Tag Archives: premium-authors

Fund Watch: Balter And Natixis/ASG Prep New Funds

By DailyAlts Staff In this edition of Fund Watch, new fund filings for: Balter European L/S Small Cap Fund ASG Dynamic Allocation Fund Balter European L/S Small Cap Fund On September 15, Balter Liquid Alternatives filed a Form N-1A with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announcing its intent to launch its third mutual fund , the Balter European L/S Small Cap Fund. As is evident by its name, the new fund will take both long and short positions in small-cap European stocks, in pursuit of its objective of absolute returns. The fund is the successor to the S.W. Mitchell Small Cap European Fund, a hedge fund, which will transfer its assets to the institutional shares of the new fund upon its launch. S.W. Mitchell Capital LLP will continue to manage the fund as the sub-advisor. Typically, the Balter European L/S Small Cap Fund’s portfolio will consist of roughly 60 such stock positions, which may include both listed and non-listed equities; and the fund’s managers can also invest in debt securities, options, warrants, convertibles, and other derivatives. Its net-long exposure can be as great as 150%, and while its net-short exposure could rise to as much as 50%. The fund will have short positions at all times. The Balter European L/S Small Cap Fund’s predecessor fund has performance dating back to 2008. Its shares returned -6.5% that year, but then posted successive annual gains of 44.6% and 23.8% in 2009 and 2010. After losing 7.7% in 2011, the fund roared back with successive gains of 11.1% and 24.8% in 2012 and ’13, and then returned -0.5% last year. Shares of the new fund will be available in institutional and investor classes, with respective net-expense ratios of 2.24% and 2.54%. ASG Dynamic Allocation Fund Natixis Funds Trust II recently filed a Form N-1A with the SEC, announcing its plan to launch the ASG Dynamic Allocation Fund. The new fund’s objective will be long-term capital appreciation, with the protection of capital during unfavorable market conditions a secondary goal. It will pursue this end by means of dynamic tactical allocation across global markets and asset classes, overseen by investment advisor AlphaSimplex Group’s portfolio managers Alexander Healy, Robert Rickard, and Derek Schug. Healy, Rickard, and Schug will also be 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. Currently, ASG operates nine alternative mutual funds , including the ASG Global Macro Fund (MUTF: GMFAX ), which was launched in partnership with Natixis . That fund, which debuted on December 1, 2014, returned -3.45% in the first eight months of 2015, ranking in the bottom quintile of funds in its category. Over the three months ending August 31, the fund’s performance was better, in the top quartile, but still negative at -2.03%.

