Tag Archives: article

The Best And Worst Of February: Market Neutral Funds

The 68 mutual funds and ETFs in the market neutral category averaged modest gains of 0.08% in February while flows to the category turned positive for the first time since September 2014. The Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (MUTF: VMNIX ) was February’s biggest recipient of inflows, at roughly $279 million, while the AQR Diversified Arbitrage Fund (MUTF: ADAIX ) suffered the month’s steepest outflows at $295 million. Neither of the funds, which posted respective February returns of 1.55% and 1.33%, ranked in the top or bottom three performers for the month, though. Best Performers in February The three best-performing market neutral funds in February were: The QuantShares US Market Neutral Value Fund was February’s top-performing fund, returning +3.83%. Unfortunately, for shareholders, the fund’s one-year performance through February 29 stood at -6.35%, ranking in the bottom 13% of the category. For the three years ending Leap Day 2015, CHEP returned an annualized -0.52%. Its February outperformance is evidence of its more-volatile-than-average nature, with a one-year standard deviation of 6.45% compared to the category average of 4.81%. On a three-year basis, CHEP looks even less predictable, with annualized volatility of 7.70% compared to the category average of 4.25%. The Cognios Market Neutral Large Cap Fund, by contrast, returned a solid +2.45% in February and had one-year returns of +11.07% through the end of the month. Those annual gains were good enough to rank in the top 7% of its peers, and its three-year annualized returns through February 29 stood at an impressive +9.57%, ranking in the top 4% of the category. For the past year, COGIX has been even more volatile than CHEP, with a standard deviation of 8.01%. But COGIX’s one- and three-year alphas of 7.60% and 9.62% – relative to the returns of the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Total Return Index – more than make up for its outsized volatility. Finally, the Causeway Global Absolute Return Value Fund) ranked third in February, with returns of +2.40%. Its annual returns through the end of the month stood at a less impressive -0.48%, ranking it near the middle of the category. Over the longer term, however, CGAIX’s three-year returns of +4.11% were good enough to rank in the top 11% of market neutral funds over that time span. Worst Performers in February The three worst performing market neutral funds in February were: Mother’s Day comes in May, but February was unkind to MOM. The QuantShares US Market Neutral Momentum Fund, which sports the “MOM” ticker symbol, was the worst performer of its kind last month, losing 6.14%. Nevertheless, the ultra-volatile MOM – with its annual standard deviation of 12.66% – was still up 10.68% for the year, as of February 29, and its three-year annualized returns through that date stood at +3.24%. The TFS Market Neutral and BlackRock Global Long/Short Equity funds tied as the second-worst market neutral performers in February, with one-month returns of -3.97%. The funds’ one-year returns were also uninspiring at -6.85% and -6.75%, respectively. But over the three-year period, the BlackRock fund’s annualized gains of 2.89% greatly outdid the TFS fund’s annualized losses of 0.84%. Past performance does not necessarily predict future results. Jason Seagraves contributed to this article.

Does Market Volatility Favor Active Management?

By Aye Soe Twice a year, S&P Dow Jones Indices releases the SPIVA U.S. Scorecard. The scorecard measures the performance of actively managed equity and fixed income funds across various categories. Since the initiation of the report in 2002, the results have consistently shown that managers across most categories overwhelmingly underperform on a relative basis against their corresponding benchmarks over a medium-to-long-term investment horizon. The Year-End 2015 SPIVA U.S. Scorecard reveals little surprise. The second half of 2015 was marked by significant market volatility, which was brought forth by plunging commodity prices, a strengthening U.S. dollar, growing global concerns over Chinese economic growth, and the subsequent devaluation of the Chinese renminbi. Market volatility, in theory, favors active investing, because managers can tactically move out of their positions at their discretion and park themselves in cash. Passive investing, on the other hand, has to remain fully invested in the market. Investors in actively managed strategies should therefore realize fewer losses during periods of heightened volatility, all else being equal. Given this theoretical background, recent volatility in the market has supporters of active investing proclaiming that active management is back in favor. However, over a decade of experience in publishing the SPIVA Scorecard has painfully taught us that active funds don’t always perform better than their passive counterparts during those precise periods in which active management skills seem to be called for. Exhibit 1 compares the performance of actively managed equity funds across the nine style boxes during the 2000-2002 bear market, the financial crisis of 2008, and 2015. As the data clearly show, there is no consistent pattern across most of the categories. Large-cap value managers appear to be the only exception to the losing trend, outperforming their benchmark in both bear markets. Again in 2015, mid-cap value is the only winning equity category, with the majority (67.65%) of them outperforming the S&P MidCap 400® Value . Disclosure: © S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2015. Indexology® is a trademark of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC (SPDJI). S&P® is a trademark of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones® is a trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC, and those marks have been licensed to S&P DJI. This material is reproduced with the prior written consent of S&P DJI. For more information on S&P DJI and to see our full disclaimer, visit www.spdji.com/terms-of-use .