Posts Tagged ‘investment management’

Over the coming months, mutual fund fees will come under greater scrutiny. Of course, there has already been a tremendous amount of attention devoted to fee structures, how the fund companies are compensated, how the adviser is compensated and so on. But what does this mean for the average investor whose financial planner suggests, say a dividend fund for them to invest in?

Well, there are several key areas that both regular and more serious investors need to be aware of when it comes to buying mutual funds. But first, let’s examine what the fee structure is all about.

For starters, the fees associated with mutual funds are called 12b-1 fees. This fee, at the moment, lumps all expenses into one, including what you pay to the fund company and ends up getting paid back to the adviser in the form of trailers. How much goes to whom is really anybody’s guess except for the fund company who manages collecting the fees and, in some cases, the adviser who might know what is being paid back to her.

Now, things get a little muddy when you consider that from the amount that the fund company gets to keep, how much of is compensation for the management team, how much is administrative and how much is sales and marketing. And, of those sales and marketing fees, how much gets paid back to the adviser responsible for successfully marketing that product?

The changes proposed by the SEC will eliminate a lof this confusion. To a large extent, this change is about as much of a shocker as disclosure of real estate fees might have been years ago. It makes sense to know what your adviser is earning, no? It also makes sense to know if Fund A that charges 0.90% and Fund B that charges the same thing are paying more toward management or more toward sales and marketing… which fund would you want, the one that underpays its management team or the one that pays them competitively? The implications are clear and, overall, these changes make for a more-level playing field for the industry.

Where the proposed mutual fund fee changes have a potentially greater impact is in how the fund companies can charge these fees. One of the changes recommend a maximum fee that the investor could pay. So while a 5.25% Front-End fee (the fee you pay to get into the fund) might charged on one class of fund for Mutual Fund Company C’s ABC Fund, the total Fund Company C can collect on all other classes class will also be 5.25% (or whatever the maximum is set at). So if your adviser suggests a no-load version of ABC Fund that charges just 0.9%, the most Fund Company C will earn is 5.25% (about 6 years worth of annual fees). Thereafter, the most they can charge for administrative-type fees will be 0.25%, good for the investor, not so good for the adviser.

Two Problems

The first problem with limiting fees is how will your adviser be compensated in those years after the maximum fee has been collected? Will this type of limitation encourage churning (where advisers recommend changes simply because of favorable fees — in this case, no fee vs. fee is heavily tilted on the fee side)? We argue that it will. And if fees are not paid by the fund company, then it is likely that advisers will start charging management fees… but at what cost? Will the average Joe be able to afford the advice and services of a decent adviser (today, trailer fees allow a relatively average investor to obtain fairly decent advice).

The second problem is how will fund companies change in terms of quality and sustainability? If fees are only to be collected to a maximum of x%, is it in the in anyone’s best interests to encourage buy and sell investing? And what will happen to funds that people traditionally bought and held for decades?

More Work Needed

Without question, added transparency is always a good thing. It often keeps key individuals and companies honest and allows for a more-level playing field. But will the changes to 12b-1 fees that the SEC is proposing actually limit competition and close the door on a segment of the investing public that needs access to good advice as well as the best-managed funds?

At the Mutual Fund Site, we believe more work is needed before such huge changes are put into force. As they stand, they could serious impact the quality of service individual investors receive at the fund company as well as adviser level and, in some cases, will probably result in a lack of access to a segment that needs it the most.

Nearly a decade ago, David B. Leoper of Wealthcare Capital Management published a well-read paper on asset allocation. In his paper, he argued that diversification alone, which we underline here at the Mutual Fund Site, is not enough to water down the risk attributes of a portfolio. It seemed to me when I first came across his piece that he was either nuts or the concept of asset allocation, which is one of the fundamentals driving all mutual funds, might be widely misunderstood.

Diversification alone is not enough

One of the most striking arguments that Mr. Leoper makes in his paper is that diversification should not be used as a carte blanche excuse to explore higher risk investments within one’s portfolio. And while we have examined some very worthy small cap funds at length recently, Leoper’s point is extremely valid.

