Tag Archives: mutual-fund

Natixis And AlphaSimplex Launch Dynamic Allocation Fund

By DailyAlts Staff On November 30, Natixis Global Asset Management added its tenth alternative mutual fund to its lineup: the Natixis ASG Dynamic Allocation Fund (MUTF: DAAFX ). The new fund is the firm’s fourth fund sub-advised by affiliate AlphaSimplex Group, which was founded by MIT finance professor Andrew Lo, PhD. The new fund seeks to deliver long-term capital appreciation, with a secondary goal of capital-preservation during unfavorable market conditions, via a “tactical global asset allocation strategy.” “Building a durable investment portfolio has become even more challenging in a volatile market environment buffeted by global economic uncertainty,” said David Giunta, president and CEO of U.S. Distribution for Natixis, in a recent statement announcing the launch of the new fund. “To successfully diversify a portfolio of traditional stock and bond funds, investors need adaptive tools, such as the ASG Dynamic Allocation Fund, which incorporate a wide range of information available today to make investment decisions.” Investment Approach The ASG Dynamic Allocation Fund employs dynamic tactical allocation across global markets and asset classes through the use of futures, forwards, and ETFs. Its long positions will span the following traditional asset classes: U.S. stocks; Non-U.S. developed market stocks; Emerging markets stocks; U.S. bonds; and Non-U.S. developed market bonds. The prospectus for the fund indicates that commodities will be added in the future, which will be limited to 20% of the fund’s assets. The strategy starts with a balanced allocation to “high-risk” and “low-risk” asset classes, and then adjusts the allocations according to AlphaSimplex’s quantitative analysis of market behaviors. Portfolio managers Alexander Healy, Robert Rickard, and Derek Schug are also charged with the task of managing the fund’s annualized volatility, which is targeted at no more than 20%, as measured by the standard deviation of the fund’s returns. The fund will also use leverage, which will not exceed 200% of assets, and may hold short positions through the use of derivatives. The fund’s portfolio construction process is depicted in the graphic below. “The ASG Dynamic Allocation Fund seeks to balance risk with expected return by tactically allocating to multiple asset classes across a range of global markets using a disciplined quantitative approach that draws on AlphaSimplex’s current strategies and our experience managing liquid alternatives since 2003,” said AlphaSimplex CEO Duncan B. E. Wilkinson. “We created the fund to help investors shift exposures among global assets in a fast-paced global market environment and help them stay invested over the long term.” Fund Details Shares of the fund are available in A (DAAFX), C (MUTF: DACFX ), and Y (MUTF: DAYFX ) classes, all with an investment management fee of 0.70% and respective net-expense ratios of 1.25%, 2.00%, and 1.00%. The minimum initial investment for A and C shares is $2,500. The minimum for Y shares is $100,000. For more information, visit the fund’s web page .

