Tag Archives: mutual-fund

4 Strong-Buy Small-Cap Value Mutual Funds

A small-cap value fund is a good choice for investors seeking diversification across sectors and companies, and focusing on gaining exposure to stocks that are trading at discounts. Investors with a high-risk appetite should invest in these funds. Small-cap funds generally invest in companies having market caps lower than $2 billion. The companies, smaller in size, offer growth potential and their market capitalization may increase subsequently. Meanwhile, value stocks are those that tend to trade at a price lower than their fundamentals (i.e. earnings, book value, debt-equity). It is a common practice to invest in value funds for income or yield. However, not all value funds solely comprise companies that primarily use their earnings to pay dividends. Investors interested in choosing value funds for yield, should be sure to check the mutual fund yield, which is the dividend payout divided by the value of the mutual fund’s shares. Below we share with you 4 top-rated, small-cap value mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and we expect the fund to outperform its peers in the future. CornerCap Small Cap Value (MUTF: CSCVX ) seeks capital growth over the long run. CSCVX invests the lion’s share of its assets in small cap companies located in the US. CSCVX defines firms with market capitalization below $3 billion as small cap. The CornerCap Small Cap Value fund returned 9.4% over the past one year. As of September 2015, CSCVX held 221 issues with 0.69% of its assets invested in Fidelity Southern Corp. (NASDAQ: LION ). Perkins Small Cap Value Fund A (MUTF: JDSAX ) invests a large chunk of its assets in common stocks of undervalued small-cap companies. JDSAX invests in securities of companies with market capitalization similar to those listed in the Russell 2000 Value Index. JDSAX may invest a maximum of 20% of its assets in cash or equivalents. The Perkins Small Cap Value A fund returned 5.7% over the past one year. JDSAX has an expense ratio of 1.03% as compared to the category average of 1.23%. Northern Small Cap Value (MUTF: NOSGX ) seeks long-term growth of capital. NOSGX invests a major portion of its assets in equity securities of companies having market capitalization within the universe of the Russell 2000 Value Index. NOSGX may focus on a particular sector including financial services. NOSGX may invest in companies that may not provide any dividend. The Northern Small Cap Value fund returned 5.6% over the past one year. Robert H. Bergson is the fund manager of NOSGX since 2001. Queens Road Small Cap Value (MUTF: QRSVX ) invests generally in securities of small-cap companies located in the U.S. QRSVX seeks to provide capital appreciation by investing the majority of its assets in equity securities of companies. The Queens Road Small Cap Value fund returned 6.3% over the past one year. QRSVX has an expense ratio of 1.24% as compared to the category average of 1.23%. Original Post

Am I Too Overweight In Mutual Funds?