The Trouble With Momentum – And What To Do About It

Summary Growth stocks have outperformed value stocks in recent years, which is shining a spotlight on momentum. Unlike other investment factors, the momentum premium has been persistent since it was identified by financial academics in the 1990s. We believe that combining momentum with value and other factors within a multi-factor framework is a compelling way to address the challenge of tapping momentum profitably in a growth portfolio. It’s no secret that growth stocks have outperformed value stocks in recent years. For example, in the two years from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2015, large cap growth stocks (as measured by the Russell 1000 Growth Index) returned 14.7% annualized vs. 9.6% annualized for value stocks (Russell 1000 Value Index). This pattern of outperformance has shone a spotlight on momentum , an investment factor that works particularly well in growth-stock investing. But making money by identifying growth stocks with momentum characteristics isn’t as easy as it sounds. In this column, I will explain why and briefly describe how Gerstein Fisher addresses some of the problems inherent in tilting a growth stock portfolio to momentum. Momentum: a Persistent Investment Factor First, let’s define what we mean by momentum. Momentum is the tendency for winning stocks (that is, stocks that have outperformed the market over the past three to 12 months) to keep winning and losing stocks to keep losing. First identified in papers co-authored in the early 1990s by Sheridan Titman, one of our Academic Partners, the momentum factor would seem to refute the weak form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, which asserts that stock prices reflect all available information and that past price movements should be unrelated to future average returns. Momentum suggests that prior movements in price are in fact related to expected stock returns – that security prices essentially have memory, which students of statistics will recognize as serial correlation. Since those landmark studies in the 1990s, a number of other academic papers have established that a momentum strategy works not only in equity markets around the world (with the notable exception of Japan’s) but also in several other asset classes, including currencies and commodities. At Gerstein Fisher, we find that a momentum tilt works at least as well in our multi-factor real estate investment trust (aka REIT) portfolio as in our US and international growth equity strategies. Exhibit 1 shows the compound annualized returns from 1927 to 2014 for 10 portfolios formed on momentum (defined here as the one-year return skipping the most recent month). Investing in the highest past one-year return (i.e., highest-momentum) stocks generated a 16.9% annualized return, while the lowest decile of momentum lost 1.5% per year. Note the steady improvement in performance as momentum increases. (click to enlarge) Moreover, unlike some other investment factors identified by financial academics, momentum has remained remarkably robust and persistent. For instance, since the size premium for small cap stocks was identified in the early 1980s, it has shrunk dramatically (see my recent column for more on this phenomenon: ” Is the Small Cap Stock Premium Disappearing? “); similarly, the value premium has also sharply declined since Fama and French published their pioneering paper on it in 1992. Quite possibly, once seminal research is available in the public domain, quantitative investors target and thereby reduce the available premiums, although they still exist. But momentum seems to be different: our research shows that the strategy has remained profitable, generating a momentum premium of five to seven percentage points* even years after Prof. Titman’s groundbreaking papers in the 1990s. The Challenge for Momentum So if all of this academic and empirical evidence for momentum is present, then what’s the problem? For one thing, momentum stocks are also subject to short-term reversals, the tendency for stocks that have risen relative to the rest of the market in the last month to underperform those that have fallen relative to the rest of the market (for more on this topic, see our recently posted paper: ” Do past returns predict future returns? Evidence from Momentum and Short – Term Reversals “). In addition, the discipline and emotion-free decisions required to hold high-momentum winners and cut low-momentum losers every month are behaviorally difficult for many individual investors to make. Most importantly, there is a very large issue with turnover and transaction costs (and tax liabilities, if held in a taxable account) with a momentum growth stock portfolio. In short, without rules for controlling portfolio turnover, transaction costs will quickly devour a premium from a tilt to momentum (a monthly rebalanced, long-only momentum strategy may have a turnover of about 300%, implying a holding period of around four months). We believe that an effective approach to addressing the problem of excess turnover is by combining momentum, a so-called fast-moving factor, with value (which we may define, for instance, as a tilt to higher book-to-market stocks than the Russell 3000 Growth Index), a slow-moving factor. Combining these two negatively correlated factors in one portfolio provides factor diversification, which is a good thing since there are pronounced and different cycles to different factors. But we also find that by combining the signals of value and momentum, we can slow down portfolio trading dramatically and improve risk-adjusted performance, both relative to the index and compared to the sum of standalone value and momentum strategies-a typical advantage of a multi-factor strategy in one portfolio. We will soon publish our research on the optimum way to combine momentum and value in an academic journal. In the meantime, I invite you to read our working paper: ” Combining Value and Momentum “. Conclusion Growth stocks – and momentum – have been the source of strong performance in the stock market. The momentum premium is palpable but difficult to tap profitably in a growth portfolio. We believe that combining momentum with value and other factors within a multi-factor framework is a compelling way to address this challenge. *The momentum premium is defined as the returns of the highest 30% of large cap US stocks rated by momentum less the return of the lowest 30% of stocks rated by momentum. Data on momentum decile portfolios are taken from Ken French’s website. 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.

3 Important Lessons From The ETF Flash Crash

The U.S. stock market saw extreme volatility on Monday, August 24th, with some crazy trading after market open. Many stocks declined sharply and many ETFs fell 20% or more and some as much as 30%-45%, even though their underlying stocks had not declined so much. ETFs are baskets of securities and they usually trade close to the aggregate value of their holdings. Significant dislocations from their NAVs are rather unusual for ETFs. However that morning, large dislocations in ETFs’ prices were seen not only in smaller ETFs but in some very large and popular ETFs as well. While these discrepancies lasted only for a short period of time, none of the trades executed during that time were canceled. There were many factors that caused ETFs’ pricing problems. To begin with, NYSE invoked rule 48 at the open, which in simple words meant that designated market makers did not have to disseminate indicative prices before the open. The rule was meant to ensure a faster and more orderly open. Then due to excessive volatility, many stocks and ETFs were halted for trading. Per WSJ, nearly 80% of about 1,300 trading suspensions were for ETFs. Total trading halts reported on Monday were almost 40 times the daily average this year. Further, many stocks listed on the NYSE did not start trading for more than 10 minutes while BATS and NASDAQ exchanges started trading at the open. In other words, many ETFs were trading while their underlying stocks were not. A combination of all these factors made it difficult for market-makers in ETFs to determine the right price for underlying assets and price ETFs accordingly. This caused them to price ETFs with very wide bid-ask spreads or just stay away from the market, since they did not want to take on too much risk when arriving at fair prices was so difficult. There were some important takeaways for investors from extreme volatility seen that day. First of all, investors should not try to sell in panic; they should plan and then act accordingly. They should stay focused on their long-term investing goals. And most importantly, investors should remember to use “limit orders” in volatile markets. Link to the original article on Zacks.com Share this article with a colleague