Just because you might have the risk tolerance to jump in bed with the RBC Micro Cap fund, it does not necessarily mean you should. Even if you were to limit that exposure to just 5% or even 2%, making an investment like that needs to be done for the right reasons.

And that, the idea of making investment decisions for the right reasons, is really the message we and every other financial planner, consultant, advisor should aim for. And while it sounds hokey, superficial and possibly even contrived, the reason for really getting to know an investment, whether mutual fund, ETF, or individual security makes perfect sense.

Make investment decisions for the right reasons

Ultimately, each investment within your portfolio will relate differently with other securities. It is like having a classroom full of male computer geeks (yep, I would be there!) and then adding an aggressive female athlete into the mix. All of a sudden, the dynamic changes. Some students might compete for the female’s attention, others might take a more aggressive position when it comes to their projects, etc.. Either way, the classroom would change, maybe dramatically or maybe subtly, but definitely it will change. And with time, that change may have a positive or negative impact; either way, there will also be an impact.

To invest for the right reasons, investors will want to understand how the new, added investment will change the portfolio’s dynamics. This might involve simply aligning the investment with other asset classes and sub-classes or it can involve something as complicated as R-Squared.

More importantly (and a lot simpler), the new investment should make sense with the portfolio’s overall objective. For example, if one wants long term growth, choosing an investment that focuses on speculative technologies might not make much sense. As well, this sub category may not correlate well with other asset classes within the portfolio.

By taking a closer look at one’s portfolio, it can be fairly easily ascertained whether a new investment will make much sense at all. Of course, for investors who are die hard mutual fund investors, the concept of diversification is an easy one to understand and appreciate. But that alone does not give free reign to buy assets that add no value, either tangibly in terms of risk-adjusted returns or intangibly in terms of how well such an investment compliments the balance of the portfolio.

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 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.

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.

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.

There are plenty of reasons why investors should steer away from mutual funds that invest in gold. While some mutual funds have performed well thanks to their gold holdings, there is a lot of concern among professional money managers that gold may have reached the end of the profit road.

It could be one of those situations where hindsight will tell us that the warnings signs were all to apparent. Here are some of them:

Consider the abundance of infomercials on television that ask people to send in their unused gold to be converted into “cash.” At these prices, many of these companies are able to turn a nice profit from all of that activity – in fact, they can even offer to pick up the tab on the courier expenses and insurance. The bottom line is that Gold is at a healthy, attractive price right now… if you are selling it.

…there are some fundamental reasons to steer clear of gold and gold funds

When it comes to investing in gold, one of the most active players are Exchange Traded Funds. Think about that. ETF’s, not central banks, not large financial institutions. What this tells us is that retail investors, who are investing in these ETF’s, are picking up Gold at prices that are so attractive that some of the largest countries in the world are offloading the metal at extremely lucrative prices. What Contrarian Profits.com points out is that when these investors decide to take a profit, the selling of gold by these exchange traded funds will push the price of gold down faster and farther than most expect.

And this makes a great deal of sense. Consider oil. The year was 2008, the month was July and oil touched $147.30, the highest it had ever seen. Since then, oil gradually fell (okay, that’s being polite: oil actually fell like a stone) to under $40 by November of that same year. This does no suggest that gold will suffer the same fate, but nobody expected crude oil to take such a drastic hit in such a short period of time. In fact, some analysts were calling for oil to hit $250 by the following summer (it never reached that).

Although they called crude oil the new “liquid gold” there are more than just rhetorical similarities between the two. First off, oil ran up as the economy reached its peak. Gold, on the other hand became a lot more overbought as the economy reached its trough and has begun to recover. For gold to remain in high demand, the economy needs to remain beaten down and all other inflation hedging investments lights currencies as well as other commodities become less attractive. Ultimately gold prices can be seen as highly sensitive and linked to the economic cycle.