Stock Market Control

Summary History shows there is a one in three chance that stocks will drop each year regardless of whatever happened the prior year. We think there are certain things we can’t control in the stock market. We try to control what we own, how cheap it is, how often we make changes to our portfolio and quality from the companies we own. We saw the chart below in a recent Marketwatch.com column from Mark Hulbert. It shows the likelihood of the stock market going up or down in the next year, based on how it did the prior year: This got us thinking about what you can and can’t control in the U.S. stock market. After all, the reason that stocks outperform other liquid asset classes over long stretches of time is the uncertainty and variability of returns. Here is a short list of things, which can’t be controlled in the U.S. stock market: 1. Stock market results The chart shows that there is a one in three chance that stocks will drop each year regardless of whatever happened the prior year. We don’t think investors should buy or own common stocks if they feel emotionally ill-equipped to withstand a losing year. 2. Stock Market Volatility Even in good years, stocks can swing wildly from week to week and month to month. The average year sees a peak to trough decline of 10%, and we have seen a 20% or greater decline about once every five years on average. Twice in the last 16 years, we saw the S&P 500 Index decline by more than 30%. Granted, that is an unusual occurrence, since there have been only five such declines since 1940. We remember telling common stock investors near the bottom of the stock market in March of 2009 that it would likely take about four years to get their portfolio value back to where it was before the decline in 2008-09. Those courageous and patient investors have been well rewarded by the bull market since then. An owner of common stocks should expect gyrations as part of the price of admission and use holding periods, which allow for recovery and success. The wise investor seeks to use wide, sharp and emotional price swings in their favor. 3. Stock Market Unpredictability I am approaching my 36th year participating in the U.S. stock market and can say that nobody has proven any consistent ability to predict price moves in the indexes. I’ve read the prognostications of Joe Granville, Stan Weinstein, Marty Zweig, Comstock Partners, Robert Prechter, George Gilder, Nouriel Roubini, Meredith Whitney and numerous other very smart people in my career. The one thing they have in common is they attracted a large following after being very right on a major stock market prediction. However, doing so consistently is a bit like trying to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We recently read the musings of a highly respected asset allocation firm about their seven-year predictions of asset class returns. Their prediction for the U.S. stock market is extremely negative, which would scare a normal observer and could very well end up being valid. However, we have been reading their predictions for the last ten years and have seen their consistent pessimism for U.S. stocks. We also remember their optimism about emerging markets and commodities. Surely, these predictions from the last five years must have cost someone who followed their advice some serious money. 4. Relative Performance A study of the best stock picking disciplines of the last 60 years (Buffett, Neff, Templeton, Lynch and Carret) showed that they underperformed the S&P 500 Index 35% of the calendar years during their long and illustrious track records. We expect to be subject to those statistics at best and have very little control over which years we get beat by the index. Our goal is to beat the stock market over ten and twenty-year time periods and we believe those results would be unattainable if you try and smooth that truth. Things We Seek to Control We’re not about being glum or dour. We certainly believe there are things that investors can control. We’ve outlined three key tenets to consider when investing in common stocks. 1. Valuation Matters Dearly You can control which stocks you own, and you are free to emphasize stocks, which are cheap in relation to profits, free cash flow, dividends or book value. Studies show that results are improved over both short and long term holdings periods by constantly reemphasizing cheaper common stocks. This requires a contrarian nature, because when these common stocks are cheap their warts show easily. Therefore, you need to be lonely and courageous. 2. Activity Eats into Returns A wise financial advisor told us in early 2012 that a stock portfolio is like a bar of soap: the more you rub it, the smaller it gets. A 2013 study in the Financial Analysts Journal showed that the average turnover among U.S. large-cap equity funds has been 62% and it costs the average equity mutual fund in the database 0.81% (81 basis points) per year in returns. We seek to own securities for an average of over seven years and attempt to save significantly on trading costs by doing so. If you can control yourself and be very patient, we think you can improve long-term results. 3. Quality Adds Alpha and Promotes Patience Studies have shown that qualitative characteristics like a strong balance sheet, consistently high profitability and low earnings variability add to returns over long time periods. These qualities give owners more ability to stay put in bad stock market environments and/or when a company temporarily stumbles. Riding through thick and thin can be controlled and is augmented if there is no threat of one of your companies going out of business. Again, if you can control yourself, you can use long-durations to let quality help you overcome the forces you can’t control. Conclusion We make no effort to have any control over stock market results, volatility, unpredictability and relative performance. We haven’t got any special ability to know what stocks will do next year or how we will fare on a relative basis. What we do try to control is what we own, how cheap it is, how often we make changes to our portfolio (we subscribe to “lethargy bordering on sloth” – Warren Buffett) and what kind of quality we demand from the companies we buy and own. We do this based on our eight criteria for stock selection. In practicing our discipline, we seek high quality companies, purchased at bargain prices and have a desire to hold them for long time periods. In other words, we try to control ourselves, our portfolio and apply long-durational and favorable probabilities. The information contained in this missive represents SCM’s opinions, and should not be construed as personalized or individualized investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Bill Smead, CIO and CEO, wrote this article. It should not be assumed that investing in any securities mentioned above will or will not be profitable. A list of all recommendations made by Smead Capital Management within the past twelve-month period is available upon request.

