2013: Brian Frank, Frank Value Fund (FRNKX), a truly all-cap value fund with a simple, successful discipline: if one part of the market is overpriced, shop elsewhere.
7. August 2013: Ian Mortimer and Matthew Page of Guinness Atkinson Inflation Managed Dividend (GAINX), a global equity fund that pursues firms with “sustainable and potentially rising dividends,” which also translates to firms with robust business models and consistently high return on capital.
8. September 2013: Steven Vannelli of GaveKal Knowledge Leaders (GAVAX), which looks to invest in “the best among global companies that are tapping a deep reservoir of intangible capital to generate earnings growth,” where “R&D, design, brand and channel” are markers of robust intangible capital. From launch through the end of June, 2013, the fund modestly outperformed the MSCI World Index and did so with two-thirds less volatility
9. October 2013: Bashar Qasem of Wise Capital (WISEX), which provides investors with an opportunity for global diversification in a fund category (short term bonds) mostly distinguished by bland uniformity.
10. November 2013: Jeffrey Ringdahl of American Beacon Flexible Bond (AFXAX) gives teams from Brandywine Global, GAM and PIMCO incredible leeway wth which to pursue “positive total return regardless of market conditions.” Since inception the fund has noticeably outrun its “nontraditional bond” peers with reasonable volatility.

Conference Call Highlights

On December 9^th, about 50 of us spent a rollicking hour with David Sherman of Cohanzick Asset Management, discussing his new fund: RiverPark Strategic Income Fund (RSIVX).  I’m always amazed at how excited folks can get about short-term bonds and dented credits.  It’s sort of contagious.

David’s first fund with RiverPark, the now-closed Short Term High Yield (RPHYX), was built around Cohanzick’s strategy for managing its excess cash.  Strategic Income represents their seminal, and core, strategy to fixed-income investing.  Before launching Cohanzick in 1996, David was a Vice President of Leucadia National Corporation, a holding company that might be thought of as a mini-Berkshire Hathaway. His responsibilities there included helping to manage a $3 billion investment portfolio which had an opportunistic distressed securities flair.  When he founded Cohanzick, Leucadia was his first client.  They entrusted him with $150 million, this was the strategy he used to invest it.

Rather than review the fund’s portfolio, which we cover in this month’s profile of it (below), we’ll highlight strategy and his response to listener questions.

The fund focuses on “money good” securities.  Those are securities where, if held to maturity, he’s confident that he’ll get his entire principal and all of the interest due to him.  They’re the sorts of securities where, if the issuer files for bankruptcy, he still anticipates eventually receiving his principal and interest plus interest on his interest.  Because he expects to be able to hold securities to maturity, he doesn’t care about “the taper” and its effects – he’ll simply hold on through any kerfuffle and benefit from regular payments that flow in much like an annuity stream.  These are, he says, bonds that he’d have his mother hold.

Given that David’s mother was one of the early investors in the fund, these are bonds his mother holds.  He joked that he serves as a sort of financial guarantor for her standard of living (if her portfolio doesn’t produce sufficient returns to cover her expenses, he has to reach for his checkbook), he’s very motivated to get this right.

While the fund might hold a variety of securities, they hold little international exposure and no emerging markets debt. They’re primarily invested in North American (77%) and European(14%)  corporate debt, in firms where the accounting is clear and nations where the laws are. The fund’s investment mandate is very flexible, so they can actively hedge portfolio positions (and might) and they can buy income-producing equities (but won’t).

The portfolio focuses on non-investment grade securities, mostly in the B – BB range, but that’s consistent with his intention not to lose his investors’ money. He values liquidity in his investments; that is to say, he doesn’t get into investments that he can’t quickly get out of.  The fund has been letting cash build, and it’s now about 30% of the portfolio.  David’s general preference is to get out too early and lose some potential returns, rather than linger too long and suffer the risk of permanent impairment.

There were rather more questions from callers than we had time to field.  Some of the points we did get to talk about:

David is not impressed with the values available in one- to three-year bonds, they’ve been subject to too much buying by the anxious herd.  He’s currently finding better values in three- to five-year bonds, especially those which are not included in the major bond indexes.  There is, he says, “a lot of high yield value outside of indexed issues.”

About 50% of the corporate bond market qualifies as “high yield,” which gives him lots of opportunities.

This could function as one’s core bond portfolio.  While there will be more NAV volatility because of mark-to-market rules (that is, you have to ask “what would I get if I stupidly decided to sell my entire portfolio in the midst of a particular day’s market panic”), the risk of permanent impairment of capital occurs only if he’s made a mistake.

Munis are a possibility, but they’re not currently cheap enough to be attractive.

If there’s a limited supply of a security that would be appropriate for both Short-Term and here, Short-Term gets dibs.

Cohanzick is really good at pricing their portfolio securities.  At one level, they use an independent pricing service.  At another, getting the price right has been a central discipline since the firm’s founding and he’s comfortable with his ability to do so even with relatively illiquid names.

At base, David believes the fund can generate returns in the 7-8% range with minimal risk of capital loss.  Given his record with Cohanzick and RPHYX, we are confident that he’s capable of delivering on that promise.  By way of full disclosure: In aligning our mouths and our money, both Chip and I added RSIVX to our personal portfolios this fall.  Once we work out all of the Observer’s year-end finances, we also intend to transfer a portion of the money now in MFO’s credit union savings account into an investment in this fund.

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

The RSIVX conference call

As with all of these funds, we’ve created a new featured funds page for the RiverPark Strategic Income Fund, pulling together all of the best resources we have for the fund.

January Conference Call: Matt Moran, ASTON River Road Long/Short

Last winter we spent time talking with the managers of really promising hedged funds, including a couple who joined us on conference calls.  The fund that best matched my own predilections was ASTON River Road Long/Short (ARLSX), extensive details on which appear on our ARLSX Featured Fund Page.   In our December 2012 call, manager Matt Moran argued that:

1. The fund might outperform the stock market by 200 bps/year over a full, 3-5 year market cycle.
2. The fund can maintain a beta at 0.3 to 0.5, in part because of their systematic Drawdown Plan.
3. Risk management is more important than return management, so all three of their disciplines are risk-tuned.

I was sufficiently impressed that I chose to invest in the fund.  That does not say that we believe this is “the best” long/short fund (an entirely pointless designation), just that it’s the fund that best matched my own concerns and interests.  The fund returned 18% in 2013, placing it in the top third of all long/short funds.

Matt and co-manager Dan Johnson have agreed to join us for a second conversation.  That call is scheduled for Wednesday, January 15, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern.  Please note that this is one day later than our original announcement. Matt has been kicking around ideas for what he’d like to talk about.  His short-list includes:

• How we think about our performance in 2013 and, in particular, why we’re satisfied with it given our three mandates (equity-like returns, reduced volatility, capital preservation)
• Where we are finding value on the long side.  It’s a struggle…
• How we’re surviving on the short side.  It’s a huge challenge.  Really, how many marginal businesses can keep hanging on because of the Fed’s historic generosity?  Stocks must ultimately earn what underlying business earns and a slug of these firms are earning …
• But, too, our desire not to be carried out in body bags on short side.
• The fact that we sleep better at night with Drawdown Plan in place.  

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. 

For those of you new to our conference calls, here’s the short version: we set up an audio-only phone conversation, you register and receive an 800-number and a PIN, our guest talks for about 20 minutes on his fund’s genesis and strategy, I ask questions for about 20, and then our listeners get to chime in with questions of their own.  A couple days later we post an .mp3 of the call and highlights of the conversation. 

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.

February Conference Call: Joshua B. Parker and Alan Salzbank, RiverPark / Gargoyle Hedged Value

We extend our conversation with hedged fund managers in a conversation with Messrs. Parker and Salzbank, whose RiverPark / Gargoyle Hedged Value (RGHVX) we profiled last June, but with whom we’ve never spoken. 

Gargoyle is a converted hedge fund.  The hedge fund launched in 1999 and the strategy was converted to a mutual fund on April 30, 2012.  Rather than shorting stocks, the strategy is to hold a diversified portfolio mid- to large-cap value stocks, mostly domestic, and to hedge part of the stock market risk by selling a blend of index call options. That value focus is both distinctive and sensible; the strategy’s stock portfolio has outperformed the S&P500 by 4.5% per year over the past 23 years. The options overlay generates 1.5 – 2% in premium income per month. The fund ended 2013 with a 29% gain, which beat 88% of its long/short peers.

That call is scheduled for Wednesday, February 12, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern.  We’ll provide additional details in our February issue.  

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.

Launch Alert: Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility Fund (VMVFX)

Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility Fund (VMVFX) launched on December 12, 2013.  It’s Vanguard’s answer to the craze for “smart beta,” a strategy that seemingly promises both higher returns and lower risk over time.  Vanguard dismisses the possibility with terms like “new-age investment alchemy,” and promise instead to provide reasonable returns with lower risk than an equity investor would otherwise be subject to.  They are, they say, “trying to deliver broadly diversified exposure to the equity asset class, with lower average volatility over time than the market. We will use quantitative models to assess the expected volatility of stocks and correlation to one another.”  They also intend to hedge currency risk in order to further dampen volatility. 

Most portfolios are constructed with an eye to maximizing returns within a set of secondary constraints (for example, market cap).  Volatility is then a sort of fallout from the system.  Vanguard reverses the process here by working to minimize the volatility of an all-equity portfolio within a set of secondary constraints dealing with diversification and liquidity.  Returns are then a sort of fallout from the design.  Vanguard recently explained the fund’s distinctiveness in Our new fund offering: What it is and what it isn’t.

The fund will be managed by James D. Troyer, James P. Stetler, and Michael R. Roach.  They are members of the management teams for about a dozen other Vanguard funds.

The Investor share class has a $3,000 minimum initial investment.  The opening expense ratio is 0.30%.

MFS made its first foray into low-volatility investing this month, launching MFS Low Volatility Equity (MLVAX) and MFS Low Volatility Global Equity (MVGAX) just one week before Vanguard. The former will target a volatility level that is 20% lower than that of the S&P 500 Index over a full market cycle, while the latter will target 30% less volatility than the MSCI All Country World Index.  The MFS funds charge about four times what Vanguard does.

Launch Alert II: Meridian Small Cap Growth Advisor (MSGAX)

Meridian Small Cap Growth Fund launched on December 16^th.  The prospectus says very little about what the managers will be doing: “The portfolio managers apply a ‘bottom up’ fundamental research process in selecting investments. In other words, the portfolio managers analyze individual companies to determine if a company presents an attractive investment opportunity and if it is consistent with the Fund’s investment strategies and policies.”

Nevertheless, the fund warrants – and will receive – considerable attention because of the pedigree of its managers.  Chad Meade and Brian Schaub managed Janus Triton (JATTX) together from 2006 – May 2013.  During their tenure, they managed to turn an initial $10,000 investment into $21,400 by the time they departed; their peers would have parlayed $10,000 into just over $14,000.  The more remarkable fact is that the managed it with a low turnover (39%, half the group average), relatively low risk (beta = .80, S.D. about 3 points below their peers) strategy.  Understandably, the fund’s assets soared to $6 billion and it morphed from focused on small caps to slightly larger names.  Regrettably, Janus decided that wasn’t grounds for closing the fund.