Secondly, oil is a commodity, just as gold is. Just as oil supply is essentially limited and its production is controlled by OPEC, so too is gold supply controlled. In fact, gold production and supply is also shrinking. The point here is simply that arguments that gold will continues to see its prices climb in steady succession are unfounded and cannot be mistaken as fact, despite what some of the others are saying.

Essentially, the Mutual Fund Site believes that gold is expensive right now. We agree with Contrarian Profits that there are some fundamental reasons to steer clear of gold and gold funds that are heavily invested in the commodity, including some Gold ETFs. But because of this uncertainty, we also do not recommend taking a short position against the commodity either; it is best to sit this one out rather than endure a painful recovery process like those who, in the 1980’s bought Gold in the high $500’s and had to wait over fifteen (15) years for the prices to reach such highs again.

Index funds are a hot topic for mutual fund investors because there is a growing belief that index funds will outperform actively managed funds within their respective categories (e.g. a fund that invests in small cap funds would underperform a small cap index fund). A lot of academic research has been done on this topic — more than the scope of this post (and site, in fact) can bear. Between the Efficiency Hypothesis and the Purity Hypothesis, most people can find the answers to their questions.

Why Index Funds Matter

Index funds are an interesting breed and a lot of people swear by their cost to performance ratio. Since index funds simply mirror an index (there is no real research involved, no “intelligence” since it has already been done by the appropriate index, like the S&P 500, the Russell 2000, etc.) these funds are the cheapest in terms expenses.

Cost is a huge factor when it comes to index funds.

What many investors argue is that actively managed mutual funds try to beat the index. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose and statistically speaking it becomes less and less likely every year that they beat the index to repeat their performance. So, since sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, why not simply own the index and enjoy steadier returns?

So Why Bother With Actively Managed Funds?

Indeed, knowing the above information may make an actively managed fund seem like a big and expensive risk. However, there is a lot to be said about active management, particularly for people who believe in the fund manager who operates and oversees the fund (see our archived post about Anthony Bolton, arguably one of the sharpest investment managers around). When investors have such faith in a manager, they realize that they can employ that person for a fairly low price… even if it is a two, three or even four times the cost of a bland, regular index fund.

The prolific managers are not the sole reason why some people will choose an actively managed fund over an index fund. Since many funds can shift their positions fairly easily, they can often take advantage of market inefficiencies, whereas index funds are stuck owning whatever it is that they own. There is no flexibility to safeguard investors against security specific risks.

Not that these are exhaustive reasons, but they provide the starting point as to why so many investors might chose one type of mutual fund over another.

What The Purity Hypothesis Tells Us

That brings us to Beta. Now, according to William Thatcher, a Senior Consultant at Hammond Associates in St. Louis, MO, Beta can tell us whether or not our actively managed funds will outperform an index fund. But there is one catch: that the performance strength index in particular is a known factor.

How this works is as follows: Suppose small cap stocks are a strong performer in a given year. Based on the Beta of your small cap fund, you will know whether your fund outperformed or underperformed the index funds for small cap stocks. If your fund’s Beta is less than 1 (considered less style pure than the index) then it will underperform the index (and vice versa if Beta is greater than 1).

This makes sense of course. But what it also tells us is that an investor would need to accept a fair amount more risk in order to invest in a fund that has a Beta greater than 1.

The Purity Hypothesis takes things one step farther in demonstrating how to invest, whether in Index funds or actively managed funds. The problem again is trying to determine ahead of time what asset classes will perform strongest for any given year. Because if that much can be determined, then an investor can minimize risk while simultaneously improve returns by:

1. Investing in Index fund for the best-performing asset class (e.g. large, mid and small cap stocks or funds)
2. Investing in Index funds for the three investment styles for that group (e.g. value, blend and growth)
3. Investing in actively managed funds for the poorest-performing asset group (e.g. large, mid and small cap stocks or funds)
4. Investing in actively managed funds for the three investment styles for that group (e.g. value, blend and growth)

The theory presented here finds it support in Thatcher’s research and for the most part can be substantiated by back-testing (I say for the most part because I did not go back to every single period in history to back-test). And of course it makes a great deal of sense because on a risk-adjusted basis, the Index will always outperform active funds when that asset class it outperforming other asset classes. (Click to read the Full Report).

