Tag Archives: mutual funds

How Well Are The Largest Global Mutual Funds Protecting Your Capital?

Summary Over the last several months volatility has reasserted itself as a feature of the global stock markets. As is often the case when the tide rolls out (AKA volatility reemerges) those who have been swimming naked get revealed. In the mutual fund world, this is akin to seeing which funds have working risk management protocols and which funds have malfunctioning risk management protocols, or none at all. Overall, we have found that for the vast majority of the largest global funds, the risk management protocols seem to be either malfunctioning or non-existent. Over the last several months volatility has reasserted itself as a feature of the global stock markets. As is often the case when the tide rolls out (AKA volatility reemerges) those who have been swimming naked get revealed. In the mutual fund world, this is akin to seeing which funds have working risk management protocols and which funds have malfunctioning risk management protocols, or none at all. Overall, we have found that for the vast majority of the largest global funds, the risk management protocols seem to be either malfunctioning or non-existent. The vast majority of these funds are exposing investors to even more downside risk than the broad market and the funds that have declined less than their benchmarks have only declined a fraction less. Method: In the study carried out below we reviewed the performance of every World Stock and Diversified Emerging Market mutual fund with assets under management (AUM) greater than $1B. We limited the study to I and Y share classes so as to capture the share classes with the lowest fees and we only studied one share class per fund (the lowest fee class) if the fund has both I and Y shares. For each fund category there were 33 funds with an AUM greater than $1B. For World Stock funds we measured total return performance relative to the MSCI World Index since its peak on 5/21/2015 and for Diversified Emerging Markets Funds we measured total return performance relative to the MSCI EM Index since its peak on 4/28/2015. As of the close on 8/24/2015, the MSCI World Index was down 11.9% and the MSCI EM Index was down 26.6%. Results for the Largest World Stock Mutual Funds: Since the MSCI World Index (proxied by URTH ) made its cyclical peak on 5/21/2015, 36% of World Stock funds have gone down less than the index and 64% of funds have gone down more than the index. The average World Stock fund has realized 95.7% of the decline and thus was able to sidestep only 4.3% of the decline. The median fund has realized 97.2% of the decline and thus was only able to sidestep 2.8% of the decline. That is to say that the average fund avoided 51 basis points and the median fund avoided 33 basis points of the 11.9%, or 1189 basis point, decline of the MSCI World Index. Only four of these largest 33 funds have been able to avoid 20% of the decline and only one fund has been able to avoid 40% of the drawdown so far. We must conclude then that in general the largest World Stock mutual funds have provided no or de minimis capital preservation characteristics during this drawdown. Almost all of them have been swimming naked. Tables 1 and 2 below summarize these findings. (click to enlarge) Results for the Largest Diversified Emerging Market Mutual Funds: Since the MSCI Emerging Market Index (proxied by VWO ) made its cyclical peak on 4/28/2015, 21% of Diversified Emerging Market funds have gone down less than the index and 79% of funds have gone down more than the index. The average Diversified Emerging Market fund has realized 92.3% of the decline and thus was able to sidestep only 7.7% of the decline. The median fund has realized 93.2% of the decline and thus was only able to sidestep 6.8% of the decline. That is to say that the average fund avoided 205 basis points and the median fund avoided 181 basis points of the 26.6%, or 2659 basis point, decline of the MSCI Emerging Market Index. Only three of these largest 33 funds have been able to avoid 20% of the decline and not one has been able to avoid 40% of the drawdown so far. Much the same as our conclusions for the World Stock funds, we must conclude that in general the largest Diversified Emerging Market mutual funds have provided no or de minimis capital preservation characteristics during this drawdown. Almost all of them have been swimming naked. Tables 3 and 4 below summarize these findings. Discussion: As a group the largest global stock funds seem to be providing investors with no or very little risk management or capital preservation features. In fact, the vast majority of global mutual funds seem to be exposing investors to even more downside risk than the broad stock indexes they are designed to outperform. Of the funds that have been able to outperform the broad indexes, most have done so by no more than a rounding error. While an obvious statement, investors that want different results than those provided by the largest global mutual funds must look to products that perform differently than the market. This can be accomplished in two ways. One can look to rules based investment strategies like smart beta ETFs that have unique selection and weighting processes, or one can look to highly active and unconstrained mutual funds that have both high tracking error and different holdings relative to their benchmark. Most likely, investors will have to venture outside of the largest ETFs and mutual funds to find products that meet those characteristics. MDISX , OGLYX , VEMRX , ODVYX , DFEVX , DFCEX , LZEMX , FEMSX , HEIMX The original posting of this article can be found here . All data was created by the author and sourced from Morningstar, FactSet and Gavekal Capital Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Best And Worst Q3’15: Mid Cap Growth ETFs, Mutual Funds And Key Holdings