Messrs Meade and Schaub joined Arrowpoint Partners in May 2013.  Arrowpoint famously is the home of a cadre of Janus alumni (or escapees, depending):  David Corkins, Karen Reidy, Tony Yao, Minyoung Sohn and Rick Grove.  Together they managed over $2 billion.  In June, they purchased Aster Investment Management, advisor to the Meridian funds, adding nearly $3 billion more in assets.  We’ll reach out to the Arrowpoint folks early in the new year.

The Advisor share class is available no-load and NTF through brokerages like Scottrade, with a $2,500 minimum initial investment.  The opening expense ratio is 1.60%.

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 March, 2014 and some of the prospectuses do highlight that date.

And there were a lot of funds targeting a year-end launch. Every day David Welsch, firefighter/EMT/fund researcher, scours new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves. This month he tracked down 15 no-load retail funds in registration, which represents our core interest. That number is down from what we’d normally see because these funds won’t launch until February 2014; whenever possible, firms prefer to launch by December 30^th and so force a lot of funds into the pipeline in October.

Interesting entries this month include:

Artisan High Income Fund will invest in high yield corporate bonds and debt.  There are two major distinctions here.  First, it is Artisan’s first fixed-income fund.  Second, Artisan has always claimed that they’re only willing to hire managers who will be “category-killers.”  If you look at Artisan’s returns, you’ll get a sense of how very good they are at that task.  Their new high-yield manager, and eventual head of a new, autonomous high-yield team, is Bryan C. Krug who ran the $10 billion, five star Ivy High Income Fund (WHIYX) for the past seven years.  The minimum initial investment will be $1000 for Investor shares and $250,000 for Advisor shares.  The initial expense ratio will be 1.25% for both Investor and Advisor shares.

Brown Advisory Japan Alpha Opportunities Fund will pursue total return by investing principally in Japanese stocks.  The fund will be constructed around a series of distinct “sleeves,” each with its own distinct risk profile but they don’t explain what they might be. They may invest in common and preferred stock, futures, convertibles, options, ADRs and GDR, REITs and ETFs.  While they advertise an all-cap portfolio, they do flag small cap and EM risks.  The fund will be managed by a team from Wellington Management.  The minimum initial investment will be $5000.  The initial expense ratio will be 1.36%. 

Perritt Low Priced Stock Fund will pursue long-term capital appreciation by investing in small cap stocks priced at $15 or less.  I’m a bit ambivalent but could be talked into liking it.  The lead manager also runs Perritt Microcap (PRCGX) and Ultra MicroCap (PREOX), both of which are very solid funds with good risk profiles.  Doubtless he can do it here.  That said, the whole “under $15” thing strikes me as a marketing ploy and a modestly regrettable one. What benefit does that stipulation really offer the investors?  The minimum initial investment will be $1000, reduced to $250 for all sorts of good reasons, and the initial expense ratio will be 1.5%. 

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 40 fund manager changes.  The most intriguing of those include what appears to be the abrupt dismissal of Ken Feinberg, one of the longest-serving managers in the Davis/Selected Funds, and PIMCO’s decision to add to Bill Gross’s workload by having him fill in for a manager on sabbatical.

Updates

There are really very few emerging markets investors which whom I’d trust my money.  Robert Gardiner and Andrew Foster are at the top of the list.  There are notable updates on both this month.

Grandeur Peak Emerging Opportunities (GPEOX) launched two weeks ago, hasn’t released a word about its portfolio, has earned one half of one percent for its investors . . . and has drawn nearly $100 million in assets.  Mr. Gardiner and company have a long-established plan to close the fund at $200 million.  I’d encourage interested parties to (quickly!) read our review of Grandeur Peak’s flagship Global Reach fund.  If you’re interested in a reasonably assertive, small- to mid-cap fund, you may have just a few weeks to establish your account before the fund closes.  The advisor does not intend to market the fund to the general public until February 1, by which time it might well be at capacity.

Investors understandably assume that an e.m. small cap fund is necessarily, and probably substantially, riskier than a more-diversified e.m. fund. That assumption might be faulty. By most measures (standard deviation and beta, for example) it’s about 15% more volatile than the average e.m. fund, but part of that volatility is on the upside. In the past five years, emerging markets equities have fallen in six of 20 quarters.   We can look at the performance of DFA’s semi-passive Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund (DEMSX) to gauge the downside of these funds. 

The same pattern is demonstrated by Templeton E.M. Small Cap (TEMMX): higher beta but surprising resilience in declining quarters.  For aggressive investors, a $2,000 foot-in-the-door position might well represent a rational balance between the need for more information and the desire to maintain their options.

Happily, there’s an entirely-excellent alternative to GPEOX and it’s not (yet) near closing to new investors.

Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX and SIGIX) is beginning to draw well-earned attention. Seafarer offers a particularly risk-conscious approach to emerging markets investing.  It offers a compact (40 names), all-cap portfolio (20% in small- and microcap names and 28% in mid-caps, both vastly higher than its peers) that includes both firms domiciled in the emerging markets (about 70%) and those headquartered in the developing world but profiting from the emerging one (30%). It finished 2013 up 5.5%, which puts it in the top tier of all emerging markets funds. 

That’s consistent with both manager Andrew Foster’s record at his former charge (Matthews Asian Growth & Income MACSX which was one of the two top Asian funds in existence through his time there) and Seafarer’s record since launch (it has returned 20% since February 2012 while its average peer made less than 4%). Assets had been growing briskly through the fund’s first full year, plateaued for much of 2013 then popped in December: the fund moved from about $40 million in AUM to $55 million in a very short period. That presumably signals a rising recognition of Seafarer’s strength among larger investors, which strikes me as a very good thing for both Seafarer and the investors.

On an unrelated note, Oakseed Opportunity (SEEDX) has added master limited partnerships to its list of investable securities. The guys continue negotiating distribution arrangements; the fund became available on the Fidelity platform in the second week of December, 2013. They were already available through Schwab, Scottrade, TDAmeritrade and Vanguard.

Briefly Noted . . .

The Gold Bullion Strategy Fund (QGLDX) has added a redemption fee of 2.00% for shares sold within seven days of purchase because, really, how could you consider yourself a long-term investor if you’re not willing to hold for at least eight days?

Legg Mason Capital Management Special Investment Trust (LMSAX) will transition from being a small- and mid-cap fund to a small cap and special situations fund. The advisor warns that this will involve an abnormal turnover in the portfolio and higher-than-usual capital gains distributions. The fund has beaten its peers precisely twice in the past decade, cratered in 2007-09, got a new manager in 2011 and has ascended to … uh, mediocrity since then. Apparently “unstable” and “mediocre” is sufficient to justify someone’s decision to keep $750 million in the fund. 

PIMCO’s RealRetirement funds just got a bit more aggressive. In an SEC filing on December 30, PIMCO shifted the target asset allocations to increase equity exposure and decrease real estate, commodities and fixed income.  Here’s the allocation for an individual with 40 years until retirement

Real estate and commodities are an inflation hedge (that’s the “real” part of RealRetirement) and PIMCO’s commitment to them has been (1) unusually high and (2) unusually detrimental to performance.

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Effective January 2, 2014, BlackRock U.S. Opportunities Portfolio (BMEAX) reopened to new investors. Skeptics might note that the fund is large ($1.6 billion), overpriced (1.47%) and under-performing (having trailed its peers in four of the past five years), which makes its renewed availability a distinctly small win.

Speaking of “small wins,” the Board of Trustees of Buffalo Funds has approved a series of management fees breakpoints for the very solid Buffalo Small Cap Fund (BUFSX).  The fund, with remains open to new investors despite having nearly $4 billion in assets, currently pays a 1.0% management fee to its advisor.  Under the new arrangement, the fee drops by five basis points for assets from $6 to $7 billion, another five for assets from $7-8 and $8-9 then it levels out at 80 bps for assets over $9 billion.  Those gains are fairly minor (the net fee on the fund at $7 billion is $69.5 million under the new arrangement versus $70 million under the old) and the implication that the fund might remain open as it swells is worrisome.

Effective January 1, 2014, Polaris Global Value Fund (PGVFX) has agreed to cap operating expenses at 0.99%.  Polaris, a four-star fund with a quarter billion in assets, currently charges 1.39% so the drop will be substantial. 

The investment minimum for Institutional Class shares of Yacktman Focused Fund (YAFFX) has dropped from $1,000,000 to $100,000.

Vanguard High-Yield Corporate Fund (VWEHX) has reopened to new investors.  Wellington Management, the fund’s advisor, reports that  “Cash flow to the fund has subsided, which, along with a change in market conditions, has enabled us to reopen the fund.”

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

Driehaus Select Credit Fund (DRSLX) will close to most new investors on January 31, 2014. The strategy capacity is about $1.5 billion and the fund already holds $1 billion, with more flowing in, so they decided to close it just as they closed its sibling, Driehaus Active Income (LCMAX). You might think of it as a high-conviction, high-volatility fixed income hedge fund.

Hotchkis & Wiley Mid-Cap Value (HWMIX) is slated to close to new investors on March 1, 2014. Ted, our board’s most senior member, opines “Top notch MCV fund, 2.8 Billion in assets, and superior returns.”  I nod.

Sequoia (SEQUX) closed to new investors on December 10^th. Their last closure lasted 25 years.

Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund (VHCOX), managed by PRIMECAP Management Company, has closed again. It closed in 2004, opened the door a crack in 2007 and fully reopened in 2009.  Apparently the $2 billion in new assets generated a sense of concern, prompting the reclosure.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Aberdeen Diversified Income Fund (GMAAX), a tiny fund distinguished more for volatility than for great returns, can now invest in closed-end funds.  Two other Aberdeen funds, Dynamic Allocation (GMMAX) and Diversified Alternatives (GASAX), are also now permitted  to invest, to a limited extent, in “certain direct investments” and so if you’ve always wanted exposure to certain direct investments (as opposed to uncertain ones), they’ve got the funds for you.

American Independence Core Plus Fund (IBFSX) has changed its name to the American Independence Boyd Watterson Core Plus Fund, presumably in the hope that the Boyd Watterson name will work marketing magic.  Not entirely sure why that would be the case, but there it is.

Effective December 31, 2013, FAMCO MLP & Energy Income Fund became Advisory Research MLP & Energy Income Fund. Oddly, the announcement lists two separate “A” shares with two separate ticker symbols (INFIX and INFRX).

In February Compass EMP Long/Short Fixed Income Fund (CBHAX) gets rechristened Compass EMP Market Neutral Income Fund and it will no longer be required to invest at least 80% in fixed income securities.  The change likely reflects the fact that the fund is underwater since its November 2013 inception (its late December NAV was $9.67) and no one cares (AUM is $28 million).