As investors, one of our favorite words is diversification. We are taught to diversify our portfolios to avoid exposure to any one particular investment or sector of the market and achieve balance. One of the easiest ways to achieve diversification is through purchasing mutual funds, which I did at the beginning of my investing career. However, now that I have grown as an investor and now own 30 individual stocks, I wanted to take a look back at my current mutual funds to determine if too much of my portfolio is allocated to these diversified holdings. It is time to take a look at the five mutual funds I hold and determine if ACTION needs to be taken. The Mutual Funds Currently, I own five different mutual funds . In total, the mutual funds total $16,200, or 25.5% of my total portfolio. These five funds are located in two different accounts, which impacts the accessibility of the capital if I were to decide to make a move. Roth IRA Three of the funds are located in my Roth IRA. I opened these positions during the infancy stages of my dividend growth investing career. At the time, I wanted both dividend income and diversification, so focusing on dividend paying mutual funds sounded like a great idea. So I took the capital I had and divided it evenly among the three funds listed below. ACLAX – 119.803 Shares; MV $1,994; 3.0% of Portfolio – This fund is a four star, silver rated fund on Morningstar. Some of the top ten holdings include: RSG , EMR (One of our favorites), NTRS , OXY , IMO , and CAG . The major selling points on this fund were the diversification, historical performance, strong/consistent management team, and the fact that the fund has a mid-cap focus but still pays a strong dividend. The one major downfall of this fund is the expense ratio, which is slightly over 1%. However, I knew that a fund centered on finding mid-cap funds would cost more than others due to the extra research and time needed to manage the lesser-known stocks. OIEIX – 138.551 Shares; MV $1,916; 2.9% of Portfolio – Another fours star, silver rated fund. This fund does not mess around and is focuses on large cap, value stocks. Some of the largest holdings include: JPM , XOM , JNJ , MO , AAPL , PNC , PFE , and HD . My favorite aspect about this stock is that it pays a monthly dividend. While my check usually isn’t that large on a monthly basis, as evidenced in last month’s dividend income summary, it is nice to see your position grow on a monthly basis. Isn’t that right Realty Income shareholders? MEIAX – 55.556 Shares, MV $1,952; 3.0% of Portfolio – Also a four star, silver fund. This fund has some overlap with OIEIX as some of the top holdings include: JPM , JNJ , PM , PFE , LMT , USB , and MMM (one of my favorites). However, unlike OIEIX, this fund pays a quarterly dividend and has a lower annual fee than the other two above. Since these funds are held in a personal retirement account and are not affiliated with my employer sponsored retirement account, I have the ability to trade these funds without restrictions and liquidate my positions at any moment. Employer Sponsored Roth 401(k) Accounts Like most of us that are still working for an employer, we have a 401k plan that allows us to select from a small pool of mutual funds or the company’s stock. For my company, we are allowed to select from a wide variety of Vanguard mutual funds. Vanguard funds are nice because of the extremely low expense ratios. In this account, I own two different mutual funds. VWNAX – 149.224 shares; $9,726.42; 14.9% of Portfolio. This Vanguard fund is a large-cap value fund with an expense ratio of just .27%, significantly lower than the three funds disclosed above. Some of the top ten holdings include JPM , MDT , PFE , BAC , OTCQB:MFST , WFC , PM , and PNC . If you recall, I left my current employer in March and returned later in the year. This was the mutual fund that I contributed to in my first stint at my current employer and I am no longer contributing to this mutual fund. Therefore, the only changes in value/shares owned are related to changes in market price and the receipt of dividends. Another interesting nugget about this fund is that it pays a semi-annual dividend in June and December. So it doesn’t pay frequently, but when it does, the dividend income checks have a huge impact on my monthly dividend income figures. Want proof? Check out my dividend income summary from the last time I received a payout. VINIX ­- 224 shares; $9,726.42; .8% of portfolio very similar to the last mutual fund. However, two small differences. First VINIX focuses on mirroring the S&P 500 versus investing in dividend stocks so the yield is slightly lower. Second, VINIX pays a quarterly dividend versus a semi-annual dividend. When I re-joined my old company, I thought it might be a good idea to invest in a new mutual fund to diversify my holdings. Since this position will keep growing, I didn’t want to become too overweight in one mutual fund. So now I will share the wealth in Vanguard and continue to max my contributions in this fund so I can receive the full benefit of my employer’s 401k match, which can be a very powerful tool for dividend investors. Analysis As I compiled the section above, there were a few things that jumped out at me. Here are some of the thoughts that came to my mind. There is a lot of Overlap ­- This became evident when I started listing out some of the major holdings in each fund. Outside of ACLAX, which focuses on mid-cap dividend stocks, there is a lot of overlap in holdings in the other four mutual funds. Which makes sense considering that these funds are focused on generating a dividend from large cap stocks and there are only so many stocks to select from. However, if my goal is to achieve diversification among these holdings, do I really need four different funds investing the same pool of stocks? Wouldn’t one suffice? Why am I paying Such High Expense Fees – Is it terrible that my answer is “I don’t know why?” At the time of investment, it made sense to invest in mutual funds. But I wasn’t as much of an expense hawk as I am now so I was willing to overlook the high expense ratios to achieve my goal of diversification. In this day in age, with ETFs designed to achieve the same goal as mutual funds with minimal fees, why on earth am I voluntarily paying this annual fee? A stupid/reckless mistake on my part. I understand paying a fee for a mutual fund that invests in mid or small cap stocks because these companies require more time and research to identify/trade successfully. But paying a fee to invest in a pool of highly covered large cap stocks seems ridiculous going forward. Lack of REITs in Holdings – This one kind of surprised me, especially considering I selected these funds with a dividend-focused attitude. I did not see one REIT in any of the mutual funds I own. I am sure there is some reason why and the tax rules may be too unfavorable for fund families. This was just an interesting observation to me so I wanted to share it all with you. Where do I Go From Here? Based on my analysis and observations above, I think the answer to the title of this article is yes. Holding five mutual funds, which account for over 25% of my portfolio , seems a little heavy. Especially considering that many of the mutual funds invest in the same pool of stocks and are accomplishing the same goals. Well, first things first. Let’s talk about the liquidity of these funds. Since two of my mutual funds are in an employer-sponsored plan, there isn’t much I can do outside of investing my capital in a different mutual fund. And trust me, Lanny and I have performed plenty of research on the available plans in the portfolio and we have selected two of the best. So as of now, I am not going to touch the two Vanguard funds and I will continue to invest in VINIX with each paycheck. Our employer matches 50% of all contributions, so I will continue to contribute the maximum amount each paycheck that will allow me to receive the full employer match next year. Plus, the expense ratio is very low, which is a huge positive compared to the other funds. While I can’t liquidate my two Vanguard funds, it is a completely different story for the three mutual funds in my Roth IRA. I have the freedom to trade these funds as I please. When I initially invested in these funds, I was at a different stage of my investing career and I needed the diversification. However, now that I have grown as an investor, owning 30 individual stocks, there is no need to diversify through owning independent mutual funds. The fees are too high and diversification is achieved through my employer’s plan. So after I receive my capital gain distribution in December, which always results in a nice payout, I am most likely going to sell these funds and use the ~$6,000 to invest in some powerhouse dividend stocks. Which stocks will I invest in? I’m not entirely sure yet. I’m going to special screener in the next month unique to this situation that will help me identify how I should allocate the $6,000 in capital when it becomes available. The screener will look to identify great companies with a long-term track record with a yield in excess of the yield I am receiving on these dividend-focused mutual funds. I’m not certain yet, but I believe one of the moves I am going to make is to invest half in Realty Income based on the results of my last stock analysis. Another option is to focus on one of the stocks on my “Always Buy” list or one of the high yielding stocks on our foundation stock listing. What are your thoughts on my strategy? What percentage of your portfolio are allocated to mutual funds? Do you think I am overweight? Should I consider investing in ETFs in lieu of mutual funds or dividend stocks with the capital to maintain the diversification? Do you have any recommendations for stocks that I should consider?

