Archive for the ‘Investment Strategy’ Category

The Mutual Fund Site has done this before: gone out on a limb and made a fairly wild claim that if you do X, you will enjoy Y. As far as the variables, X is normally what mutual fund to buy and Y is usually enjoying some kind of returns. Well, to get more specific, we claimed at the beginning of the year that if you bought a particular Janus High Yield Fund, you would enjoy steady returns in 2010. We were right. If fixed income is not your cup of tea, we said the same about the Ivy Small Cap Value fund. Again, we were right.

Today, the story is much of the same. Only those variable have changed (although we are not suggesting you drop those two investments). But for investors who want to see less volatility than that the Ivy Small Cap and for those who are really starting to get nervous about how interest rates might impact the Janus High Yield Fund, then why not do what makes the most sense?

Invest in a Dividend Growth Fund ahead of the economic recovery

Here’s the thing. We know there is an economic recovery on the horizon. The yield curve tells us as much. Even the most bearish investors realize that a recovery will take place. It may not happen today (although it very well might) and it may take several years before equities that enjoying the wild growth they have seen in the past, but it will happen.

And until/when it does, then the Vanguard Dividend Growth (VDIGX) is one of your safest best. As a dividend fund, this Vanguard has been recognized by Morningstar as a top performer for its Overall, 3-year and 5-year performance, earning a coveted 5-star rating for those period.

But what really impresses us is that this dividend fund achieved maximum returns with nearly no risk at all. The dividend yield alone is a decent 2.32% and while several of its slimly-held 49 securities have performed poorly (take ExxonMobile, for example, a top 10 holding contributing -12.3% on a YTD basis), the balance of the securities continue to perform the point that this fund is set to gain just as soon as the markets get a whiff of that recovery.

Among the fund’s top holdings are Johnson and Johnson, ADP, UPS, Mcdonald’s, Wells Fargo, ConocoPhillips, Wal-Mart… all companies that continued to produce during the toughest economic moments.

These strong holdings of course are the fund’s biggest downfall; everyone knows that most investments that performed well were not these larger, well-capitalized companies. Instead, smaller cap stocks tore up the markets in 2009 and into 2010. Quality is not so much an issue as the speculative opportunities for growth that the small cap value play offered.

At this point, the fund remains in the red to the tune of roughly 3%. This makes it somewhat uncertain for some investors. However, it leads its peers by a hair and its track record sure says a lot about how well Donald Killbride of Wellington Partners has done with this fund. With a low turnover, the Mutual Fund Site recommends holding this fund for the long-term (3-5 years minimum) and adding it as a core holding to your portfolio; with a $3,000 minimum investment to get in, this is not a specialty fund.

The markets are down, making mutual funds all that much more important for risk averse investors. That is not to say stocks do not have their place, but the reason I love mutual funds so much is because they offer so much diversification (some would argue over-diversification) that risk becomes somewhat limited. So what does that mean for a mutual fund investor? It means greater participation in specialty funds like gold funds, small cap funds, BRIC funds, and so on. What this ultimately means for your every day investor is:

• yes, the markets will tank and bring down their investments. But when core investments drop, other investments hold down the fort. Which investments will it be? Bond funds? High Yield Investments? Small Cap funds? If I or anyone else could predict such things ahead of time, we would never both with those core holdings in the first place, would we? By being properly invested, the risk of being wrong is reduced or eliminated… something’s gotta win.
• opportunities to rebalance. Maintaining a proper asset mix is essential to long-term success (compared to chasing the winners every time a winner is identified). This means that as markets increase or decrease, the asset mix will shift. This calls for rebalancing, trimming those assets that have done well and dumping money into smart mutual funds that have not fared so well. This achieves two things: it reduces over-exposure and it allows to buy assets when they are considered “lower.”
• buy more when markets suck, buy less when they are heroic. This is the basis of dollar cost averaging, something we should probably stress more often at this site. Still, when markets tank, it reminds us of the importance of never throwing all of our money on the table at once. It reminds us to ease into a position(s) gradually.

Now what does this all mean to how I would invest 10,000? It means that if I was given $10,000 today and told that I had to invest it (instead of spending it on a bunch of toys for the summer), I would:

1. Determine my asset allocation model. You can do that right on this site if you want, or you can ask your advisor to help you figure it out for you. Mine will show: 60% Equities and 40% Income (this is after I decided to ignore the cash recommendation and invest instead in fixed income). Seems conservative unless I am a balanced investor, yes. But let’s take a closer look…
2. Research the following mutual funds; a good Balanced Fund like the PIMCO All Asset fund, which is a medium risk, high return 4-star rated fund. I would throw $7,500 at this fund because it is not only well managed, but the underlying assets are those that I actually believe in. And then I would invest in the Ivy Small Cap fund (a fund I have been laughed at for picking and sticking to, but one that maintains all of the fundamentals that I personally believe in and trust). This fund will allow me to invest $1,500 of the remaining $2,500, leaving me with $1,000 which I would throw at the Franklin MicroCap Value fund, another 4-star fund but one that has virtually no risk associated with it and a track record that would make old pros blush.
3. Review, review, review. Yes, three times.  Per month, that is. Because I think these assets are placed so well, the portfolio would fall out of balance fairly quickly.