In yet another test of my assertion that giving yourself an obscure and nonsensical name is a bad way to build a following (think “Artio”), ING reiterated its plan to rebrand itself as Voya Financial.  The name change will roll out over the first half of 2014.

As of early December, Gabelli Value Fund became Gabelli Value 25 Fund (GABVX). And no, it does not hold 25 stocks (the portfolio has nearly 200 names).  Here’s their explanation: “The name change highlights the Fund’s overweighting of its core 25 equity positions and underscores the upcoming 25^th anniversary of the Fund’s inception.” And yes, that does strike me as something that The Mario came up with and no one dared contradict.

GMO, as part of a far larger fund shakeup (see below), has renamed and repurposed four of its institutional funds.  GMO International Core Equity Fund becomes GMO International Large/Mid Cap Equity Fund, GMO International Intrinsic Value Fund becomes GMO International Equity Fund, GMO International Opportunities Equity Allocation Fund becomes GMO International Developed Equity Allocation Fund, and GMO World Opportunities Equity Allocation Fund morphs (slightly) into GMO Global Developed Equity Allocation Fund, all on February 12, 2014. Most of the funds tweaked their investment strategy statements to comply with the SEC’s naming rules which say that if you have a distinct asset class in your name (large/midcap equity), you need to have at least 80% of your portfolio in that class. 

Effective February 28, MainStay Intermediate Term Bond Fund (MTMAX) becomes MainStay Total Return Bond Fund.

Nuveen NWQ Flexible Income Fund (NWQIX), formerly Nuveen NWQ Equity Income Fund has been rechristened as Nuveen NWQ Global Equity Income Fund, with James Stephenson serving as its sole manager.  If you’d like to get a sense of what “survivorship bias” looks like, you might check out Nuveen’s SEC distributions filing and count the number of funds with lines through their names.

Old Westbury Global Small & Mid Cap Fund (OWSMX) has been rechristened as Old Westbury Small & Mid Cap Fund. It’s no longer required to have a global portfolio, but might.  It’s been very solid, with about 20% of its portfolio in ETFs and the rest in individual securities.

At the meeting on December 3, 2013, the Board approved a change in Old Westbury Global Opportunities Fund’s (OWGOX) name to Old Westbury Strategic Opportunities Fund.  Let’s see: 13 managers, $6 billion in assets, and a long-term record that trails 70% of its peers.  Yep, a name change is just what’s needed!

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

Jeez, The Shadow is just a wild man here.

On December 6, 2013, the Board of the Conestoga Funds decided to close and liquidate the Conestoga Mid Cap Fund (CCMGX), effective February 28, 2014.  At the same time, they’re launched a SMid cap fund with the same management team.  I wrote the advisor to ask why this isn’t just a scam to bury a bad track record and get a re-do; they could, more easily, just have amended Mid Cap’s principal investment strategy to encompass small caps and called it SMid Cap.  They volunteered to talk then reconsidered, suggesting that they’d be freer to walk me through their decision once the new fund is up and running. I’m looking forward to the opportunity.

Dynamic Energy Income Fund (DWEIS), one of the suite of former DundeeWealth funds, was liquidated on December 31, 2013.

Fidelity has finalized plans for the merger of Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation Fund (FECAX) into Fidelity Europe Fund (FIEUX), which occurs on March 21.

The institutional firm Grantham, Mayo, van Otterloo (GMO) is not known for precipitous action, so their December announcement of a dozen fund closures is striking.  One set of funds is simply slated to disappear:

In addition, the Board has approved the termination of GMO Asset Allocation International Small Companies Fund and GMO International Large/Mid Cap Value Fund, neither of which had commenced operations.

They then added two sets of fund mergers: GMO Debt Opportunities Fund into GMO Short-Duration Collateral Fund (with the freakish coda that “GMO Short-Duration Collateral Fund is not pursuing an active investment program and is gradually liquidating its portfolio” but absorbing Debt Opportunities gives it reason to live) and GMO U.S. Flexible Equities Fund into GMO U.S. Core Equity Fund, which is expected to occur on or about January 24, 2014.

Not to be outdone, The Hartford Mutual Funds announced ten fund mergers and closures themselves.  Hartford Growth Fund (HGWAX) is merging with Hartford Growth Opportunities Fund (HGOAX), Hartford Global Growth (HALAX) merges with Hartford Capital Appreciation II (HCTAX) and Hartford Value (HVFAX) goes into Hartford Value Opportunities (HV)AX), all effective April 7, 2014. None of which, they note, requires shareholder approval. I have real trouble seeing any upside for the funds’ investors, since most going from one sub-par fund into another and will see expenses drop by just a few basis points. The exceptions are the value funds, both of which are solid and economically viable on their own. In addition, Hartford is pulling the plug on its entire target-date retirement line-up. The funds slated for liquidation are Hartford Target Retirement 2010 through 2050. That dirty deed will be done on June 30, 2014. 

Highbridge Dynamic Commodities Strategy Fund (HDSAX) is slated to be liquidated and dissolved (an interesting visual image) on February 7, 2014. In the interim, it’s going to cash.

John Hancock Sovereign Investors Fund (SOVIX) will merge into John Hancock Large Cap Equity Fund (TAGRX), on or about April 30, 2014.

Principal SmallCap Growth Fund II (PPMIX) will be absorbed by SmallCap Growth Fund I (PGRTX) on or about April 25, 2014.

It’s with some sadness that we bid adieu to Tom Kerr and his Rocky Peak Small Cap Value Fund (RPCSX), which liquidated on December 30.  The fund sagged from “tiny” to “microscopic” by the end of its run, with under a million in assets.  Its performance in 2013 was pretty much calamitous, which was both curious and fatal.  Tom was an experienced manager and sensible guy who will, we hope, find a satisfying path forward. 

In a sort of three-for-one swap, Pax World International Fund (PXIRX) and Pax MSCI EAFE ESG Index ETF (EAPS) are merging to form the Pax World International ESG Index Fund.

On October 21, 2013, the Board of Directors of the T. Rowe Price Summit GNMA Fund (PRSUX) approved a proposed merger with, and into, T. Rowe Price GNMA Fund (PRGMX).

The Vanguard Managed Payout Growth Focus Fund (VPGFX) and Vanguard Managed Payout Distribution Focus Fund (VPDFX) are each to be reorganized into the Vanguard Managed Payout Growth and Distribution Fund (VPGDX) on or about January 17, 2014.

W.P. Stewart & Co. Growth Fund (WPSGX) is merging into the AllianceBernstein Concentrated Growth Fund (WPCSX), which has the same manager, investment discipline and expenses of the WPS fund.  Alliance acquired WPS in December, so the merger was a sort of foregone conclusion.

Wegener Adaptive Growth Fund (WAGFX) decided, on about three days’ notice, to close and liquidate at the end of December, 2013.  It had a couple very solid years (2008 and 2009) then went into the dumper, ending with a portfolio smaller than my retirement account.

A small change

Our navigation menu is growing. If you look along the top of our page, you’ll likely notice that “Featured Funds” is no longer a top-level menu item. Instead the “Featured Funds” category can now be found under the “Fund” or “The Best” menus. Replacing it as a new top-level menu is “Search Tools”, which is the easiest way to directly access new search functionality that Accipiter, Charles, and Chip have been working on for the past few months.

Under Search Tools, you’ll find:

1. Risk Profile – designed to help you understand the different measures of a fund’s risk profile. No one measure of risk captures the full picture and most measures of risk are not self-explanatory. Our Risk Profile reporter allows you to enter a single ticker symbol for any fund and it will generate a short, clear report, in simple, conversational English, that walks you through the various means of risk and returns and will provide you with the profiles for a whole range of possible benchmarks. Alternatively, entering multiple ticker symbols will return a tabular results page, making side-by-side comparisons more convenient.
2. Great Owls – allows you to screen our Great Owl Funds – those which have top tier performance in every trailing period of three years or more – by category or profile. We know that past performance should never be the primary driver of your decision-making, but working from a pool of consistently superior performers and learning more about their risk-return profile strikes us as a sensible place to start.
3. Fund Dashboard – a snapshot of all of the funds we’ve profiled, is updated monthly and is available both as a .pdf and as a searchable and sortable search.
4. Miraculous Multi-Search – Accipiter’s newest screening tool helps us search Charles’ database of risk elements. Searches are available by fund name, category, risk group and age group. There’s even an option to restrict the results to GreatOwl funds. Better yet, you can search on multiple criteria and further refine your results list by choosing to hide certain results.

In Closing . . .

Thank you, dear friends.  It’s been a remarkable year.  In December of 2012, we served 9000 readers.  A year later, 24,500 readers made 57,000 visits to the Observer in December – a gain of 150%.  The amount of time readers spend on site is up, too, by about 50% over last year.  The percentage of new visitors is up 57%.  But almost 70% of visits are by returning readers.

It’s all the more striking because we’re the antithesis of a modern news site: our pieces tend to be long, appear once a month and try to be reflective and intelligent.  NPR had a nice piece that lamented the pressure to be “first, loud and sensational” (This is (not) the most important story of the year, 12/29/2013).  The “reflective and intelligent” part sort of reflects our mental image of who you are. 

We’ve often reminded folks of their ability to help the Observer financially, either through our partnership with Amazon (they rebate us about 7% of the value of items purchased through our link) or direct contributions.  Those are both essential and we’re deeply grateful to the dozens of folks who’ve acted on our behalf.  This month we’d like to ask for a different sort of support, one which might help us make the Observer better in the months ahead.

Would you tell us a bit about who you are and why you’re here?  We do not collect any information about you when you visit. The cosmically-talented Chip found a way to embed an anonymous survey directly in this essay, so that you could answer a few questions without ever leaving the comfort of your chair.  What follows are six quick questions.  We’re setting aside questions about our discussion board for now, since it’s been pretty easy to keep in touch with the folks there.  Complete as many as you’re comfortable with.

We’ll share as soon as we hear back from you.

Thanks to Deb (the first person ever to set up an automatic monthly contribution to the site, which was really startling when we found out), to David and the other contributors scattered (mostly) in warm states (and Indianapolis), and to friends who’ve shared books, cookies, well-wishes and holiday cheer.

Finally, thanks to the folks whose constant presence makes the Observer happen: the folks who’ve spent this entire century supporting the discussion board (BobC, glampig, rono, Slick, the indefatigable Ted, and Whakamole among them) and the hundred or so folks regularly on the board; The Shadow, who can sense the presence of interesting SEC filings from a mile away; Accipiter, whose programming skills – generally self-taught – lie behind our fund searches; Ed, who puzzles and grumbles; Charles, who makes data sing; and the irreplaceable Chip, friend, partner and magician.  I’m grateful to you all and look forward to the adventures of the year ahead.

