Tag Archives: contests

Natixis CGM Advisor Targeted Equity Fund: An End Of An Era

Summary Natixis Asset Management, the fund’s distributor, has recently announced the closure of the CGM Advisor Targeted Equity Fund to new investors, and plans to liquidate the fund on 2/17/2016. The fund is managed by CGM’s Kenneth Heebner and has been active since 1968. Fund has significantly underperformed the market over the last 8 to 10 years. One of the oldest mutual funds is about to shut the doors. Natixis has just sent out a letter to financial advisor informing them of the board’s decision to liquidate the CGM Advisor Targeted Equity Fund (MUTF: NEFGX ) (MUTF: NEBGX ) (MUTF: NEGCX ) (MUTF: NEGYX ) on February 17th, 2016. As per the letter… The Board considered a number of factors in making this decision. Natixis Funds are managed solely by firms in which Natixis Global Asset Management has an ownership interest. In early January 2016 Natixis will no longer hold any ownership interest in Capital Growth Management (CGM). The Board determined that, since there is no other manager or fund within the Natixis Funds complex that has a similar investment style, it would not be in the best interest of shareholders to have another portfolio manager assume responsibility for managing the Fund or to merge it into another fund. If you are currently an investor, what are you to do? The Basics Originally launched in 1968, the fund has been managed over the last 39 years by Kenneth Heebner. Fund Basics : Sponsor: Natixis Global Asset Management Managers: Sub-Advised by CGM, Kenneth Heebner AUM: $448.53 Million across share classes Historical Style : Large Blend Investment Objectives: Seeks long-term growth of capital through investment in equity securities of companies whose earnings are expected to grow at a faster rate than that of the overall United States economy. Number of Holdings: 21 Current Yield: 0%, Annual Distributions Inception Date: 11-27-1968 Fees: A Share : 1.15%, I Share: .89% Source: Natixis Global Asset Management The fund’s special sauce is twofold. First, the fund is concentrated and typically holds between 20 and 30 securities. The reasoning for this being, if you hold 100 names or more and many funds do, you might as well own an index fund as you are in a quasi index fund with higher fees. As a concentrated fund, you are able to make specific investment bets. The second part to the special sauce is selecting “aggressive large-cap” holdings with a competitive long-term track record. The Numbers Pre 2007 the fund was a shining example that active management can work. 2007 in particular was a stand out year where the fund returned 34.42%, beating the S&P 500 by over 28%. Yes, the fund was concentrated and had a higher beta, it certainly brought alpha to the portfolio. Unfortunately, since 2008, the fund has been mediocre at best. (click to enlarge) Source: YCharts Even over the last 10 years, the fund has still not gotten its mojo back. (click to enlarge) Source: YCharts Putting this into perspective, we can take a look at the Risk Reward Scatterplot and MPT statistics for the fund compared to the S&P 500. (click to enlarge) Source: Morningstar While the fund has returned positive numbers, it has done so with both a higher beta to the market, and a lower alpha, not keeping up with the market. This trend holds true for both the 3, 5 and 10 year numbers. Our Take & Bottom Line This was a great fund Pre 2008, however during the great financial melt UP inspired by zero interest rate policy, active managers have been left behind as the entire markets went up. All you heard for the last 8 years has been index funds, ETFs, etc. Only this year have you started seeing a return to good active managers in a market that has gone nowhere for the year. The question is…. what does the future hold? Unfortunately, no one knows how CGM will manage in the future. The fund has typically had very active turnover in the portfolio with very little to show for it. It would not be prudent to invest in the funds right now, so this discussion focuses for those that are current investors. Even though Natixis will be liquidating the funds, CGM does have 3 mutual funds that are no load funds, as opposed to the Natixis CGM funds that were sold primarily through financial advisors. For investors who still believe in CGM and Kenneth Heebner, your choice would be to invest in the CGM Focus Fund (MUTF: CGMFX ) which mimics the Natixis fund very well. Unfortunately, the performance has been just as tepid. Perhaps this fund closing is just an opportunity to take a moment and reevaluate your options. In any case, it would be prudent to process your sell order now, rather than wait for the fund liquidation to happen by itself and hope to avoid any other special distributions & 1099s.