If permitted, I would add a 4th point: split the $10,000 into ten $1,000 contributions. This would not be possible in the case of the funds I chose here, but if I had, say, $40,000 to invest, I would invest 10K now, the remaining $30K over the next 2 years. And all of it would be in mutual funds; small cap funds and a balanced fund, maintaining as close to a 60/40 split as I possible can given that balanced funds will not report in real-time what their holdings are.

A mutual fund’s expense ratios essentially tell an investor how much money the fund spends in terms of, well, expenses. And when all of us in the rest of the world are so concerned about expenses, how we spend our money, should we not be concerned about the way people who come up with our investment strategy spend theirs? Or does the expense ratio even matter, especially if the mutual fund itself provides spectacular returns?

There are plenty of arguments that suggest one over the other. And it makes sense that expenses, regardless of the business (whether you invest in mutual funds, equities, or even your own business), be kept under control. But in reality, a fund’s returns are measured post-expenses. Take the following as an example:

Fund A has an expense ratio of 1.25% yet its 3-year annualized rate of return is 12.5%. Fund B has an expense ratio of 0.55%, yet its 5-year annualized rate of return is just 8%. Is Fund A worth the premium, or is Fund B the better fund?

Measured strictly on rates of return (RoR), Fund A is the better performer. However, there could be many different considerations that need to come into question before deciding whether one should invest in Fund A or Fund B. Assuming each fund is in the same category and sub-category, one would have to consider the number of securities under management and the fund’s turnover ratio (the higher these numbers, the higher the expense should be), the level of risk (maybe a better performing fund is not what an investor wants if it means considerably more risk) and the tenure of management (a longer, more tenured management team suggests positive returns are more sustainable than a fund that has just recently returned good rates under a new management team).

Yes, these other considerations are the very reason for why sites like the Mutual Fund Site (a watered-down conversational site) and Morningstar (a straight, by-the-numbers site), etc., exist.

In our opinion, expense ratios do not matter when rates of return alone are an investor’s main concern. However, expense ratios do matter when one investigates why it is seemingly higher or lower than its competitors’. Because above the expenses, an investor needs to make sure that any mutual fund, regardless of expenses, aligns with his or her overall investment strategy.

To find get started, find out what your Asset Allocation Model is, right here at MutualFundSite.org.

There is a difference between investing in China and investing in China’s growth. This is a careful distinction that a lot of investors fail to make, yet it is a necessary one if one is seeking to profit from the undeniable growth that the Chinese people are expected to enjoy in the years to come.

Investing in China

The act of investing in China is the same as investing in domestic companies. The process involves narrowing down a large field of potential companies and ideas to a handful of prospects and then digging even deeper to determine whether that company meets fundamental basics to earn your investment.

These fundamentals would include such things as an appropriate equity level, satisfactory growth rates, margins and so on. The key difference is that such companies are actually based in China, so our everyday experience with them would be virtually non-existent (compared to investing in, say Wal-Mart or Ford or Apple, etc.).

Another key disadvantage to investing in foreign companies is that most people are unfamiliar with their political alliances, which becomes increasingly important in countries like China. To make an investment in a Chinese company, one should understand their political standing and how that bodes for their future growth and sustenance.

Investing in China’s Growth

In contrast to the above, investing in China’s growth is quite different. This involves taking positions in domestic companies that have the potential to profit from China’s growth. For example, companies that outsource key manufacturing processes would fall into this category. Such companies will be able to reduce their cost of goods sold (manufacturing costs) since labor in China is at a discount to domestic labor.

Another example would involve companies that are positioned to enjoy part of the expected growth in the middle class. This class historically creates a deeper demand for certain products and services, such as discretionary and luxury goods. Companies that have been allowed to establish a presence in China obviously stand to benefit from this and could offer great investment potential as well.

Summary

It is unquestionable that China is set to enjoy an aggressive growth rate in the years to come. Positioning one’s portfolio to take advantage of this growth is a little more complicated — does one invest directly in companies that have little relevance domestically and operate in a foreign political climate, or does one invest domestically in companies that have taken the steps necessary to enjoy part of this aggressive growth?