As ever,

Dear friends,

Occasionally Facebook produces finds that I’m at a loss to explain.  Ecce:

(Thanks to Nina K., a really first-rate writer and first-rate property/insurance lawyer in the Bay State for sharing Mr. Takei’s post with us. Now if I could just get her to restrain the impulse to blurt out, incredulous, “you really find this stuff interesting?”)

Let’s see.  Should I be more curious about the fact that Mr. Takei (iconically Ensign Sulu on Star Trek) manages just a basso profundo “oh myyy” on his post or the fact that he was recently lounging in a waiting room at the University of Iowa Hospitals, a bit west of here?  Perhaps it would be better to let his friends weigh in?

Chip’s vote was to simply swipe her favorite image from the thread, one labeled “a real hedge fund.”

Which is to say, a market that tacks on 29% in a year makes it easy to think of investing as fun and funny again. 

Now if only that popular sentiment could be reconciled with the fact that a bunch of very disciplined, very successful managers are quietly selling down their stocks and building their cash reserves again.

Here’s today’s “know your Morningstar!” quiz.  

Here are the total return charts for two short-term bond funds.  One is the sole Morningstar Gold Medalist in the group, representing “one of the industry’s best managers, and one of the category’s best funds.”  The other is a lowly one-star fund unworthy of Morningstar’s notice 

Question: do you …know your Morningstar!?  Which is the golden child?  Is it blue or orange?

Would it help to know that one of these funds is managed by a multi-trillion dollar titan and the other by a small, distinctive boutique?  Or that one of the funds invests quite conventionally and fits neatly into a style-box while the other is one-of-a-kind?

If you know your Morningstar, you’ll know that “small, distinctive and hard to pigeonhole” is pretty much the kiss of death.  The orange (or gold) line represents PIMCO Low Duration, “D” shares (PLDDX).  It’s a $24 billion “juggernaut” (Morningstar’s term) that’s earned four stars and a Gold designation.  It tends to be in the top quarter of the short-term bond group, though not at its top, and is a bit riskier than average.

The blue line represents RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX), an absolutely first-rate cash management fund about which we’ve written a lot. And which Morningstar just designated as a one-star fund. Why so?  Because Morningstar classifies it as a “high yield bond” fund and benchmarks it against an investment class that has outperformed the stock market over the past 15 years but with the highest volatility in the fixed-income universe. To be clear: there is essentially no overlap between RiverPark’s portfolio and the average high-yield bond funds and they have entirely different strategies, objectives and risk profiles. Which is to say, Morningstar has managed a classic “walnuts to lug nuts” comparison.

Here’s the defense Morningstar might reasonably make: “we had to put it somewhere.  It says ‘high yield.’  We put it there.”

Here’s our response: “that’s a sad and self-damning answer.  Yes, you had to put it somewhere.  But having put it in a place that you know is wildly inappropriate, you also need to accept the responsibility – to your readers, to RiverPark’s investors and to yourselves – to address your decision.  You’ve got the world’s biggest and best supported corps of analysts in the world. Use them! Don’t ignore the funds that do well outside of the comfortable framework of style boxes, categories and corporate investing! If the algorithms produce palpably misleading ratings, speak up.”

But, of course, they didn’t.

The problem is straightforward: Morningstar’s ratings are most reliable when you least need them. For funds with conventional, straightforward, style-pure disciplines – index funds and closet index funds – the star ratings probably produce a fair snapshot across the funds. But really, how hard is it – even absent Morningstar’s imprimatur – to find the most solid offering among a gaggle of long-only, domestic large cap, growth-at-a-reasonable price funds? You’ll get 90% of the way there with three numbers: five year returns, five year volatility and expense ratio. Look for ones where the first is higher and the second two are lower.

When funds try not to follow the herd, when the manager appears to have a brain and to be using it to pursue different possibilities, is when the ratings system is most prone to misleading readers. That’s when you need to hear an expert’s analysis. 

So why, then, deploy your analysts to write endless prose about domestic large cap funds? Because that’s where the money is.

Morningstar ETF Invest: Rather less useful content than I’d imagined

Morningstar hosted their ETF-focused conference in Chicago at the beginning of October.  The folks report that the gathering has tripled in size over the last couple years, turned away potential registrants and will soon need to move to a new space.  After three days there, though, I came away with few strong reactions.  I was struck by the decision of one keynote speaker to refer to active fixed-income managers as “the enemy” (no, dude, check the mirror) and the apparent anxiety around Fidelity’s decision to enter the ETF market (“Fidelity is coming.  We know they’re coming.  It’s only a matter of time,” warned one).

My greatest bewilderment was at the industry’s apparent insistence on damaging themselves as quickly and thoroughly as possible.  ETFs really have, at most, three advantages: they’re cheap, transparent and liquid.  The vogue seems to be for frittering that away.  More and more advisors are being persuaded to purchase the services of managed portfolio advisors who, for a fee, promise to custom-package (and trade) dozens of ETFs.  I spoke with representatives of a couple index providers, including FTSE, who corroborated Morningstar’s assertion that there are likely two million separate security indexes in operation with more being created daily. And many of the exchange-traded products rely in derivatives to try to capture the movements of those 2,000,000.  On whole, it feels like a systematic attempt to capture the most troubling features of the mutual fund industry – all while preening about your Olympian superiority to the mutual fund industry.

Odd.

The most interesting presentation at the conference was made by Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist and former chief of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, who addressed a luncheon crowd. It was a thoroughly unexpected performance: there’s a strong overtone of Jon Stewart from The Daily Show, an almost antic energy. The presentation was one-third Goolsbee family anecdotes (“when I’d complain about a problem, gramma would say ‘80% of us don’t care. . . and the other 20% are glad about it'”), one-third White House anecdotes and one-third economic arguments.

The short version:

• The next 12-18 months will be tough because the old drivers of recovery aren’t available this time. Over the last century, house prices appreciated by 40 basis points annually for the first 90 years. From 2000-08, it appreciated 1350 bps annually. In the future, 40 bps is likely about right which means that a recovery in the housing industry won’t be lifting all boats any time soon.
• We’ll know the economy is recovering when 25 year olds start moving out of their parents’ basements, renting little apartments, buying futons and cheap pots and pans. (Technically, an uptick in household formation. Since the beginning of the recession, the US population has grown by 10 million but the number of households has remained flat.) One optimistic measure that Goolsbee did not mention but which seems comparable: the number of Americans choosing to quit their jobs (presumably for something better) is rising.
• The shutdown is probably a good thing, since it will derail efforts to create an unnecessary crisis around the debt ceiling.
• In the longer term, the US will recover and grow at 3.5% annually, driven by a population that’s growing (we’ll likely peak around 400 million while Japan, Western Europe and Russia contract), the world’s most productive workforce and relatively light taxation. While Social Security faces challenges, they’re manageable. Given the slow rolling crisis in higher education and the near collapse of new business launches over the past decade, I’m actually somewhere between skeptical and queasy on this one.
• The Chinese economic numbers can’t be trusted at all. The US reports quarterly economic data after a 30 day lag and frequently revises the numbers 30 days after that. China reports their quarterly numbers one day after the end of the quarter and has never revised any of the numbers. A better measure of Chinese activity is derivable from FedEx volume (it’s way down) since China is so export driven.

One highlight was his report of a headline from The Onion: “recession-plagued nation demands a new bubble to invest in … so we can get the economy going again. We need a concrete way to create illusory wealth in the near future.”

One of the great things about having Messrs Studzinski and Boccadoro contributing to the Observer is that they’re keen, experienced observers and very good writers.  The other great thing about it is that I no longer have to bear the label, “the cranky one.” In the following essay, Ed Studzinkski takes on one of the beloved touchstones of shareholder-friendly management: “skin in the game.”  Further down, Charles Boccadoro casts a skeptical eye, in a data-rich piece, on the likelihood that an investor’s going to avoid permanent loss of capital.

Skin in the Game, Part Two

The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be.

Paul Valery

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of The Black Swan as well as Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, has recently been giving a series of interviews in which he argues that current investment industry compensation practices lead to subtle conflicts of interest, that end up inuring to the disadvantage of individual investors. Nowhere is this more apparent than when one looks at the mutual fund complexes that have become asset gatherers rather than investment managers.

By way of full disclosure I have to tell you that I am an admirer of Mr. Taleb’s. I was not always the most popular boy in the classroom as I was always worrying about the need to consider the potential for “Black Swan” or outlier events. Unfortunately all one has to have is one investment massacre like the 2008-2009 period. This gave investors a lost decade of investment returns and a potentially permanent loss of capital if they panicked and liquidated their investments. To have a more in-depth appreciation of the concept and its implications, I commend those of you with the time to a careful study of the data that the Mutual Fund Observer has compiled and begun releasing regularly. You should pay particular attention to a number called the “Maximum Drawdown.” There you will see that as a result of that dark period, looking back five years it is a rarity to find a domestic fund manager who did not lose 35-50% of his or her investors’ money. The same is to be said for global and international fund managers who likewise did not distinguish themselves, losing 50-65% of investors’ capital, assuming the investors panicked and liquidated their investments, and many did.

A number of investment managers that I know are not fans of Mr. Taleb’s work, primarily because he has a habit of bringing attention to inconvenient truths. In Fooled by Randomness, he made the case that given the large number of people who had come into the investment management business in recent years, there were a number who had to have generated good records randomly. They were what he calls “spurious winners.” I would argue that the maximum drawdown numbers referred to above confirm that thesis.

How then to avoid the spurious winner? Taleb argues that the hedge fund industry serves as a model, by truly having managers with “skin in the game.” In his experience a hedge fund manager typically has twenty to fifty times the exposure of his next biggest client. That of necessity makes them both more careful and as well as aware of the consequences if they have underinvested in the necessary talent to remain competitive. Taleb quite definitively states, “You don’t get that with fund managers.”

I suspect the counterargument I am going to hear is that fund managers are now required to disclose, by means of reporting within various ranges, the amount of money they have invested in the fund they are managing. Just go to the Statement of Additional Information, which is usually found on a fund website. And if the SAI shows that the manager has more than $1 million invested in his or her fund, then that is supposed to be a good sign concerning alignment of interests. Like the old Hertz commercial, the real rather than apparent answer is “not exactly.”

The gold standard in this regard has been set by Longleaf Partners with their funds. Their employees are required to limit their publicly offered equity investments to funds advised by Southeastern Asset Management, Longleaf’s advisor, unless granted a compliance exception. Their trustees also must obtain permission before making a publicly offered equity investment. That is rather unique in the fund industry, since what you usually see in the marketing brochures or periodic fund reports is something like “the employees and families of blah-blah have more than $X million invested in our funds.” If you are lucky this may work out to be one percent of assets under management in the firm, hardly hedge-fund like metrics. At the same time, you often find trustees of the fund with de minimis investments.

The comparison becomes worse when you look at a fund with $9 billion in assets and the “normal” one percent investment management fee, which generates $90 million in revenue. The fund manager may tell you that his largest equity investment is in the fund and is more than $1 million. But if his annual compensation runs somewhere between $1million and $10 million, and this is Taleb’s strongest point, the fund manager does not have a true disincentive for losing money. The situation becomes even more blurred where compliance policy allows investment in ETF’s or open-ended mutual funds, which in today’s world will often allow a fund manager to construct his own personal market neutral or hedged portfolio, to offset his investment in the fund he is managing.