So, whether your mutual funds invests in small cap stocks or follow a particular index, if you can determine which asset class will outperform the market and which classes will fall behind, you can actually achieve great returns (and save a few bucks) by choosing index funds for the top-performing classes and actively managed funds for the poorest-performing classes.

Sifting through the reels of available mutual funds to include in your portfolio is no easy task. Investors are faced with so many options that it is literally very interesting to try to figure out why one person chose one fund and another with the same tolerance for risk, available time and investment objectives chose a completely different fund. That could be why some people who disagree with our Top fixed income pick (a high yield fund) and our top small cap pick might have different ideas (although we can’t imagine why).

But one of the things nobody can really argue is the following: to pick a mutual fund, whether it is one we like or one we have never even mentioned on this site, one needs to study the MAPS (Management, Assets, Performance, Strategy) of the mutual fund in question. These are just the basics, folks. Spending ten minutes or so to say you understand them will reward you will less stress between the day you invest and the day your statements arrives in the mail.

M – Management: Arguably the least exciting part of your review process, getting to know the management team behind a mutual fund is important. Why? Because management dictates the fund’s style, how the assets will be invested. This is also important to know if you are going to base your investment decision heavily on some past performance record. The thing with management is that as it changes, so does the investment style and often even the fund’s strategy; what might have been a small cap domestic value fund one year can change to a small/mid cap blend fund with a management change. So, management is very important. Google the manager’s name, visit the fund company’s website to see what he or she has published there. Again, not very exciting, but it will reveal more than you think.

A – Assets: Possibly the most exciting part of your research will involve digging into the fund itself and finding out what underlying assets make it tick. Our High Yield Fund pick for 2010 for example has a very pretty asset list, with strong companies and a strong yield. In fact, those assets were probably one of the driving forces behind our taking a much closer look at the fund. But to date, that fund has underperformed its peer group. The reason this does not concern us, however, is that we believe in the strategy of the fund and its management team is strong enough to keep to it. But still, if we did not know what those assets were ahead of time, we never would have looked at what we believe is going to be one of the best-performing high yield funds this year.

P – Performance: We all know that past performance is never indicative of future performance. However, it does give us a scorecard for how the fund has performed. This is increasingly important now because the market turmoil of the past 2 years and some can help us gauge whether the performance has kept up or lagged the benchmark. While important from a trending perspective, however, past performance is never something that alone should dictate whether to purchase a mutual fund.

S – Strategy: A mutual fund’s strategy is a lot like a contract. If a fund manager states that the strategy is one thing but the fund goes ahead and gets involved with something completely off-side, then it makes sense to “fire” that manager and find another. For this reason, you should get to know the mutual fund’s strategy rather intimately because it will form the standard to which you hold the fund’s management team accountable for its performance. And if that fund manager should stray from the stated strategy, then it becomes necessary to re-evaluate your relationship with that fund and fund company.

MAPS. Not hard to remember and not all that time consuming to execute. By keeping this abbreviation in mind when evaluating possible investment avenues, you will gain a fair level of comfort and knowledge about the mutual funds your planner might be pushing and know whether they make sense for you.

Recently, the Mutual Fund Site presented a post about the easiest and smartest investment strategy: investing regularly on an automated contribution plan. This investment strategy is also (or better) known as Dollar Cost Averaging and makes perfect sense when used with mutual funds, whether more-volatile funds that invest in small cap stocks, index funds, or even bond funds.

Aside from buying more units when the markets are down (and less units when the market is up), Dollar Cost Averaging strips the issue of “market timing” out of your investment strategy. This can be fairly important because virtually nobody can “time” the market with absolute accuracy. That means only luck and no amount of research can help an investor buy at the absolute lowest.