As often happens, the question becomes one of risk tolerance and investment knowledge. Knowing that there is a difference between the two surely helps.

There should be little surprise that so many investors are interested in learning more about China Mutual Funds. While the Mutual Fund Site has only spoken about China in a round-about reference to one of the world’s greatest portfolio managers (Anthony Bolton), it makes some sense to review some of the risks associated with an Investment Strategy that is so bullish on China as well as some of the potential rewards. But if we were asked where to invest in China, we would probably take a really long time to respond to such a question. The reason will reveal itself below.

It is generally well known and accepted that China represents a tremendous investment opportunity. For most investors, however, that means investing in China in order to sell one’s product or, less likely, services to the Chinese population. Think of General Motors, for example. They own Cadillac and, with a growing middle class in China the demand for discretionary luxury goods like Cadillacs will increase. The growing middle class is not a reason for General Motors to go and purchase or invest heavily in one of the nearly one hundred manufacturers. With this in mind, investors should be cautious about whether they want to invest in Chinese companies or invest in domestic (US) companies that are well positioned to profit from China’s rapid development.

It goes without saying that China continues to censor and control much of the local industries. Recently, Google pulled out of China as a result of this (it can be speculated that Google became frustrated with China’s insistence that Google operate in a manner satisfactory to the China government). Luckily, Google had the resources to call it quits; other companies might have been forced to alter their business model and integrity and comply for financial reasons. Given Google’s frustration, it should be seen as rather risky to invest directly in China.

In terms of China Mutual Funds, there are but three that Morningstar considers 5-star. One of them, the Templeton China World Fund has returned nothing (okay, it returned -0.17% as at April 19, 2010) and still manages to outpferform its peers. AllianceBernstein’s Great China ‘97 has performed similarly and is currently ranked as a 2-star fund. Clearly, even the professionals are having difficulty finding the right securities to invest in. And when highly regarded professionals like those running these two very similar (yet greatly diverse by Morningstar rating) funds, then it goes almost without saying that individual investors will have a tough time making money in China Mutual funds.

On the positive side, China growth translates into a hunger for many of the resources found domestically. This results in a strong demand from one of the world’s largest populations and potentially soon-to-be wealthiest nations. This was evidenced when China recently announced a multi-billion dollar investment Venezuela in exchange for future delivery of oil.  Such an investment suggests that perhaps it would be more wise to invest in some of Venezuela’s larger oil companies and not China itself. As well, both funds listed here returned more than 40% for their 1-year performance. Obviously, there was some growth to be had.

Perhaps the popularity of China mutual funds is just that — popularity. And when we think back to high school, not all of the popular kids were among our best friends. Maybe the same holds true for investing there. Maybe it is smarter to invest in less popular areas and enjoy the future growth potential that comes with a contrarian approach.

It appears that a lot of people who find the Mutual Fund Site are looking for help with investing $10,000. Although we cannot “tell” people how to invest 10,000 dollars, we can certainly help them along in their investment journey, whether through our Free Asset Allocation Model service or our specific fund recommendations like our Small Cap Fund Top Pick for 2010 and our High Yield Investment Top Pick for 2010.

Ultimately, figuring out how to invest $10,000 (why 10K and not 20K or 50K, I don’t know) wisely will involve a lot more than visiting just this site. It will involve spending some time at Morningstar and sifting through the data there, particularly when it comes to your core holdings. It could also involve spending time at Fundalarm, a website that “warns” people about the fund they have invested in or are considering investing in. But first things first:

Start with your Asset Allocation Model

Knowing what your asset mix should look like will obviously provide a great starting point for all investors. Whether you are a Balanced investor, a Growth Focused investor or even an Income investor will tell you just how much money you should be “risking” in any given asset class, starting with Cash, then moving on up to Income and then finally Growth, with the risk levels increasing correspondingly. And then, if your risk tolerance allows it, consider specialty funds.

In fact. our Top Picks for 2010 are both specialty funds — the High Yield fund is not considered a core fixed income holding by any stretch (even though it offers a below average risk profile, it is still focused enough to fall outside the mainstream) and evidently our Small Cap Value fund is nowhere near being part of the main “Growth” class (even though it is consider low risk among its peers).

Once you have your asset allocation model figured out, you can further drill down and see how much of your $10,000 can be invested in the types of investments we look at fairly regularly. But keep in mind that the bulk of that investment should be in core holdings — a fixed income component, a growth component as well as (usually) a small cash component.

So, to get started simply click on the link titled “Asset Allocation Model Recommendation” as shown below:

Withing a couple of days, we will have your Free report to you so you can get started to see just how much of your $10,000 can be invested in which asset class and, of course, how much can go into those terrific specialty funds (whether they are the ones we recommend or not) that have the potential to improve your portfolio’s performance tremendously.