Is there a solution? Yes, a fairly easy one – adopt as an industry standard through government regulation the requirement that all employees in the investment firm are required to limit their publicly offered equity investments to the funds in the complex. To give credit where credit is due, just as we have a Volcker rule, we can call it the “Southeastern Asset Management” rule. If that should prove too restrictive, I would suggest as an alternative that the SEC add another band of investment ranges above the current $1 million limit, at perhaps $5 million. That at least would give a truer picture for the investor, especially given the money flows now gushing into a number of firms, which often make a $1 million investment not material to the fund manager. Such disclosure will do a better job of attuning investment professionals to what should be their real concern – managing risk with a view towards the potential downside, rather than ignoring risk with other people’s money.

Postscript:

What does it say when such well known value managers as Tweedy, Browne and First Pacific Advisors are letting cash positions rise in their portfolios as they sell and don’t replace securities that have reached their target valuations? Probably the same thing as when one of the people I consider to be one of the outstanding money managers of our time, Seth Klarman at Baupost Partners, announces that he will be returning some capital to his partnership investors at year end. Stay tuned.

So, if it’s “the best,” why can’t people just agree on what it is?

Last month David pointed out how little overlap he found between three popular mutual fund lists: Kiplinger 25, Money 70, and Morningstar’s Fantastic 51. David mused: “You’d think that if all of these publications shared the same sensible goal – good risk-adjusted returns and shareholder-friendly practices – they’d also be stumbling across the same funds. You’d be wrong.”

He found only one fund, Dodge & Cox International Fund DODFX, on all three lists. Just one! Although just one is a statistically better outcome than randomly picking three such lists from the 6600 or so mutual funds and 1000 ETFs, it does seem surprisingly small. 

Opening up the field a little, by replacing the Fantastic 51 with a list of 232 funds formed from Morningstar’s current “Gold-Rated Funds” and “Favorite ETFs,” the overlap does not improve much. Just two funds appear in all three publications: DODFX and Habor Bond Institutional HABDX. Just two!

While perhaps not directly comparable, the table below provides a quick summary of the criteria used by each publication. Money 70 criteria actually include Morningstar’s so-called stewardship grade, which must be one of the least maintained measures. For example, Morningstar awarded Bruce Berkowitz Fund Manager of the Decade, but it never published a stewardship grade for Fairholme.

Overall, however, the criteria seem quite similar, or as David described “good risk-adjusted returns and shareholder-friendly practices.”  Add in experienced managers for good measure and one would expect the lists to overlap pretty well. But again, they don’t.

How do the “forward-looking” recommendations in each of these lists fare against Morningstar’s purely quantitative “backward-looking” performance rating system? Not as well as you might think. There are just seven 5-star funds on Money’s list, or 1-in-10. Kiplinger does the best with six, from a percentage perspective, or almost 1-in-4. (They must have peeked.) Morningstar’s own list includes 44 5-star funds, or about 1-in-5. So, as well intentioned and “forward looking” as these analysts certainly try to be, only a small minority of their “best funds” have delivered top-tier returns.

On the other hand, they each do better than picking funds arbitrarily, if not unwittingly, since Morningstar assigns 5 stars to only about 1-in-17 funds. Neither of the two over-lapping funds that appear on all three lists, DODFX and HABDX, have 5 stars. But both have a commendable 4 stars, and certainly, that’s good enough.

Lowering expectations a bit, how many funds appear on at least two of these lists? The answer: 38, excluding the two trifectas. Vanguard dominates with 14. T. Rowe Price and American Funds each have 4. Fidelity has just one. Most have 4 stars, a few have 3, like SLASX, probably the scariest.

But there is no Artisan. There is no Tweedy. There is no Matthews. There is no TCW or Doubleline. There are no PIMCO bond funds. (Can you believe?) There is no Yacktman. Or Arke. Or Sequoia. There are no funds less than five years old. In short, there’s a lot missing.

There are, however, nine 5-star funds among the 38, or just about 1-in-4. That’s not bad. Interestingly, not one is a fixed income fund, which is probably a sign of the times. Here’s how they stack-up in MFO’s own “backward looking” ratings system, updated through September:

Four are moderate allocation funds: FPACX, PRWCX, VWELX, and TRRBX. Three are Vanguard funds: VWELX, VDIGX, and VASVX. One FMI fund FMIHX and one Oakmark fund OAKIX. Hard to argue with any of these funds, especially the three Great Owls: PRWCX, VWELX, and OAKIX.

These lists of “best funds” are probably not a bad place to start, especially for those new to mutual funds. They tend to expose investors to many perfectly acceptable, if more mainstream, funds with desirable characteristics: lower fees, experienced teams, defensible, if not superior, past performance.

They probably do not stress downside potential enough, so any selection needs to also take risk tolerance and investment time-frame into account. And, incredulously, Morningstar continues to give Gold ratings to loaded funds, about 1-in-7 actually.

The lists produce surprisingly little overlap, perhaps simply because there are a lot of funds available that satisfy the broad screening criteria. But within the little bit of overlap, one can find some very satisfying funds.

Money 70 and Kiplinger 25 are free and online. Morningstar’s rated funds are available for a premium subscription. (Cheapest path may be to subscribe for just one month each year at $22 while performing an annual portfolio review.)

As for a list of smaller, less well known mutual funds with great managers and intriguing strategies? Well, of course, that’s the niche MFO aspires to cover.

23Oct2013/Charles

The Great Owl search engine has arrived

Great Owls are the designation that my colleague Charles Boccadoro gives to those funds which are first in the top 20% of their peer group for every trailing period of three years or more. Because we know that “risk” is often more durable and a better predictor of investor actions than “return” is, we’ve compiled a wide variety of risk measures for each of the Great Owl funds.

Up until now, we’ve been limited to publishing the Great Owls as a .pdf while working on a search engine for them. We’re pleased to announce the launch of the Great Owl Search, 1.0. We expect in the months ahead to widen the engine’s function and to better integrate it into the site. We hope you like it.

For JJ and other fans of FundAlarm’s Three-Alarm and Most Alarming fund lists, we’re working to create a predefined search that will allow you to quickly and reliable identify the most gruesome investments in the fund world. More soon!

Who do you trust for fund information?

The short answer is: not fund companies.  On October 22, the WSJ’s Karen Damato hosted an online poll entitled Poll: The Best Source of Mutual-Fund Information? 

Representing, as I do, Column Three, I should be cheered.  Teaching, as I do, Journalism 215: News Literacy, I felt compelled to admit that the results were somewhere between empty (the margin of error is 10.89, so it’s “somewhere between 16% and 38% think it’s the fund company’s website and marketing materials”) and discouraging (the country’s leading financial newspaper managed to engage the interest of precisely 81 of its readers on this question).

Nina Eisenman, President of Eisenman Associates which oversees strategic communications for corporations, and sometime contributor to the Observer

Asking which of the 3 choices individual investors find “most useful” generates data that creates an impression that they don’t use the other two at all when, in fact, they may use all 3 to varying degrees. It’s also a broad question. Are investors responding based on what’s most useful to them in conducting their initial research or due diligence? For example, I may read about a fund in the Mutual Fund Observer (“other website”) and decide to check it out but I would (hopefully) look at the fund’s website, read the manager’s letters and the fund prospectus before I actually put money in.

When I surveyed financial advisors and RIAs on the same topic, but gave them an option to rate the importance of various sources of information they use, the vast majority used mutual funds’ own websites to some extent as part of their due diligence research. [especially for] fund-specific information (including the fund prospectus which is generally available on the website) that can help investors make educated investment decisions.

Both Nina’s own research and the results of a comparable Advisor Perspectives poll can be found at FundSites, her portal for addressing the challenges and practices of small- to medium sizes fund company websites.

The difference between “departures” and “succession planning”

Three firms this month announced the decisions of superb managers to move on. Happily for their investors, the departures are long-dated and seem to be surrounded by a careful succession planning process.

Mitch Milias will be retiring at the end of 2013

Primecap Management was founded by three American Funds veterans. That generation is passing. Howard Schow has passed away at age 84 in April 2012. Vanguard observer Dan Weiner wrote at the time that “To say that he was one of the best, and least-known investors would be a vast understatement.”  The second of the triumvirate, Mitch Milias, retires in two months at 71.  That leaves Theo Kolokotrones who, at 68, is likely in the latter half of his investing career.  Milias has served as comanager of four Gold-rated funds: Vanguard Primecap  (VPMCX) Vanguard Primecap Core (VPCCX), Primecap Odyssey Growth (POGRX), and  Primecap Odyssey Stock (POSKX).

Neil Woodford will depart Invesco in April, 2014

British fund manager Neil Woodford is leaving after 25 years of managing Invesco Perpetual High Income Fund and the Invesco Perpetual Income Fund. Mr. Woodford apparently is the best known manager in England and described as a “hero” in the media for his resolute style.  He’s decided to set up his own English fund company.  In making the move he reports:

My decision to leave is a personal one based on my views about where I see long-term opportunities in the fund management industry.  My intention is to establish a new fund management business serving institutional and retail clients as soon as possible after 29th April 2014.

His investors seem somehow less sanguine: they pulled over £1 billion in the two weeks after his announcement.  Invesco’s British president describes that reaction as “calm.”

Given Mr. Woodford’s reputation and the global nature of the securities market, I would surely flag 1 May 2014 as a day to peer across the Atlantic to see what “long-term opportunities” he’s pursuing.

Scott Satterwhite will be retiring at the end of September, 2016

Scott Satterwhite joined Artisan from Wachovia Securities in 1997 and was the sole manager of Artisan Small Cap Value (ARTVX) from its launch. ARTVX is also the longest-tenured fund in my non-retirement portfolio; I moved my Artisan Small Cap (ARTSX) investment into Satterwhite’s fund almost as soon as it launched and I’ve never had reason to question that decision.  Mr. Satterwhite then extended his discipline into Artisan Mid Cap Value (ARTQX) and the large cap Artisan Value (ARTLX).  All are, as is typical of Artisan, superb.

Artisan has a really strong internal culture and focus on creating coherent, self-sustaining investment teams.  Three years after launch, Satterwhite’s long-time analyst Jim Kieffer became a co-manager.  George Sertl was added six years after that and Dan Kane six years later.  Mr. Kane is now described as “the informal lead manager” with Satterwhite on ARTVX.  This is probably one of the two most significant manager changes in Artisan’s history (the retirement of its founder was the other) but the firm seems exceptionally well-positioned both to attract additional talent and to manage the required three year transition.

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. 

T. Rowe Price Global Allocation (RPGAX): T. Rowe is getting bold, cautiously.  Their newest and most innovative fund offers a changing mix of global assets, including structural exposure to a single hedge fund, is also broadly diversified, low-cost and run by the team responsible for their Spectrum and Personal Strategy Funds.  So far, so good!