Long/Short Equity Funds: The Best And Worst Of November

After posting losses in September and gains in October, Morningstar’s long/short equity mutual fund category was flat for the month of November – but this doesn’t mean there weren’t standout funds. Indeed, one of the worst performers from October was able to bounce back into the top three for November. In this review of the category, we look not only at the one-month returns of the month’s best and worst funds, but also the composition of their three-year returns in terms of alpha and beta, as well as their three-year Sharpe ratios and standard deviations. A quick refresher: Beta refers to the risk level of a security relative to the market. A beta of 1.0 implies the same risk level as the market, while a beta of more than 1.0 means the security (or fund in this case) is riskier than the market. A beta of less than 1.0 implies a risk less than the market. Alpha is the amount of performance in excess of a security’s beta adjusted benchmark. Sharpe ratio is a measure of return (above the risk free rate) per unit of risk – the higher, the better. (click to enlarge) Top Performers in November The three best-performing long/short equity mutual funds in November were: For the second straight month, a Catalyst fund topped the list. But while October saw the Catalyst Hedged Insider Buying Fund (MUTF: STVIX ) lead all long/short equity mutual funds, in November it was the Catalyst Insider Long/Short Fund that led the pack at +7.21%. For the first eleven months of the year, CIAAX returned an even 2%, and its three-year return through November 30 stood at an annualized 4.42%. The fund had a negative alpha (-0.60) for the three-year period, with a three-year beta of 0.39, and a Sharpe ratio of 0.35. The Burnham Financial Long/Short Fund was November’s second-best-performing long/short equity mutual fund, with returns of +5.53%. While its gains lagged those of the Catalyst Insider fund, BURFX’s longer-term numbers are much more appealing: Its three-year return of 20.31%, and alpha of 11.98%, was accomplished with a relatively low level of volatility (9.17% standard deviation) and a beta of just less than half the market (0.45). The fund’s three-year Sharpe ratio of 2.07 is outstanding. Finally, the Turner Medical Sciences Long/Short Fund was the third-best long/short equity mutual fund to own in November, boasting returns of +5.36%. This was a turnaround for the Turner fund, which was the third-worst performer in October, with losses of 4.99%. Over the past three years, TMSCX has returned an annualized 14.61% with a beta of just 0.19. This has resulted in the fund’s alpha of 11.94% ranking just 4 basis points less than the Burnham fund above, despite a much lower 3-year annualized return. However, with it’s higher standard deviation over the period, the fund’s Sharpe ratio stood came it 0.93 for the three-year period, a bit less than half the Burnham fund’s Sharpe ratio. (click to enlarge) Worst Performers in November The three worst-performing long/short equity mutual funds in November were: The Philadelphia Investment Partners New Generation Fund, the month’s worst performer, lost more than the month’s top-performer gained, with a one-month return of -7.55%. Its dismal three-year returns of -5.45% can be broken down into a 0.80 beta and -17.54 alpha, resulting in a Sharpe ratio of -0.49 for the three years ending November 30. The Clinton Long Short Equity Fund hasn’t been around long enough to have three-year return data, but its one-month losses of 4.84% in November made it the second-worst long/short equity mutual fund to own that month. For the first eleven months of 2015, WKCIX lost 13.49% of its value. The Whitebox Tactical Opportunities Fund ( WBMIX ) was November’s third-worst long/short equity fund, with returns of -3.58%. For the first eleven months of 2015, WBMIX generated losses of 19.50%, and its three-year returns of -3.17% through November 30. The fund has a low 3-year beta of 0.13 and a -4.90 alpha. The fund’s three-year Sharpe ratio stood at -0.33 as of November 30. (click to enlarge) October’s Best and Worst: Follow-Up The Catalyst Hedged Insider Buying ( STVIX ), Tealeaf Long/Short Deep Value (MUTF: LEFIX ), and Giralda Manager (MUTF: GDAMX ) funds were October’s top three long/short equity mutual funds, with respective one-month returns of 10.71%, 9.05%, and 8.73%. In November, STVIX returned a category-matching 0.00%, while LEFIX and GDAMX posted respective one-month returns of 3.02% and 0.15%. October’s worst performers were the CMG Tactical Futures Strategy Fund (MUTF: SCOIX ) and the Highland Long/Short Healthcare Fund (MUTF: HHCAX ), which lost 6.74% and 5.54%. In November, those funds continued their losing ways with returns of -2.02% and -1.55%, respectively. Past Performance does not necessarily predict future results.