Best of luck and we hope to see you back again soon!

A little more than 3 months ago, the Mutual Fund Site provided a couple of firm recommendations on where mutual funds investors should invest their money. As far as we were concerned, these were exactly where to invest, even though our gut told us at the time that then-current market conditions made such a task rather difficult.

Those two funds were the Janus High Yield Fund as part of our Income Class recommendation and the Ivy Small Cap Value Fund as part of our Growth Asset Class.

To date, the Janus High Yield Fund has returned 4.37% YTD, a reasonably good return given all of the speculation and doubt surrounding the Income asset class these days. Are we satisfied with this return? With the performance?

Yes, indeed we are. The fund remains under the management of Gibson Smith and has stuck to its mandate. It remains invested primarily in mid-term, below investment-grade bonds (the average yield is a touch over 10%) and, well, provides investors with a positive rate of return. This is no easy task since, as we all expected, interest rates are on the move.

Our other fund, the Ivy Small Cap Value Fund, has returned 13.39% YTD. Some of the reasons this fund has performed so well could have something to do with Ivy’s overweightedness in financial services. However, we are not overly concerned that this fund is at risk the way most individual investors and some other funds are. The reason is simple: Ivy has invested in medium and small cap financial services firms. Dividend yield are strong (they would make GE and other financial firms look cheaper and greedier than they are) and many of the underlying assets have yet to enjoy the gains that the rest of the sector has thoroughly enjoyed recently.

Would we change anything?

No, not at this point. Both funds remain healthily below average in terms of the risk profiles versus their peers. And both have returned more to investor than anyone else would have expected at the start of the year (we even found some interesting trash talk on another, nameless website). Which bring us to the rest of the year…

We expect the Janus fund to handle the obstacles ahead with relative ease. They have performed well to date, but the challenges will keep Gibson busy.

We also believe that the Ivy Small Cap Value fund will face challenges, particularly when so many individual investors who have poured their money into these big bank stocks realize that the fundamentals are not there to support those price run-ups. However, the fact remains that the companies in which the Ivy fund has invested remain profitable and well capitalized with continued improvements to their equity positions through retained earnings. Overall, both funds are not only where to invest your money, but will continue to see some strong returns throughout the year.

When we look at the recent popularity of bank stocks, it is evident that a lot of people will get burned. The recent run up has resulted in higher volatility, which means that just as quickly as things have risen, they will drop. And up until the point that the prices really start to head south, someone will keep buying up these “popular” bank stocks. Everyone except the mutual funds who, for the most part, know better that to get sucked into the popular investment strategy when things rise, they will only keep rising.

Taking a contrarian investment approach like those we discussed elsewhere on this site might help.

Or it might not. After all, financial services firms remain relatively unpopular unless we are talking specifically about the “big banks,” the same stocks and companies that burned people in the past. But not all financial services firms are created equally. People who want to know where to invest their money might do well to examine the smaller firms, like those where Ivy Small Cap Value fund invests.

After all, our recommended Ivy Small Cap Value Fund has rewarded investors with a 13.39% return YTD.

Evidently, the folks at Ivy are doing something right, yet in their top 25 holdings you will not find any Citigroup, AIG, Fannie/Freddie, et al. holdings. Not a single one of them. In fact, they invest a large chunk of their assets in Small-cap stocks… not large, not Giant. (To a lesser extent, they invest in Medium cap securities, but as a small cap focused fund, they are pretty keen on sticking to their small-cap guns.

Given that less than 4 months of the year have passed, a 13.39% return (as at April 9, 2010) is pretty respectable. They know where to invest, no doubt about that, especially when it comes to investing in financial services firms. So, for those investors who have enjoyed the volatility rise and continue to pour money into some of these unsupported (fundamentally anyway) financial services firms, don’t let yourself get burned. Invest in a mutual fund that pays the pros to put your money where it belongs — in the right firms.

As a follow up to our former Contrarian Investment Practices post, we want to take a closer peek at exactly where to invest if these contrarian theories have any merit. Of course, we will look at mutual funds specifically.

In a recent article published by Russel Kinnel, the Director of Mutual Fund Research over at Morningstar.com, it became quite apparent that Contrarian Investment practices actually do work. The methodology that Kinnel used involved investing in funds that were seeing cash outflows (the “unloved” funds) rather than those funds that were deemed most popular based on the dollar amounts of inflows (the “loved” funds).

What Kinnel discovered was that investing in the unloved funds yield returns that were better than not only the “loved” funds returned, but the S&P 500 as well. In some cases, those “unloved” returns were substantially higher — 8.1% for 3 years versus the “loved” returns of 6.24% and the S&P returns of 6.96%.