Oops! The fund profile is slightly delayed. Please check back tomorrow.

Elevator Talk: Jeffrey K. Ringdahl of American Beacon Flexible Bond (AFXAX)

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.

In a fundamentally hostile environment, investors need to have a flexible approach to income investing. Some funds express that flexibility by investing in emerging market bonds, financial derivatives such as options, or illiquid securities (think: “lease payments from the apartment complex we just bought”).

American Beacon’s decision was to target “positive total return regardless of market conditions” in their version.  Beacon, like Harbor, positions itself as “a manager of managers” and assembles teams of institutional sub-advisors to manage the actual portfolio.  In this case, they’ve paired Brandywine Global, GAM and PIMCO and have given the managers extraordinarily leeway in pursuing the fund’s objective.  One measure of that flexibility is the fund’s duration, a measure of interest rate sensitivity.  They project a duration of anything from negative five years (effectively shorting the market) to plus eight years (generally the preferred spot for long-term owners of bond funds).  Since inception the fund has noticeably outrun its “nontraditional bond” peers with reasonable volatility.

Jeff Ringdahl is American Beacon’s Chief Operating Officer and one of the primary architects of the Flexible Bond Strategy. He’s worked with a bunch of “A” tier management firms including Touchstone Investments, Fidelity and State Street Global Advisors.   Here are his 245 words (I know, he overshot) on why you should consider a flexible bond strategy:

In building an alternative to a traditional bond fund, our goal was to stay true to what we consider the three tenets of traditional bond investing: current income, principal preservation and equity diversification.  However, we also sought to protect against unstable interest rates and credit spreads.

The word “unconstrained” is often used to describe similar strategies, but we believe “flexible” is a better descriptor for our approach. Many investors associate the word “unconstrained” with higher risk.  We implemented important risk constraints which help to create a lower risk profile. Our multi-manager structure is a key distinguishing characteristic because of its built-in risk management. Unconstrained or flexible bond funds feature a great degree of investment flexibility. While investment managers may deliver compelling risk-adjusted performance by using this enhanced flexibility, there may be an increased possibility of underperformance because there are fewer risk controls imposed by many of our peer funds. In our opinion, if you would ever want to diversify your managers you would do so where the manager had the greatest latitude. We think that this product style is uniquely designed for multi-manager diversification.

Flexible bond investing allows asset managers the ability to invest long and short across the global bond and currency markets to capitalize on opportunities in the broad areas of credit, currencies and yield curve strategies. We think focusing on the three Cs: Credit, Currency and Curve gives us an advantage in seeking to deliver positive returns over a complete market cycle.

The fund has five share classes. The minimum initial investment for the no-load Investor class is $2,500.   Expenses are 1.27% on about $300 million in assets.

The fund’s website is functional but spare.  You get the essential information, but there’s no particular wealth of insight or commentary on this strategy (and there is one odd picture of a bunch of sailboats barely able to get out of one another’s way).

Our earlier Elevator Talks were:

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

Conference Call Highlights: Zac Wydra of Beck, Mack & Oliver Partners

We looked for a picture of Zac Wydra on the web but found Wydra the Otter instead. We decided that Zac is cute but Wydra is cuter, so… If we can find a t-shirt with Wydra’s picture on it, we might send it along to Zac with our best wishes.

In mid-October we spoke for about an hour with Zac Wydra of Beck, Mack & Oliver Partners Fund (BMPEX). There were about 30 other participants on the call. I’ve elsewhere analogized Beck, Mack to Dodge & Cox: an old money, white shoe firm whose core business is helping the rich stay rich. In general, you need a $3 million minimum investment to engage with them. Partners was created in 1991 as a limited partnership to accommodate the grandkids or staff of their clients, folks who might only have a few hundred thousand to commit. (Insert about here: “Snowball gulps”) The “limited” in limited partnership signals a maximum number of investors, 100. The partnership filled up and prospered. When the managing partner retired, Zac made a pitch to convert the partnership to a ’40 fund and make it more widely available. He argued that he thought there was a wider audience for a disciplined, concentrated fund.

He was made the fund’s inaugural manager. He’s 41 and anticipates running BMPEX for about the next quarter century, at which point he’ll be required – as all partners are – to move into retirement and undertake a phased five year divestment of his economic stake in the firm. His then-former ownership stake will be available to help attract and retain the best cadre of younger professionals that they can find. Between now and retirement he will (1) not run any other pooled investment vehicle, (2) not allow BMPEX to get noticeably bigger than $1.5 billion – he’ll return capital to investors first – and (3) will, over a period of years, train and oversee a potential successor.

In the interim, the discipline is simple:

1. never hold more than 30 securities – he can hold bonds but hasn’t found any that offer a better risk/return profile than the stocks he’s found.
2. only invest in firms with great management teams, a criterion that’s met when the team demonstrates superior capital allocation decisions over a period of years
3. invest only in firms whose cash flows are consistent and predictable. Some fine firms come with high variable flows and some are in industries whose drivers are particularly hard to decipher; he avoids those altogether.
4. only buy when stocks sell at a sufficient discount to fair value that you’ve got a margin of safety, a patience that was illustrated by his decision to watch Bed, Bath & Beyond for over two and a half years before a short-term stumble triggered a panicky price drop and he could move in. In general, he is targeting stocks which have the prospect of gaining at least 50% over the next three years and which will not lose value over that time.
5. ignore the question of whether it’s a “high turnover” or “low turnover” strategy. His argument is that the market determines the turnover rate. If his holdings become overpriced, he’ll sell them quickly. If the market collapses, he’ll look for stocks with even better risk/return profiles than those currently in the portfolio. In general, it would be common for him to turn over three to five names in the portfolio each year, though occasionally that’s just recycling: he’ll sell a good firm whose stock becomes overvalued then buy it back again once it becomes undervalued.

Two listener questions, in particular, stood out:

Kevin asked what Zac’s “edge” was. A focus on cash, rather than earnings, seemed to be the core of it. Businesses exist to generate cash, not earnings, and so BM&O’s valuations were driven by discounted cash flow models. Those models were meaningful only if it were possible to calculate the durability of cash flows over 5 years. In industries where cash flows have volatile, it’s hard to assign a meaningful multiple and so he avoids them.

Seth asked what mistakes have you made and what did you learn from them? Zac hearkened back to the days when the fund was still a private partnership. They’d invested in AIG which subsequently turned into a bloody mess. Ummm, “not an enjoyable experience” was his phrase. He learned from that that “independent” was not always the same as “contrary.” AIG was selling at what appeared to be a lunatic discount, so BM&O bought in a contrarian move. Out of the resulting debacle, Zac learned a bit more respect for the market’s occasionally unexplainable pricings of an asset. At base, if the market says a stock is worth twenty cents a share, you’d better than remarkably strong evidence in order to act on an internal valuation of twenty dollars a share.

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

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

The BMPEX Conference Call

As with all of these funds, we’ve created a new featured funds page for Beck, Mack & Oliver Partners Fund, pulling together all of the best resources we have for the fund, including a brand new audio profile in .mp3 format.

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

As promised, my colleague Charles Boccadoro weighs in on your almost-magical ability to turn a temporary loss of principal into a …

Permanent Loss of Capital

The father of value investing, Benjamin Graham, employed the concept of “Margin of Safety” to minimize risk of permanent loss. His great student, Warren Buffett, puts it like this: “Rule No. 1: never lose money; rule No. 2: don’t forget rule No. 1.”

Zachary Wydra, portfolio manager of the 5-star Beck Mack & Oliver Partners (BMPEX) fund, actually cited Mr. Buffett’s quote during the recent MFO conference call.

But a look at Berkshire Hathaway, one of the great stocks of all time, shows it dropped 46% between December 2007 and February of 2009. And, further back, it dropped about the same between June 1998 and February 2002. So, is Mr. Buffett not following his own rule? Similarly, a look at BMPEX shows an even steeper decline in 2009 at -54%, slightly worse than the SP500.

The distinction, of course, is that drawdown does not necessarily mean loss, unless one sells at what is only a temporary loss in valuation – as opposed to an unrecoverable loss, like experienced by Enron shareholders. Since its 2009 drawdown, BMPEX is in fact up an enviable 161%, beating the SP500 by 9%.

Robert Arnott, founder of Research Associates, summarizes as follows: “Temporary losses of value are frequent; at times they can become so frightening that they become permanent—for those that sell.” Distinguishing between temporary drawdown and permanent loss of capital (aka “the ultimate risk”) is singularly the most important, if unnerving, aspect of successful value investing.

Mr. Wydra explains his strategy is to target stocks that have an upside potential over the next three years of at least 50% and will not lose value over that time. Translation: “loss,” as far as BMPEX is concerned, equates to no drawdown over a three year period. A very practical goal indeed, since any longer period would likely not be tolerated by risk averse investors.

And yet, it is very, very hard to do, perhaps even impossible for any fund that is primarily long equities.

Here is downside SP500 total return performance looking back about 52 years:

It says that 3-year returns fall below zero over nearly 30% of the time and the SP500 shows a loss of 20% or more in 15% of 3-year returns. If we compare returns against consumer price index (CPI), the result is even worse. But for simplicity (and Pete’s) sake, we will not. Fact is, over this time frame, one would need to have invested in the SP500 for nearly 12 years continuously to guarantee a positive return. 12 years!

How many equity or asset allocation funds have not experienced a drawdown over any three year period? Very few. In the last 20 years, only four, or about 1-in-1000. Gabelli ABC (GABCX) and Merger (MERFX), both in the market neutral category and both focused on merger arbitrage strategies. Along with Permanent Portfolio (PRPFX) and Midas Perpetual Portfolio (MPREX), both in the conservative allocation category and both with large a percentage of their portfolios in gold. None of these four beat the SP500. (Although three beat bonds and GABCX did so with especially low volatility.)

So, while delivering equity-like returns without incurring a “loss” over a three year period may simply prove too high a goal to come true, it is what we wish was true.

29Oct2013/Charles

Conference Call Upcoming: John Park and Greg Jackson, Oakseed Opportunity, November 18, 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern

On November 18, Observer readers will have the opportunity to hear from, and speak to John Park and Greg Jackson, co-managers of Oakseed Opportunity Fund (SEEDX and SEDEX). John managed Columbia Acorn Select for five and a half years and, at his 2004 departure, Morningstar announced “we are troubled by his departure: Park had run this fund since its inception and was a big driver behind its great long-term record. He was also the firm’s primary health-care analyst.” Greg co-managed Oakmark Global (OAKGX) for over four years and his departure in 2003 prompted an Eeyore-ish, “It’s never good news when a talented manager leaves.”

The guys moved to Blum Capital, a venture capital firm.  They did well, made money but had less fun than they’d like so they decided to return to managing a distinctly low-profile mutual fund.