Portfolio Development – My Approach

Summary Standard portfolio development theory provides a great foundation. Unfortunately, the stock and bond markets don’t always cooperate. Take the approach of accepting what the markets offer to improve total return. Introduction There are literally dozens of articles and books written on the subject of portfolio development theory. Most of those articles and books approach the development of a portfolio using a mix of stocks and bonds with the mix dependent on the investors tolerance for risk and the investor’s age. I think that this “standard” approach to portfolio development is great if you have the luxury of time to build that portfolio over a number of years and business cycles. Without the luxury of time, I don’t believe the “standard” approach works all that well. Making things even more difficult, today we have a unique investment environment. Yes, it really is different this time. We are currently in a period of ultra low interest rates with the most likely course going forward being slowly rising rates. Bonds may not return much over the next few years and if the economy and inflation accelerate, total return could be negative. What is an investor to do? My approach is to accept what the market has to offer. Standard Portfolio Development As stated in the introduction, there is a lot of information available on portfolio development theory. It is not my intent to provide a detailed discussion on the subject of standard portfolio development. I will summarize what I consider to be the standard approach in this section and refer the reader to articles available on the internet if more detail on the standard approach is desired. Most portfolio development starts with identifying the investor’s tolerance for risk. Because the risk of having poor or even negative returns can be mitigated with time invested, an investors risk tolerance also has an age component. Younger investors can generally tolerate more risk because they have many years to invest and accumulate wealth. To see the market behavior over various time periods, you could look at available charts . Another option is to use a market return calculator to look at various time periods. While you might be able to find a 30 year period with a slightly lower return if you work at it, the stock market has returned 8% – 9% average per year for any 30 year period since 1900. The bottom line is that time in the market lowers your risk of having a poor return provided you have a reasonably diversified portfolio of stocks. The standard portfolio model also uses diversification between asset classes to mitigate risk. Assets are typically divided primarily between stocks and bonds with a cash account outside the portfolio sufficient to cover 3 – 6 months of living expenses or for other emergencies. The rationale behind splitting the main portfolio between stocks and bonds is that the two asset classes typically complement each other. If equities have a terrible year, the investor should still receive a positive return from their bond holdings. One long standing rule of thumb for the split between stocks and bonds is to use 120 minus the investors age as the percentage for equities in the portfolio. As an investor ages, the portfolio percentage dedicated to stocks drops. The table below illustrates the portfolio stock percentage as a function of age. While this is a decent rule of thumb to follow, there is no universally agreed split between stocks and bonds and some recent thinking is that the typical split between stocks and bonds as a function of the age of the investor may need to weight more heavily stocks versus bonds. The reason for this shift to a relatively higher asset allocation to stocks is because we have had a long bull market in bonds and current yields are extraordinarily low. This makes it less likely that bonds will provide adequate returns going forward at least relative to historical returns. Stocks and bonds should also be diversified within the respective asset class. Depending on the value of the portfolio, it may not be practical for an individual investor to achieve the level of diversification necessary to adequately mitigate risk. Diversification in stocks is easier to achieve because stocks can typically be purchased in small increments. This is not the case with individual bonds. As an example, a round lot for a stock investment is 100 shares and the cost penalty for an odd lot (