The same trend holds for a five-year period as well, with the “unloved” mutual funds outperforming (8.08%) both the loved funds (4.25%) and the S&P 500 (5.76%).

The Question becomes one about finding out what the “unloved” are.

Finding out what the unloved funds are poses something more of a challenge. Kind as he is, Kinnel pointed out in his article that the “unloved” funds or categories were the large-cap growth, large-cap value as well as world stock. Easy enough to find the top performers in these categories; simply visit Morningstar.com and use their free fund screener.

But what about those times when finding these unloved categories is more difficult than finding them in an article so kindly published by someone like Kinnel? Well, let’s take a look at Kinnel’s statistics once again. In terms of best performing mutual funds, the following trend emerges quite easily:

• Unloved categories will outperform the Loved categories
• The S&P 500 will outperform the Loved categories, but not the Unloved categories.
• The Loved categories will not outperform either the Loved categories or the S&P 500.

So, if you cannot figure out what the “unloved” funds are (or even what the “loved” funds are for that matter, meaning you can’t figure out what to sell), there is one option. Consider that the S&P 500 outperforms exactly what your friends buying and likely what the advisors are recommending… why not buy Index Funds?

Index Funds might not beat out the top Unloved categories as a whole, but will definitely outperform what your advisor is recommending (or even what your friends are buying). This is particularly convenient if contrarian investing is something that investors are unable to fully agree with (e.g. cannot stomach being possibly wrong with their contrarian choices as they fluctuate and fail to return a positive number for a couple of years). While this is not the absolute best way to achieve the best returns, it definitely is where to invest if you do not want the hassle and potential expense associated with learning about mutual fund inflows and outflows.

An interesting philosophy exists, whether you invest in mutual funds or straight equities, that suggests we can all know where to invest if we go against the current rather than with it. In other words, if we adopt a contrarian mentality, we stand see some sold long-term gains in our portfolios. As an investment strategy, this is not always an easy thing to do. When you get into picking the best mutual funds, it becomes even tougher. (And of course if we are short-term traders, then it becomes virtually impossible).

So, where to invest…

Common sense and history tell us that if we all invest in a single asset, we drive the price of that asset up. Look at Oil in 2007. Look at Gold today. Look Apple shares. But the risk you run when you follow the herd is that you end up buying that asset somewhere near the peak of its price range, exposing your portfolio and investment to some serious and very real risks. For these reasons, we often try to find that diamond in the rough, that undiscovered security that is trading at a terribly low valuation — look at RIMM seven years ago, for instance, Teck Resources (TCK) even 1 year ago. Again, with the power of hindsight, we would all be retired by now, and we would all be millionaires.

With this “find the diamond in the rough” mentality, a couple of things can happen. One, we take on exaggerated risks because the assets we buy are simply cheap; they lack the fundamentals to support investing in them at all. The second thing that happens is that we hit a grand slam, we pick the right security at the right time when everyone else threw money at the latest and greatest Wall Street gem. The latter, of course, is an example of Contrarianism and this is exactly how we should invest, according to some.

What is Contrarianism?

This type of investment practice can mean a different things for different investors. The obvious interpretation is to sell when and what others are buying, and vice versa. It speaks to Warren Buffett’s famous quote: “Sell when others are greedy and buy when others are fearful” (not an exact quote, but the message is bang-on).

On a deeper level, it involves going in areas that others are ignoring. It means buying Citigroup (C) when it was trading at $1.02 and everyone else was not only ignoring it, but buying bonds at ridiculously low rates. It also means believing in the company’s fundamentals, trusting that the Board is doing the right thing by appointing Vikram Pandit after Charles Prince resigned (of course, each company will be different, the names will change but, in Bon Jovi’s words, the streets are the same).

It is in my opinion that this second type of Contrarian investment practice is the one we want to adopt as amateur, novice and even intermediate investors. Not only is it less risky (e.g. ignoring a strong asset class altogether and dumping money into unfavored classes even when fundamentals do not support it), but we can actually apply this practice to mutual funds purchases.

Now, understand that great websites like Morningstar have built tremendous intellectual capital, websites, and businesses doing exactly the opposite. That is to say that their models often favor top-performing funds where regular investors are flocking (this website’s Top Picks are great funds that Morningstar has ranked well, also). And other sites like FundAlarm also takes this view, ranking funds as “dangerous” if they fail to meet or exceed their group or category for three measurement periods.