Oakseed is designed to be an opportunistic equity fund.  Its managers are expected to be able to look broadly and go boldly, wherever the greatest opportunities present themselves.  It’s limited by neither geography, market cap nor stylebox.   John Park laid out its mission succinctly: “we pursue the maximum returns in the safest way possible.”

I asked John where he thought they’d focus their opening comments.  Here’s his reply:

We would like to talk about the structure of our firm and how it relates to the fund at the outset of the call.  I think people should know we’re not the usual fund management company most people think of when investing in a fund. We discussed this in our first letter to shareholders, but I think it’s worthwhile for our prospective and current investors to know that Oakseed is the only client we have, primarily because we want complete alignment with our clients from not only a mutual investment perspective (“skin in the game”), but also that all of our time is spent on this one entity. In addition, being founders of our firm and this fund, with no intentions of ever starting and managing a new fund, there is much less risk to our investors that one or both of us would ever leave. I think having that assurance is important.

Our conference call will be Monday, November 18, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern.  It’s free.  It’s a phone call.

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?

Nearly 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.

Conference Call Queue: David Sherman, RiverPark Strategic Income, December 9, 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern

On Monday, December 9, from 7:00 – 8:00 Eastern, you’ll have a chance to meet David Sherman, manager of RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX) and the newly-launched RiverPark Strategic Income Fund (RSIVX). David positions RSIVX as the next step out on the risk-return ladder from RPHYX: capable of doubling its sibling’s returns with entirely manageable risk.  If you’d like to get ahead of the curve, you can register for the call with David though I will highlight his call in next month’s issue.

Launch Alert: DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced CAPE

On October 29, DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced CAPE (DSEEX and DSENX) launched. The fund will use derivatives to try to outperform the Shiller Barclays CAPE US Sector Total Return Index.  CAPE is an acronym for “cyclically-adjusted price/earnings.”  The measure was propounded by Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Shiller as a way of taking some of the hocus-pocus out of the calculation of price/earnings ratios.  At base, it divides today’s stock price by the average, inflation-adjusted earnings from the past decade.  Shiller argues that current earnings are often deceptive since profit margins tend over time to regress to the mean and many firms earnings run on three to five year cycles.  As a result, the market might look dirt cheap (high profit margins plus high cyclical earnings = low conventional P/E) when it’s actually poised for a fall.  Looking at prices relative to longer-term earnings gives you a better chance of getting sucked into a value trap.

The fund will be managed by The Gundlach and Jeffrey Sherman. Messrs Gundlach and Sherman also work together on the distinctly disappointing Multi-Asset Growth fund (DMLAX), so the combination of these guys and an interesting idea doesn’t translate immediately into a desirable product.  The fact that it, like many PIMCO funds, is complicated and derivatives-driven counsels for due caution in one’s due diligence. The “N” share class has a $2000 minimum initial investment and 0.91% expense ratio.  The institutional shares are about one-third cheaper.

Those interested in a nice introduction to the CAPE research might look at Samuel Lee’s 2012 CAPE Crusader essay at Morningstar. There’s a fact sheet and a little other information on the fund’s homepage.

Funds in Registration (The New Year’s Edition)

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. Any fund that wanted to launch before the end of the year needed to be in registration by mid- to late October.

And there were a lot of funds targeting a year-end launch. Every day David Welsch, firefighter/EMT/fund researcher, scours new SEC filings to see what opportunities might be about to present themselves.  This month he tracked down 24 no-load retail funds in registration, which represents our core interest.  But if you expand that to include ETFs, institutional funds, reorganized funds and load-bearing funds, you find nearly 120 new vehicles scheduled for Christmas delivery.

Close readers might find the answers to four funds in reg quiz questions:

1. Which manager of a newly-registered fund had the schmanciest high society wedding this year?
2. Which fund in registration gave Snowball, by far, the biggest headache as he tried to translate their prose to English?
3. Which hedge fund manager decided that the perfect time to launch a mutual fund was after getting bludgeoned on returns for two consecutive years?
4. Which managers seem most attuned to young investors, skippering craft that might be described as Clifford the Big Red Mutual Fund and the Spongebob Fund?

Manager Changes

On a related note, we also tracked down 51 fund manager changes.

Updates

One of the characteristics of good managers is their ability to think clearly and one of the best clues to the existence of clear thinking is clear writing. Here’s a decent rule: if they can’t write a grocery list without babbling, you should avoid them. Contrarily, clear, graceful writing often reflects clear thinking.

Many managers update their commentaries and fund materials quarterly and we want to guide you to the most recent discussions and data possible for the funds we’ve written about. The indefatigable Mr. Welsch has checked (and updated) every link and linked document for every fund we’ve profiled in 2013 and for most of 2012. Here’s David’s summary table, which will allow you to click through to a variety of updated documents.

Briefly Noted 

A big ol’ “uhhh” to Advisory Research Emerging Markets All Cap Value Fund (the “Fund”) which has changed both manager (“Effective immediately, Brien M. O’Brien is no longer a portfolio manager of the Fund”) and name (it will be Advisory Research Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund), both before the fund even launched.  A few days after that announcement, AR also decided that Matthew Dougherty would be removed as a manager of the still-unlaunched fund.  On the bright side, it didn’t close to new investors before launch, so that’s good.  Launch date is November 1, 2013.

In a singularly dark day, Mr. O’Brien was also removed as manager of Advisory Research Small Micro Cap Value Fund, which has also not launched and has changed its name: Advisory Research Small Company Opportunities Fund.”

A Centaur arises!  The Tilson funds used to be a two-fund family: the one that Mr. Tilson ran and the one that was really good. After years of returns that never quite matched the hype, Mr. Tilson liquidated his Tilson Focus (TILFX) fund in June 2013.  That left behind the Tilson-less Tilson Dividend Fund (TILDX) which we described as “an awfully compelling little fund.”

Effective November 1, Tilson Dividend became Centaur Total Return Fund (TILDX), named after its long-time sub-adviser, Centaur Capital Partners.  Rick Schumacher, the operations guy at the Centaur funds, elaborates:

Since Tilson is no longer involved in the mutual fund whatsoever, and since the Dividend Fund has historically generated as much (if not more) income from covered call premiums rather than pure dividends, we felt that it was a good time to rebrand the fund.  So, effective today, our fund is now named the Centaur Total Return Fund.  We have kept the ticker (TILDX), as nothing’s really changed as far as the investment objective or strategy of the fund, and besides, we like our track record.  But, we’re very excited about our new Centaur Mutual Funds brand, as it will provide us with potential opportunities to launch other strategies under this platform in the future.

They’ve just launched a clean and appropriate dignified website that both represents the new fund and archives the analytic materials relevant to its old designation.  The fund sits at $65 million in assets with cash occupying about a quarter of its portfolio.  All cap, four stars, low risk. It’s worth considering, which we’ll do again in our December issue.

Laudus Growth Investors U.S. Large Cap Growth Fund is having almost as much fun.  On September 24, its Board booted UBS Global Asset Management as the managers of the fund in favor of BlackRock.  They then changed the name (to Laudus U.S. Large Cap Growth Fund) and, generously, slashed the fund’s expense ratio by an entire basis point from 0.78% to 0.77%.

But no joy in Mudville: the shareholder meeting being held to vote on the merger of  Lord Abbett Classic Stock Fund (LRLCX) into Lord Abbett Calibrated Dividend Growth Fund (LAMAX) has been adjourned until November 7, 2013 for lack of a quorum.

Scout Funds are sporting a redesigned website. Despite the fact that our profiles of Scout Unconstrained Bond and Scout Low Duration don’t qualify as “news” for the purposes of their media list (sniffles), I agree with reader Dennis Green’s celebration of the fact the new site is “thoughtful, with a classy layout, and—are you sitting down?— their data are no longer stale and are readily accessible!”  Thanks to Dennis for the heads-up.

Snowball’s portfolio: in September, I noted that two funds were on the watchlist for my own, non-retirement portfolio.  They were Aston River Road Long Short (ARLSX) and RiverPark Strategic Income (RSIVX). I’ve now opened a small exploratory position in Aston (I pay much more attention to a fund when I have actual money at risk) as I continue to explore the possibility of transferring my Northern Global Tactical Asset Allocation (BBALX) investment there.  The Strategic Income position is small but permanent and linked to a monthly automatic investment plan.

For those interested, John Waggoner of USA Today talked with me for a long while about the industry and interesting new funds.  Part of that conversation contributed to his October 17 article, “New Funds Worth Mentioning.”

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

Eaton Vance Asian Small Companies Fund (EVASX) will eliminate its danged annoying “B” share class on November 4, 2013. It’s still trying to catch up from having lost 70% in the 2007-09 meltdown. 

Green Owl Intrinsic Value Fund (GOWLX) substantially reduced its expense cap from 1.40% to 1.10%. It’s been a very solid little large cap fund since its launch in early 2012.

Invesco Balanced-Risk Commodity Strategy Fund (BRCAX) will reopen to new investors on November 8, 2013. The fund has three quarters of a billion in assets despite trailing its peers and losing money in two of its first three years of existence.

As of December, Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index (VDAIX) will have new Admiral shares with a 0.10% expense ratio and a $10,000 minimum investment. That’s a welcome savings on a fund currently charging 0.20% for the Investor share class.

At eight funds, Vanguard will rename Signal shares as Admiral shares and will lower the minimum investment to $10,000 from $100,000.

Zeo Strategic Income Fund (ZEOIX) dropped its “institutional” minimum to $5,000.  I will say this for Zeo: it’s very steady.

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

The Brown Capital Management Small Company Fund (BCSIX) closed to new investors on October 18, 2013.

Buffalo Emerging Opportunities Fund (BUFOX) formally announced its intention to close to new investors when the fund’s assets under management reach $475 million. At last check, they’re at $420 million.  Five star fund with consistently top 1% returns.  If you’re curious, check quick!

GW&K Small Cap Equity Fund (GWETX) is slated to close to new investors on November 1, 2013.

Matthews Pacific Tiger Fund (MAPTX) closed to new investors on October 25, 2013.

Oakmark International (OAKIX) closed to most new investors as of the close of business on October 4, 2013

Templeton Foreign Smaller Companies (FINEX) will close to new investors on December 10^th.  I have no idea of why: it’s a small fund with an undistinguished but not awful record. Liquidation seems unlikely but I can’t imagine that much hot money has been burning a hole in the managers’ pockets.

Touchstone Merger Arbitrage Fund (TMGAX), already mostly closed, will limit access a bit more on November 11, 2013.  That means closing the fund to new financial advisors.

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

Advisory Research Emerging Markets All Cap Value Fund has renamed itself, before launch, as Advisory Research Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund.

Aegis Value Fund (AVALX) has been reorganized as … Aegis Value Fund (AVALX), except with a sales load (see story above).

DundeeWealth US, LP (the “Adviser”) has also changed its name to “Scotia Institutional Investments US, LP” effective November 1, 2013.