Likewise, even the unluckiest investor will have difficulty buying at the absolute highest, but we often feel that way – that we bought at the highest and now our investments are doomed to fail.

This is where Dollar Cost Averaging makes great sense. Not only because it takes the “guess” work and “luck” out of the situation, but because historically it errs on the up-side. That means that if you use dollar cost averaging, your returns are more likely going to resemble the returns of someone who has the great luck and skill to buy at the absolutely lowest days.

This may seem strange because one would think that, statistically, you are more likely to buy the “average” or median between the best and worst possible days to invest. This would be true in a flat market, but historically markets have risen. Therefore, in a 10-year rolling average, even the “worst” possible day will be the best day at some point.

In fact, a Canadian Financial institution actually ran these numbers based on their market, the S&P TSX index. In their illustration, if you were to invest at the absolute worst days over the period of 1989 through to 2009, your returns would still be positive at 5.42% annually. The absolute best days: 7.36%.

And by employing a Dollar Cost Averaging strategy and invested each month on the first business day of the month, your return would have been 6.38%, less than 1% lower than if you had invested at the absolute best time possible for the year but nearly 2% better than if you had invested on the absolute worst days.

Interesting that a simple, more-affordable strategy could yield such positive results. But again, when you look at the historically rising market, it makes sense. In a declining market, the rates above would probably be reversed, but ultimately, investing through an automated investment program (dollar cost averaging) allows you the benefits of not having to worry about the impossibility of market timing, especially when it comes those riskier mutual funds, like those investing in small cap stocks. The investment strategy, however, can be used with other types of investments as well, even those in declining market-value environment such as bond funds.

Give it some thought….

As an investment strategy, putting $12,000 into a mutual fund today versus spreading that $12,000 over the course of twelve months (or $1,000 per month) is statistically not such a smart move… well, unless of course you invest $12,000 per month or at some kind of regular interval. This has nothing to do with the mutual fund in question. Instead, investing regularly has its share of perks, in fact enough of them that investors would be silly not to take advantage of them from Day 1.

To illustrate just how powerful regular investments can be versus single, lump-sum investments, consider that even if a security value drops, you can still come out with a gain if you make your investment purchases on a regular basis.

To add credibility to our little illustration, we will look at S&P 500 values for 2009. Our first investor will invest $12,000 on the first business day of January while our second will invest $1,000 every month on the first business day of that month. By December 2nd, they will have both invested at total of $12,000.

As we can see from the chart below, the investor who invests every penny at once will be ahead by 19% on December while the investor who puts $1,000 aside every month is only marginally ahead of that investor at 20.57%. The difference of $200.10 hardly seems worth it in the end… or does it? Putting yourself in the shoes of the two investors might tell us a different story as we work our way from month to month.

Take look at the Investor #1 who goes “all-in” on January 2, 2009. How would this investor feel one month later on the first business day of February when that $12,000 investment is down 11.41%, a loss of nearly three thousand dollars. Would Investor #1 be getting sick to her stomach on the first business day of March when that investment is down 24.79% or a heart-stopping $2,974.63?

In comparison, after that first business day purchase in March 2009, Investor #2 would have put $3,000 away and lost just 13.3% or $398.86. In absolute terms, Investor #2 would probably feel a lot better than Investor #1 at this point. And any sinking feeling of loss would be gone for the rest of the year for Investor #2 by the time the first business day in April rolls around and he see his investments roughly at a break-even point (a 0.26% gain actually) while Investor #1 is still not eating or sleeping because they are still down nearly 13% or $1,554.67.

In fact, while Investor #2 watches his investment gain throughout the rest of the year (except in July, when they slip from being “up” 12.27% in June down to being “up” only 8.53% in July), Investor #1 has to wait two extra months before they break even again… and that victory is really short-lived because in July they will have seen their investment swing back into the red again. Talk about an emotional roller-coaster ride for Investor #1 — while Investor #2 recorded just 2 “down” periods for the year Investor #1 was in the red for 5 of the 12 periods, a little more than 40% of the time!