But Contrarianism takes a different view. Often, the mutual funds you should invest in under this theory are those with net redemption figures, which are often triggered by poor performance track records that gets noticed by those two websites mentioned in the previous paragraph. Some Small Cap Funds like the Ivy fund (YTD return of 9.74%) we like, for example, invest heavily in small to medium cap financial services firms. Investing in this Ivy fund could certainly be considered a contrarian move; investing, on the other hand in the High Yield Investment fund that we recommend (YTD return of 3.80%), would not have been.

While both funds above are in completely different asset classes, they have both outperformed their peers, which leads to a natural question: do Contrarian Investment Practices really work?

The simple answer is: yes they do, especially with mutual funds.

(More to follow… check back soon as we take a deeper look into this interesting investment strategy and provide a tangible foundation to our argument).

In an article published at Bloomberg.com on March 18, 2010, it was noted that bonds issued by financial services firms like JP Morgan and Credit Suisse in particular came with rates that were substantially higher than rates in the general market. What this means for mutual funds and growth funds in particular is that there is plenty of opportunity in the financial services sector. Let’s take a closer look.

The Bloomberg article in questions makes it quite clear that the debt sold by banks, brokers and insurers returned 0.81% compared to the broader market’s return of 0.48%. This is a premium of more than 80% over what the broader market dictates. Consider this for a minute as we explore another interesting comment that was made in the article in question.

Brian Machan, a money manager at Aviva was quoted as saying that very few people are “underweight” in financials. This means that mutual funds are heavily buying up this debt. They are doing it because it looks attractive. The reason it might look attractive is that the yield is expected to drop, thereby increasing the value of those bonds on the open market.

The flip-side is that the financial services firms issuing this debt find rates attractive. This means they expect rates to increase in the future, allowing them to finance debt at today’s currently low rates. All indications support a rising interest rate environment; if ever there was a time to issue corporate debt now be that time (to the benefit of the borrower, that is).

Now, getting back to the premium paid by these financial services firms. Consider why they might need to raise this type of capital. It is cheap. Plus it helps finance a whole lot of plans. These banks have something up their sleeve and it is just around the corner by the look of things.

As far as growth funds are concerned, the mutual funds that are bullish on financial services such as the Ivy Small Cap fund we wrote about already or the Dryden fund we bragged about earlier, send a strong message to the investment community: financial services stocks are expected to outperform. This sure seems to be supported by the level of debt they are confidently raising right about now.

Other growth funds that invest heavily in financial services stocks include the FBR Small Cap Financial fund which has a history of LOW risk and above average returns. Morningstar rates it as a 5-star fund! Like the Ivy Small Cap fund that we touted as our Top Small Cap Pick for 2010, the FBR fund has a large interest in Iberiabank and East West Bancorp, regional banks that stand to substantially benefit from a positive shift in the economy.

Regardless of what type of mutual fund you choose, ensure that your growth funds have at least some exposure to the financial services sector. Whether they are smaller, regional financial companies like those held in the IVY or FBR mutual funds or larger banks like JP Morgan and Credit Suisse, the indications are quite clear that these firms expect to reap the profits and rewards of an economic turnaround that is just waiting to happen.

Ask nearly every professional mutual fund manager what they do for a living and their response might surprise you. While normal people like the rest of the world see (many) mutual funds as fine examples of investment strategy, security picking and so on, the professionals who pull the trigger on trades actually see their roles in the investment management quite differently. In fact, they see their jobs more as risk managers than investment managers.

Their view makes perfect sense, of course. They are risk managers, no question about that. Take the AIM Diversified Dividend Fund, a 5-star fund as measured by Morningstar. That fund has $1.5 Billion worth of other people’s money… you bet they are risk managers! If Meggan Walsh, who has been managing this big fund since 2003 thought otherwise, the fund would not have made the investments it has made, it would not have achieved the high returns it has enjoyed and it would not have done so with average or below average risk.

Risk is the investor’s greatest consideration when throwing money at a security.

Consider that — average or below average risk while achieving high returns. This is key because returns can be quite easy if one is willing to take the risks. And that risk is loss of capital. Which sounds simple in many ways, but how many of us felt that taking on risk was a reasonable thing to do before the market correction of 2007, 2008 (ouch) and the first quarter of 2009?

Even though higher risk is frequently synonymous with higher returns, we often forget that higher risk often means higher probability for loss. And those losses are very real when they happen.

So the recommendation is really to shift our thinking from high risk = high rewards to one where we aim to achieve above-average returns by taking on less than average risk for those returns. The idea is to achieve more than the risk levels dictate. That means earning 10% when the Beta or assumed risk suggests we should only enjoy returns of 7% or 8%.

To illustrate, consider high-risk derivatives. While it might be nice to achieve 5% returns, if you could achieve these returns with guaranteed and insured term deposits, why bother with the high risk derivatives? It makes little sense, right? But if we could achieve 10% returns with those same term deposits, why not give up the excitement of the market? (Of course, this rarely happens, so we have no choice but to accept that higher risk).