The Hatteras suite of alternative strategy funds (Hatteras Alpha Hedged Strategies, Hedged Strategies Fund, Long/Short Debt Fund, Long/Short Equity Fund and Managed Futures Strategies Fund) have been sold to RCS Capital Corporation and Scotland Acquisition, LLC.  We know this because the SEC filing avers the “Purchaser will purchase from the Sellers and the Sellers will sell to the Purchaser, substantially all the assets related to the business and operations of the Sellers and … the “Hatteras Funds Group.” Morningstar has a “negative” analyst rating on the group but I cannot find a discussion of that judgment.

Ladenburg Thalmann Alternative Strategies Fund (LTAFX) have been boldly renamed (wait for it) Alternative Strategies Fund.  It appears to be another in the expanding array of “interval” funds, whose shares are illiquid and partially redeemable just once a quarter. Its performance since October 2010 launch has been substantially better than its open-ended peers.

Effective October 7, 2013, the WisdomTree Global ex-US Growth Fund (DNL) became WisdomTree Global ex-US Dividend Growth Fund.

U.S. Global Investors MegaTrends Fund (MEGAX) will, on December 20, become Holmes Growth Fund

OFF TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

On-going thanks to The Shadow for help in tracking the consequences of “the perennial gale of creative destruction” blowing through the industry.  Shadow, a member of the Observer’s discussion community, has an uncanny talent for identifying and posting fund liquidations (and occasionally) launches to our discussion board about, oh, 30 seconds after the SEC first learns of the change.  Rather more than three dozen of the changes noted here and elsewhere in Briefly Noted were flagged by The Shadow.  While my daily reading of SEC 497 filings identified most of the them, his work really does contribute a lot. 

And so, thanks, big guy!

On October 16, 2013, the Board of Trustees of the Trust approved a Plan of Liquidation, which authorizes the termination, liquidation and dissolution of the 361 Absolute Alpha Fund. In order to effect such liquidation, the Fund is closed to all new investment. Shareholders may redeem their shares until the date of liquidation. The Fund will be liquidated on or about October 30, 2013.

City National Rochdale Diversified Equity Fund (the “Diversified Fund”) has merged into City National Rochdale U.S. Core Equity Fund while City National Rochdale Full Maturity Fixed Income Fund was absorbed by City National Rochdale Intermediate Fixed Income Fund

Great-West Ariel Small Cap Value Fund (MXSCX) will merge into Great-West Ariel Mid Cap Value Fund (MXMCX) around Christmas, 2013.  That’s probably a win for shareholders, since SCV has been mired in the muck while MCV has posted top 1% returns over the past five years.

As we suspected, Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation Fund (FECAX) is merging into Fidelity Europe Fund (FIEUX). FECAX was supposed to be the aggressive growth version of FIEUX but the funds have operated as virtually clones for the past five years.  And neither has particularly justified its existence: average risk, average return, high r-squared despite the advantages of low expenses and a large analyst pool.

The Board of the Hansberger funds seems concerned that you don’t quite understand the implications of having a fund liquidated.  And so, in the announcement of the October 18 liquidation of Hansberger International Fund they helpfully explain: “The Fund no longer exists, and as a result, shares of the Fund are no longer available for purchase.”

Highland Alpha Trend Strategies Fund (HATAX), formerly Pyxis Alpha Trend Strategies Fund, will close on November 20, 2013.  With assets not much greater than my retirement account (and performance vastly below it), I’m not sure that even the manager will notice the disappearance.

Huntington Income Equity (HUINX) will merge into Huntington Dividend Capture Fund (HDCAX) at the end of the first week of December.  It’s never a good sign when the winning fund – the more attractive of the two – trails 80% of its peers.

The JPMorgan Global Opportunities Fund was liquidated and dissolved on or about October 25, 2013. Given that they’re speaking in the past tense, don’t you think that they’d know whether it was “on” or “about”?

Update on the JPMorgan Value Opportunities Fund: an attempt to merge the fund out of existence in September failed because the Board couldn’t get enough shareholders to vote one way or the other.  On October 10, though, they reached a critical mass and folded the fund into JPMorgan Large Cap Value Fund (OLVAX) on October 18^th.

So long to LONGX! Longview Tactical Allocation Fund (LONGX) has closed and will liquidate on November 15, 2013.  700% turnover which might well have led to a joke about their ability to take the long view except for the fact that they’ve joined the zombie legion of walking dead funds.

In a determinedly “WTF?” move, the Mitchell Capital’s Board of Trustees has determined to liquidate the Mitchell Capital All-Cap Growth Fund (MCAEX) “due to the adviser’s business decision that it no longer is economically viable to continue managing the Fund because of the Fund’s small size, the increasing costs associated with managing the Fund, and the difficulty encountered in distributing the Fund’s shares.”  Huh?  “No longer economically viable”?  They only launched this sucker on March 1, 2013.  Seven months, guys?  You hung on seven months and that’s it?  What sort of analytic abilities are on display here, do you suppose?

On October 15, Nomura Partners Funds closed all of its remaining five mutual funds to purchases and exchanges.  They are The Japan Fund (NPJAX), Nomura Partners High Yield (NPHAX), Nomura Partners Asia Pacific Ex Japan (NPAAX), Nomura Partners Global Equity Income (NPWAX), and Nomura Partners Global Emerging Markets (NPEAX).  Here’s a sentence you should take seriously: “The Board will consider the best interests of the investors in each of the Funds and may decide to liquidate, merge, assign the advisory contract or to take another course of action for one or more of the Funds.”  The NPJAX board has acted boldly in the past.  In 2002, it fired the fund’s long-standing adviser, Scudder,Stevens, and turned the fund over to Fidelity to manage.  Then, in 2008, they moved it again from Fidelity to Nomura.  No telling what they might do next.

The firm also announced that it, like DundeeWealth, is planning to get out of the US retail fund business.

The liquidations of Nuveen Tradewinds Global Resources Fund and Nuveen Tradewinds Small-Cap Opportunities Fund are complete.  It’s an ill wind that blows …

Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP and Infrastructure Debt Fund went the way of the wild goose on October 4.

Transamerica is bumping off two sub-advised funds in mid-December: Transamerica International Bond (TABAX), subadvised by J.P. Morgan, and Transamerica International Value Opportunities Fund, subadvised by Thornburg but only available to other Transamerica fund managers.

UBS Global Frontier Fund became UBS Asset Growth Fund (BGFAX) on October 28.  Uhhh … doesn’t “Asset Growth” strike you as pretty much “Asset Gathering”?  Under the assumption that “incredibly complicated” is the magic strategy, the fund will adopt a managed volatility objective that tries to capture all of the upside of the MSCI World Free Index with a standard deviation of no more than 15.  On the portfolio’s horizon: indirect real estate securities, index funds, options and derivatives with leverage of up to 75%. They lose a couple managers and gain a couple in the process.

U.S. Global Investors Global Emerging Markets Fund closed on October 1 and liquidated on Halloween.  If you were an investor in the fund, I’m hopeful that you’d already noticed.  And considered Seafarer as an alternative.

Vanguard plans to merge two of its tax-managed funds into very similar index funds.  Vanguard Tax-Managed International (VTMNX) is merging into Vanguard Developed Markets Index (VDMIX) and Vanguard Tax-Managed Growth & Income (VTMIX) will merge into Vanguard 500 Index (VFINX). Since these were closet index funds to begin with – they have R-squared values of 98.5 and 100(!) – the merger mostly serves to raise the expenses borne by VTMNX investors from 10 basis points to 20 for the index fund.

Vanguard Growth Equity (VGEQX) is being absorbed by Vanguard US Growth (VWUSX). Baillie Gifford, managers of Growth Equity, will be added as another team for US Growth.

Vanguard Managed Payout Distribution Focus (VPDFX) and Vanguard Managed Payout Growth Focus (VPGFX) are slated to merge to create a new fund, Vanguard Managed Payout Fund. At that time, the payout in question will decrease to 4% from 5%.

WHV Emerging Markets Equity Fund (WHEAX) is suffering “final liquidation”  on or about December 20, 2013.  Okay returns, $5 million in assets.

In Closing . . .

As Chip reviewed how folks use our email notification (do they open it?  Do they click through to MFO?), she discovered 33 clicks from folks in Toyko (youkoso!), 21 in the U.K. (uhhh … pip pip?), 13 in the United Arab Emirates (keep cool, guys!) and 10 scattered about India (Namaste!).  Welcome to all.

Thanks to the kind folks who contributed to the Observer this month.  I never second guess folks’ decision to contribute, directly or through PayPal, but I am sometimes humbled by their generosity and years of support.  And so thanks, especially, to the Right Reverend Rick – a friend of many years – and to Andrew, Bradford, Matt, James (uhh… Jimmy?) and you all.  You make it all possible.

Thanks to all of the folks who bookmarked or clicked on our Amazon link.   Here’s the reminder of the easiest way to support the Observer: just use our Amazon link whenever you’d normally be doing your shopping, holiday or other, on Amazon anyway.  They contribute an amount equal to about 7% of the value of all stuff purchased through the link.  It costs you nothing (the cost is already built into their marketing budget) and is invisible.  If you’re interested in the details, feel free to look at the Amazon section under “Support.”  

Remember to join us, if you can, for our upcoming conversations with John, Greg and David.  Regardless, enjoy the quiet descent of fall and its seasonal reminder to slow down a bit and remember all the things you have to be grateful for rather than fretting about the ones you don’t have (and, really, likely don’t need and wouldn’t enjoy).

Cheers!

Dear friends,

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

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

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

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

Is it time to loathe the emerging markets? Again?

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

With our preeminent journalists contributing:

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

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

We’d like to make three points.

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

Emerging markets securities are deeply undervalued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those securities certainly could become much more deeply undervalued.

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

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

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

It’s not the time to be running away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our take on those funds follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Snowball’s portfolio

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

I guess my portfolio construction is driven by three dictums:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sterling Capital hits Ctrl+Alt+Delete

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

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

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

The benchmark changes, to the Russell 1000 Value

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

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

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

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

Warren Buffett thinks you’ve come to the right place

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

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

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

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

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

Warren Buffett Katharine Graham Letter

And now for something completely different …

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

As a writer and thinker, he minced no words.

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

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

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

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

“Skin in the Game, Part One”

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

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

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

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

Edward A. Studzinski

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

Introducing Charles’ Balcony

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

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

Observer fund profiles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Vannelli, Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our earlier Elevator Talks were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funds in Registration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manager Changes

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

Updates

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

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

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

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

Patience is hard.

Briefly Noted . . .

Calamos loses another president

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

They’re not dead yet!

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

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

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

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

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

Diamond Hill goes overseas, a bit

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

Janus gets more bad news

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

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

Matthews chucks Taiwan

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

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

To:

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

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

T. Rowe tweaks

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

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

To

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

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

Wasatch redefines “small cap”

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

Can you say whoa!? Or WOA?

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

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

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

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

SMALL WINS FOR INVESTORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLOSINGS (and related inconveniences)

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

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

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

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off to the dustbin of history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Closing . . .

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

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

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

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

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