BUI: Thrown Out With The Bathwater?

Summary BUI is a closed end fund seeking total appreciation through capital gains and income, investing in utility and global infrastructure equities. BUI currently yields over 8% as its discount to NAV is near record highs. BUI is an atypical closed end mutual fund that has been discarded with the rest of the CEFS over the last 12 months. The BlackRock Utility & Infrastructure (NYSE: BUI ) closed end fund is an investment that I could of only wish for… on paper. BUI is an investment in one of my favorite asset classes (utilities and infrastructure), utilizing one of my favorite investment strategies (covered call writing), in one of my favorite investment fund structures (closed end fund). Unfortunately, since inception, it has been at best a mediocre investment, in particular over the last 12 months. Is the fund a bad fund? Or has the baby been thrown out with the bathwater? The Basics The BlackRock Utility & Infrastructure fund is a closed end mutual fund seeking income and capital appreciation by investing in equities of companies engaged in the utilities and infrastructure business. It carries a 1.1% expense ratio and invests in a portfolio of utility stocks that can be found in many other utility ETFs and mutual funds. What separates this fund from the competitors is the portfolio managers’ strategy of using/writing call options on the individual stocks in order to generate current income. In theory, this should reduce the overall volatility of the portfolio while providing current income. Currently it is paying a distribution rate of 8.57%. In rising markets, these types of portfolios tend to underperform the market as the upside is capped with the written call options. Let’s see how the portfolio has done. The Numbers Closed End Funds are a unique type of an investment that require extra care and attention. Unlike a traditional open end mutual fund that trades once a day, a closed end mutual fund trades like a stock and can be bought and sold throughout the day. Unlike traditional mutual funds which are priced once a day at the net asset value, closed end mutual funds trade a market prices, that may or may not be indicative of the true net asset value. For these reasons closed end mutual funds are typically more volatile compared to traditional funds, not because of the underlying performance, but rather on the reactions or over reactions in the market price. To understand this, you must also keep in mind that closed end funds, unlike their open ended siblings raise money once, and then they list on a public exchange and trade like a stock. If you as the investor want to invest money in the mutual fund strategy, you are buying someone else’s shares. The fund managers have that finite portfolio to work with and that is it, no new shares are created when you decide to invest your money. What this ends up translating into is most closed end funds trading at discounts below the actual value of the funds. That is why it is important to note the difference between the Market Price and the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV). In times of trouble, the market price may be significantly below the actual NAV, and may be a good opportunity to invest and buy assets on sale. Over the last 12 months, Closed End Funds have been hit quite hard with investors pulling out money. Typically, a closed end fund investor is looking for current income. The recent concerns about the health of the high yield markets as well as the interest rate hikes has caused fear and money flowing out of such investments. Unfortunately most people look at closed end funds as an asset class rather than as an investment vehicle with underlying investments. Has BUI been lumped in with other closed end funds? Let’s take a look. (click to enlarge) (Source: CEF Connect) As you can see, YTD BUI’s market price is down approximately 11%, however the underlying NAV is down only 6.99%. In essence, the investors were willing to accept less for the fund that what it was actually worth. In 2012 and 2013 you have had the same results. 2012 in particular resulted in a situation where the funds market price was down 3.51% for the year, yet the underlying net asset value was up 8.69%. 