Mutual funds help us achieve above average returns while enjoying below average risk. This is because mutual funds so something many of us fail to do on our own — they diversify. (They also measure risk better than we do because they have the staff to analyze financial statements, perform site visits, call up management and so forth). Ultimately, diversification saves these mutual funds when risk rears its ugly head more than anything else — after all, no amount of analysis and over-management can eliminate market risk; but diversification can surely reduce all other risks.

While individual investors might opt for a dozen or so investments, mutual funds like the AIM fund quoted here, hold over 75.  And with 78% of those assets as large cap or giant cap, they really are achieving better returns for less risk. And this is important especially when markets sour. Again, referring to the AIM fund, its performance has outpaced the S&P 500 for its YTD, 1-year, 3-year and 5-year periods. The performance speaks for itself.

And this is just one fund. Most properly managed funds will evaluate risks and trade accordingly. The result? Those total returns outpace the broader market and, just as equally, other funds in its category. For investors this means less losses in market downturns and greater returns when the markets turn around.

It may seems obvious to some and it is definitely obvious once it is pointed out to investors, but where to invest in periods of economic expansion is definitely not in typical bond portfolios. Instead, value funds or mutual funds with a good blend of value and growth securities would be the most logical place to start. As an investment strategy, this is not an art or a learned skill; it simply makes sense once the description of an economic expansion is properly understood.

So what is an economic expansion?

According to Smart Money, which published a great article about the Yield Curve, and economic expansion typically occurs immediately after a recession. Now, we have to be careful about how we define a recession. Yes, it means for tough economic times and periods of cutting back and sacrifices. But economically, a recession is different than what people like you and I experience. Instead, a recession is categories by certain economic statistics, including among other things, several periods of consecutive negative growth. Once that trend is broken and other economic statistics line up, that recession is over. And strange things start to happen.

Like what?

For starters, yields on treasuries and bonds steepen. This means that the rate on a 3 month treasury bill more than 3% lower than the rate charged on a 30-year treasury bond. As of today (March 15, 2010, that spread is more like 4.47%), this certainly holds true according to data on bloomberg.com. And if the Yield Curve is at all accurate in everything it has suggested since the late 1970’s, then we are in a period where the economy is expected to start growing quickly in the near future.

What does that tell us about where to invest!

Before we get to that, consider what it tells us about where not to invest. Obviously, when rates are expected to increase (everything we hear today combined with the yield curve tell us as much), bonds are out of the question. This means lightening up on income-class securities and moving money into equity based securities.

But does that mean growth funds or value funds (or a blend of both).

At the Mutual Fund Site, we have suggested that some small cap funds are actually no brainers. We outline the reasons why in some detail, but let’s look at the most fundamental reasons why some small caps are a good starting point:

• Value. Yes, we said it. Small caps offer tremendous value right now. Why? Because they were beaten down the credit crisis of 2007 dragged through 2008 and into 2009. The fear was that small cap stocks would disappear off the face of the earth once they could not fund their operations through credit or they went broke trying to make payments on higher-rate capital. In many cases, this did not happen and the survivors stand to benefit. In our case, we like regional financial institutions because they have government stimulus and people’s returning to work (okay, in some cases where employment is over 20% like in some areas of California, this seems like a stretch, but things will improve even in these highly unemployed areas) on their side. Plus, many of these companies have been very profitable during the last few years… even with the world crumbling around them!
• Small caps are one of the first segments to record steeper profit growth. This could be a numbers game in some cases, but it could also be the result of smaller companies willing to take the risks that larger corporations are unable to take. Blame it on smaller boards, less restrictive financial covenants, etc., but smaller cap companies take risks where larger companies simply will not… and this often bodes well for them.
• Lastly, small cap securities are one of the first to experience a “pop” in security price when recessions are over. Look at Citigroup as an obvious example (although you cannot say they are small cap, their story is quite well known). When it became clear that they would survive after all, its share price popped on the news alone. All they had to say was they were going to survive! Imagine a company that had numbers to back this up! Small caps have those numbers.

Does that mean we recommend small cap stocks? If small cap stocks are where to invest, what does that say about less risky alternatives?

Well, we believe that value funds are where to invest. Because even larger cap securities (and many mutual funds hold them) offer tremendous value, even in today’s market. And this is where investors should be — in value funds or funds that invest in such securities. Is it too late? No, not if we believe what the yield curve is telling us. I mean, look at GE, one of the world’s largest and most-diversified conglomerates. In 2008, its stock price touched below $6.00. Talk about extreme value… now it trade at nearly $16 and it still has inherent value.