Summary The Mid Cap Growth style ranks eighth in Q3’15. Based on an aggregation of ratings of 11 ETFs and 382 mutual funds. MDYG is our top-rated Mid Cap Growth ETF and IMIDX is our top-rated Mid Cap Growth mutual fund. The Mid Cap Growth style ranks eighth out of the 12 fund styles as detailed in our Q3’15 Style Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. It gets our Neutral rating, which is based on an aggregation of ratings of 11 ETFs and 382 mutual funds in the Mid Cap Growth style. See a recap of our Q2’15 Style Ratings here. Figures 1 and 2 show the five best and worst-rated ETFs and mutual funds in the style. Not all Mid Cap Growth style ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 23 to 626). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. Investors seeking exposure to the Mid Cap Growth style should buy one of the Attractive-or-better rated ETFs or mutual funds from Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 (click to enlarge) * Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 (click to enlarge) * Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings The State Street SPDR S&P 400 Mid Cap Growth ETF (NYSEARCA: MDYG ) is the top-rated Mid Cap Growth ETF and the Professionally Managed Portfolios Congress Mid Cap Growth Fund (MUTF: IMIDX ) is the top-rated Mid Cap Growth mutual fund. Both earn an Attractive rating. The QuantShares U.S. Market Neutral Momentum Fund ETF (NYSEARCA: MOM ) is the worst-rated Mid Cap Growth ETF and the Starboard Investment Goodwood SMID Cap Discovery Fund (MUTF: GAMAX ) is the worst-rated Mid Cap Growth mutual fund. MOM earns a Neutral Rating and GAMAX earns a Very Dangerous rating. The Buckle, Inc. (NYSE: BKE ) is one of our favorite stocks held by Mid Cap Growth funds and earns our Very Attractive rating. Over the past decade, the company has grown after-tax profit (NOPAT) by 14% compounded annually. The company currently earns a top-quintile return on invested capital ( ROIC ) of 32%, which is more than double the 15% earned in 2005. Furthermore, Buckle has maintained a steady NOPAT margin of 15% for the past six years. Despite the fundamental strength of the business, its stock remains undervalued. At the current price of $40/share, Buckle has a price to economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 0.0. This ratio implies that the market expects Buckle’s profits to permanently decline by 20%. While the retail sector has its ups and downs, this low expectation ignores the profitability Buckle has maintained over its lifetime. If the company can grow NOPAT by just 6% compounded annually for the next ten years , the stock is worth $74/share – an 85% upside. ServiceNow (NYSE: NOW ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by Mid Cap Growth funds and earns our Dangerous rating. Much like other cloud companies we have covered, ServiceNow has never turned a profit since going public. NOPAT declined from -$30 million in 2012 to -$141 million in 2014. On top of falling profits, the company earns a bottom-quintile ROIC of -74%. Investors are ignoring these fundamental issues in favor of misleading revenue growth, and the stock remains overvalued as a result. To justify the current price of $69/share, ServiceNow must immediately achieve a positive pre-tax (NOPBT) margin of 10% (compared to -21% in 2014) and grow revenue by 31% compounded annually for the next 15 years . We feel the expectations embedded in NOW are far too optimistic. Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Mid Cap Growth ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst Funds (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Funds (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer and Max Lee receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, style or theme. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

5 Strong Buy Municipal Bond Mutual Funds

Debt securities will always be the natural choice of the risk-averse investor, because this category of instruments provides regular income flow at low levels of risk. Income from regular dividends helps to ease the pain caused by plunging stock prices. When considering safety of capital invested, municipal bond mutual funds are second only to those investing in government securities. In addition, the interest income earned from these securities are exempt from Federal taxes, and in many cases, from state taxes as well. Below, we will share with you 5 top-rated municipal bond mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) , as we expect these mutual funds to outperform their peers in the future. To view the Zacks Rank and past performance of all municipal bond funds, investors can click here to see the complete list of funds. Dreyfus High Yield Municipal Bond Z Fund (MUTF: DHMBX ) seeks a tax-exempted high level of current income. It invests a lion’s share of its assets in municipal securities that are expected to provide returns that are free from Federal income tax. DHMBX is generally expected to maintain dollar-weighted average maturity of more than 10 years. The Dreyfus High Yield Municipal Bond Z Fund is non-diversified and has returned 5.4% over the past one year. As of June 2015, DHMBX held 87 issues, with 3.55% of its assets invested in Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp N Asset 5%. MFS Municipal High-Income Fund A (MUTF: MMHYX ) invests a large chunk of its assets in securities that are expected to pay interest exempted from Federal taxes. It may invest in securities that provide income which are not exempted from Federal alternative minimum tax. The MFS Municipal High-Income Fund A has returned 5.7% over the past one year. MMHYX has an expense ratio of 0.67%, as compared to a category average of 0.95%. Federated Municipal High Yield Advantage F Fund (MUTF: FHTFX ) seeks high current income. The fund invests in securities that are believed to provide Federal tax-free interest income. FHTFX normally invests in long-term securities. It may also invest in securities of medium quality and that are rated below investment grade. The Federated Municipal High Yield Advantage F fund is non-diversified and has returned 5.5% over the past one year. Lee R. Cunningham II is one of the fund managers, and has managed FHTFX since 2009. Delaware National High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund A (MUTF: CXHYX ) invests a major portion of its assets in municipal bonds, interest from which is exempted from Federal income tax. CXHYX focuses on acquiring securities rated below high or medium quality, which are expected to have impressive income prospects with high risk. The Delaware National High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund A has returned 5.7% over the past one year. As of June 2015, CXHYX held 393 issues, with 2.37% of its assets invested in Buckeye Ohio Tob Settlement Fi To 5.875%. American Century High-Yield Municipal Fund Investor (MUTF: ABHYX ) seeks a high level of tax-free current income. The fund invests a majority of its assets in municipal debt securities expected to pay interest income exempted from Federal tax. It emphasizes in investing in securities that are believed to provide high return. ABHYX may invest in securities with interest that is not free from Federal alternative minimum tax. The American Century High-Yield Municipal Fund Investor is non-diversified and has returned 5% over the past one year. ABHYX has an expense ratio of 0.60%, as compared to a category average of 0.95%. Original Post