2014 showed what happens when people are chasing yield and were willing to pay more for the fund than what it earned where the market up was up 24.95%, yet the underlying NAV was up only 16.05%. An astute closed end fund investor looks for these opportunities to buy or to cash in their gains. On an annualized basis we have the following. (click to enlarge) (Source: CEF Connect) Since the fund launched in 2011, the total return including distributions averaged out to 3.43%. The fund has lost value, however it distributed a significant amount of dividends and income from the options. On a net asset value basis, the fund has performed respectably, earning an annualized 7.69%. Included are the performance numbers for the Closed End Fund Utilities category. What you can see is as expected, the fund has underperformed versus the peers, however during bad times, such as over the last year, BUI which uses no leverage and only generated income by writing call options was able to lower the volatility versus the peers as seen in the net asset value. Furthermore, while investors did notice this, you can still make the argument that this fund was hurt by the overall “dirty water” being thrown out as the market price did not hold up as well as the net asset value. The one place where this is evident is in the visualized chart of historical discounts and premiums to net asset value. (click to enlarge) (Source: CEF Connect) As of the time of writing, the fund is trading a discount of 13.24% to underlying net asset value. This has been historically a bigger discount than average, last seen late 2013 during the Fed’s Taper Tantrum. Conclusions and Final Thoughts Going through this analysis, it becomes more and more clear that unfortunately for this fund, it is lumped in with other closed end funds. Unlike other funds that employ leverage and invest in risky assets, BlackRock’s Utility & Infrastructure fund uses no leverage, buys globally listed equities, generates income with covered call options and has reasonable management fees. Unfortunately even though the underlying portfolio is seemingly performing as intended, the majority of investors are willing to overlook that and treat this as any other closed end fund. For a long term income investor looking for utility and infrastructure exposure, this fund at the current prices may be worthy of a look, at the very least put on your watch list.

Low-Risk Tactical Strategies Using Volatility Targeting

Summary In this volatility targeting approach, the allocation between equity and bond assets is varied on a monthly basis based on a specified target volatility level. Low volatility is the goal. Two strategies are presented: 1) a moderate growth version and 2) a capital preservation version. 30 years of backtesting results are presented using mutual funds as proxies for ETFs. For the moderate growth version, backtests show a CAGR of 12.6%, a MaxDD of -7.4% (based on monthly returns), and a return-to-risk (CAGR/MaxDD) of 1.7. For the capital preservation version, CAGR = 10.2%, MaxDD = -4.9%, and return-to-risk (CAGR/MaxDD) = 2.1. In live trading, ETFs can be substituted for the mutual funds. Short-term backtesting results using ETFs are presented. I must admit I am somewhat of a novice at using volatility targeting in a tactical strategy. But recently, the commercially free Portfolio Visualizer [PV] added a new backtest tool to their arsenal, so I started studying volatility targeting and how it works. Volatility targeting as used by PV is a method to adjust monthly allocations of assets within a portfolio based on the volatility of the assets over the previous month(s). In this case, we are only looking at high volatility equities and very low volatility bonds. To maintain a constant level of volatility for the portfolio, when the volatility of the equity asset(s) increases, allocation to the bond asset(s) increases because the bond asset has low volatility. And when the volatility of the equity asset(s) decrease, allocation to the bond asset(s) decreases. In PV, you can specify a target volatility level for the portfolio. Since I wanted an overall low volatility strategy with moderate growth (greater than 12% compounded annualized growth rate), I mainly focused on very low volatility target levels. I ended up using a monthly lookback period on volatility to determine the asset allocations because monthly lookbacks produced the best overall results. I quickly came to realize that high-growth equity assets are desired for the equity holdings, and a low-risk (low volatility) bond asset is preferred for the bond fund. In order to assess the strategy, I used mutual funds that have backtest histories to 1985. This enabled backtesting to Jan 1986. In live trading, ETFs that mimic the funds can be used. I will show results using the mutual funds as well as the ETFs. The equity assets I selected were Vanguard Health Care Fund (MUTF: VGHCX ) and Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A ) stock. Either Vanguard Health Care ETF (NYSEARCA: VHT ) or Guggenheim – Rydex S&P Equal Weight Health Care ETF (NYSEARCA: RYH ) can be substituted for VGHCX in live trading. BRK.A is, of course, a long-standing diversified stock. These two equity assets were selected because of their high performance over the years. Of course, these equities had substantial drawdowns in bear markets, something we want to avoid in our strategy. But in volatility targeting, as I have found out, it is advantageous to use the best-performing equities, not just index-based equities. Of course, it is assumed that these equities will continue to perform well in the future as they have in the past 30 years, and that may or may not be the case. For the low-risk bond asset class, I used the GNMA bond class. The selection of the GNMA bond class was made after studying performance and risk using other bond classes such as money market, short-term Treasuries, long-term Treasuries, etc. The GNMA class turned out to be the best. I selected Vanguard GNMA Fund (MUTF: VFIIX ) for backtesting, so that the backtests could extend to Jan 1986. There are a number of options for ETFs that can be used in live trading, e.g. iShares Barclays MBS Fixed-Rate Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: MBB ). Moderate Growth Version (CAGR = 12.6%) A moderate growth version is considered first. VGHCX and BRK.A are the equities always held in a 66%/34% split; VFIIX is the bond asset; and the target volatility is 6%. The backtested results from 1986-2015 are shown below compared to a buy and hold strategy of the equities (rebalanced annually). (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) It can be seen that the compounded annualized growth rate [CAGR] is 12.6%, the maximum drawdown [MaxDD] is -7.4% (based on monthly returns), and the return-to-risk [MAR = CAGR/MaxDD] is 1.7. There are three years with essentially zero or very slightly negative returns: 1999, 2002 and 2008. The worst year (2008) had a -1.6% return. The monthly win rate is 74%. The percentage of VFIIX varies between 1% and 93% for any given month. The Vanguard Wellesley 60/40 Equity/Bond Fund (MUTF: VWINX ) is a good benchmark for this strategy. The overall performance and risk of VWINX are shown below. It can be seen that the CAGR is 9.1%, while the MaxDD is -18.9%. These performance and risk numbers are quite good for a buy and hold mutual fund, but the volatility targeting strategy produces higher CAGR and much lower MaxDD. VWINX Benchmark Results: 1986-2015 (click to enlarge) Capital Preservation Version (MAR = 2.1) For this version, the target volatility was set to a very low level of 3.5%. This volatility level produced the lowest MAR. The results using PV are shown below. (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) It can be seen that the CAGR is 10.2%, the MaxDD is -4.9%, and the MAR is 2.1. Every year has a positive return; the worst year has a return of +0.4%. The monthly win rate is 75%. Limited Backtesting Using ETFs To show how this strategy would play out in live trading, I have substituted RYH for VGHCX and MBB for VFIIX. The second equity asset is BRK.A as before. Backtesting is limited to 2008 with these ETFs and the BRK.A stock. The backtest results are shown below. (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) The ETF results can be compared with the mutual fund results from 2008 to 2015. The mutual fund results are shown below. (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) It can be seen that the overall performance over these years is lower than seen over the past 30 years. The CAGR is 9.7% from 2008 to 2015 for the mutual funds and 9.3% for the ETFs. Although this performance in recent years is less than earlier performance, it is still deemed acceptable for most retired investors interested in preserving their nest egg while accumulating modest growth. The good quantitative agreement between mutual funds and ETFs between 2008 and 2015 provides some confidence that using ETFs is a viable option for this strategy. Overall Conclusions The tactical volatility targeting strategy I have presented has good potential to mitigate risk and still provides moderate growth in a retirement portfolio. The moderate growth version has a CAGR of 12.6% and a MaxDD of -7.4% in 30 years of backtesting. The capital preservation version has a CAGR of 10.2% and a MaxDD of -4.9% over this same timespan. The return-to-risk MAR using target volatility is much better than passive buy and hold approaches, especially in bear markets when large drawdowns may occur even in diversified portfolios.