And what if either Investor had lost part or all of their regular income and needed to draw on their investment after 3 months? At that point, only Investor #2 showed a gain of any type meaning Investor #1 would have been cashing in at the absolute worst time possible.

Of course, in the end, Investor #2 actually ends up being $200.10 ahead of Investor #1, thanks entirely to their regular contributions allowing them to purchase more units. After understanding the probable emotional turbulence that Investor #1 experiences, the extra $200.10 seems like only a single piece of what is really much-larger bonuses — these being the reduced stress levels, the added units and the lower dollar-value losses when things turn South.

This is not magic. You can run the figures yourself using S&P 500 closing prices found at Yahoo! Finance. But remember: investing regularly in mutual funds really can make a big difference.

Illustration A (S&P 500 values; Invest One-Time vs. Invest Monthly)

Illustration A

Just yesterday (February 14, 2010) the Mutual Fund Site announced its top small cap pick for 2010 — the Ivy Small Cap Value fund. In that long-winded post, we outlined various reasons why this small cap fund is a no brainer, why all of the ducks are lined up and its sights for gains are clear for this year. With the mildly improving interest in housing thanks to the gradually improving employment figures, a lot of regional banks like those held by the Ivy Small Cap Value fund stand to profit. What emphasizes this fact is that a lot of regional banks are better positioned when financial service reform will start to take shape.

Okay, this entry is not intended to regurgitate what we wrote in our release or in the post. With that in mind, we will examine one area that makes this small cap mutual fund one of the most intelligent mutual funds available to the investors with the right risk tolerance, time horizon and investment objectives. Why? Because its dividend yield!

We have spoken at length about dividend funds and the importance of dividends in helping boost earnings withing a mutual fund. In fact, we have gone so far as to suggest that dividends can make the difference between what people perceive as a smart investor and an unlucky one. Where the Ivy Small Cap Value fund makes such a great investment is in its dividend yield of 2.8%.

Remember, value funds’ primary area of focus for returns lies in the abilities of the mutual fund manager to pick up underpriced assets. If the fund manager wanted dividends to prop up returns, he or she would be managing a dividend fund. With Ivy, the point is clearly in the “value” its assets offer. This can be supported by the relative low average P/E for the fund of just 15.7. This tells us that the underlying securities are clearly undervalued.

So where do these dividends come from, exactly?

We mentioned yesterday that three of its Top 5 holdings are Wintrust, IBERIABANK and East West Bancorp. Their dividend yields are 0.6%, 2.5% and 0.3% respectively (as of Friday’s closing price). Now, IBERIABANK’s dividend is clearly the highest, but still falls short of the fund’s average dividend yield. And with just 77 securities in its portfolio, obviously some of the other financials are paying much higher dividend yields. Look at First Niagara Financial Group as an example; they pay 4.1%.

And all of these financial services companies are strong. They have solid and/or growing equity positions, they are profitable and, well, they pay decent dividends.

Let’s look at some of the bigger financial services options out there.

• Citigroup. Its dividend yield is 0%.
• Wells Fargo. Its dividend yield is 0.7%
• Goldman Sachs. Its dividend yiled is 0.9%

The point here is that so many value investors will throw money at the big guns. Those are the large financial services firms listed here, two of which are terrific “buys” according to the well respected analysts surveyed by Thompson/First Call as well as other prolific stock analysts. But what about First Niagara, IBERIABANK and a handful of other in Ivy’s small cap fund?

These are what people call as investment “Secrets.” They are those dividends that people chase (within reason of course; no sense in buying a bankrupt stock even if it pays a 10% dividend!). The dividends that people wish they knew about.

Is there risk in a small cap fund? Yes. Is there risk in the Ivy Small Cap Value fund? Yes (although Morningstar lists its risk as low compared to its peer group). But when you have a small cap fund that pays 2.8% in average dividends, the fact remains that dividends are not only an important part of smart investment management, but are an essential contributor to a mutual fund’s returns.