Of course, we advise clients to be careful when they look at value funds and make sure they are investing in something that meets their investment needs and risk tolerance.

In order to achieve long-term growth within your mutual funds portfolio it is believed you will need to incorporate a fairly significant amount of equity or growth funds. While this certainly seems to be a valid argument based on historical rates of return and the difficulty associated with accurate market timing, not all investors need to have a portfolio that consists entirely or primarily of growth mutual funds.

For highly risk averse investors, loading up on growth mutual funds would obviously be imprudent and no financial advisor, tenured or otherwise, would ever recommend doing so. But imprudent would also be ignoring the growth asset class entirely.

Now there is a way for investors to ensure that they eliminate equity risk in their portfolio, even while investing in the wildest, highest of high risk equity funds. They do this by finding a guaranteed investment, whether it is a quality bond, term deposit or other virtually or entirely risk-free investment and working out how much interest they will earn over the time horizon of their investment.

Let’s take a closer look at an investment that pays 5% per year. If you had $10,000 in total to invest and you wanted to make sure that it was guaranteed over ten years, you could actually invest $3,860 in high risk equity mutual funds that could return whatever the market allows. The remaining $6,140 would earn 5%.

But regardless of the performance of those equity funds, the remaining $6,140 invested in that guaranteed or extremely low-risk investment at 5% would be worth $10,000 after ten years. This allows you to invest $10,000 today and enjoy absolutely no risk at all. The catch? That you wait 10 years without touching the $6,140.

The worst-case scenario would see the equity mutual funds worthless after 10 years. The best-case scenario is that the return is greater than 5%, leaving you with more than if you invest $10,000 in its entirety in the guaranteed 5% investment. Realistically, you should expect a higher return. Even a 7.5% return on the equity fund would bump your portfolio’s performance from 5% to a little over 6%.

Might not seem like a lot, but 7.5% over 5 years is really a lower-risk equity fund. And, really, the point is not so much that you are now outperforming your friends, but that you are achieving that performance without any risk at all to your capital.

When we have so many mutual funds to choose from, we often get lost in some of the irrelevant details. We seem to want to chase the next trend, the biggest or hottest sectors and so on. Bond funds, value funds, dividend funds; we talk about these specific investments right here on our site just as planner do with their clients. If we were looking at economic figures, we would call it micro-economics. But when it comes to investments and mutual funds in particular, taking a macro-economic approach might actually help tell us about where investors should steer their money.

If we look globally, for example, we see that the Japanese Yen has been taking a hit over the last week or so because of that country’s position on interest rates. Unlike the US where the economy is (finally) starting to grow and rates have increased (Fed Funds Rate) and are expected to continue to increase, Japan is looking to reduce rates so that people will borrow and therefore buy more. While this fiscal policy will devalue their currency, the implications for Japanese corporations, particularly those that export their goods, are actually very positive.

In fact, a devaluation in currency combined with increased foreign spending will have a turbocharging effect on Japanese companies that report their financial results in Yen. Not only will sales revenue increase, but if foreign dollars are being used to purchase goods, the currency conversion results in a forex gain on the financial statements.

This could be a bad thing in the long-term. As the Yen stabilizes and starts gaining in value again, the company may have forex losses which can offset or more-than-offset stable or even climbing revenues.

What this means for mutual fund investors that is that Japanese-heavy value mutual funds might be a safe bet for shorter-term gains. Why? Because the premise of a value mutual fund is that the securities held within the portfolio are undervalued. This can be based on any number of criteria, but are normally price-to-earnings, price-to-book (value), price-to-cash and so on and so forth. Ultimately, the fund manager will determine whether to include a security in his or her value fund, but the qualifying criteria will come down to one thing: the security is underpriced.

This security, mind you, can be equity or income based. Right now, investors would gain either way. Japanese bonds can very easily increase in value if rates start dropping. Japanese equities can also increase, but it could take more time before revenues start to increase and translate in to balance sheet strength.

Our next step is pick a value mutual fund that meets our specific investment objectives (with time and risk as the driving force behind such a decision).

Now this is a top-down investment approach. It is how the Mutual Fund Site comes across mutual fund recommendations. A financial planner and/or investment advisor will work this way as well. Except they do this by also understanding your goals and matching up your goals and beliefs as best as they can to the macro-economic situation.

A long-term investors who has a decent appetite for risk will be ill-served to keep all of his or her investments in domestic securities. It normally “fits” to incorporate foreign or global investments into the plan. It never (or it should never) involve finding a value fund and then justifying a reason why it makes sense.

With that in mind, buying any kind of mutual fund because of a recommendation is often the wrong approach. Taking a bottom-down, birds-eye approach to your investments always makes more sense.