Tag Archives: author

China Funds And Black Monday

By Jake Moeller Lipper’s Jake Moeller examines the performance of China-themed funds during Black Monday week. Most investors will have been familiar with the compelling thematic stories about China for many years: population, infrastructure growth, urbanization, etc. Until 2011 all the China funds available in the market were equity funds. Today, there are nearly 100 UCITs funds (and considerably more share classes) with a China focus available in Europe. They cover not only equities; funds can be found specializing in emerging-market bond, mixed-asset, currency, and money market sector classifications. If we accept that mutual fund production reflects investor sentiment, we can illustrate the successful pervasion of the China story. In 2015 up to June we have seen 13 new major China fund launches in Europe (it will be interesting to see how many funds are launched in the second half of the year!). Indeed, nearly 50% of all the China-themed UCITs vehicles have been launched since 2010, with total assets under management for all of these funds increasing from €19 billion in 2010 to some €28 billion today-an increase of 47%. But as a whole, these figures represent a very small proportion of the overall UCITs market. (click to enlarge) Source: Lipper for Investment Management The variation of returns among China-themed funds during the Black Monday event was considerable and almost exclusively negative-only two funds returned a positive figure for the seven-day period ending 27 August 2015 ( Prescient China Conservative E [Hedged] USD , up 1.62%, and Amundi Eureka Cina 2015 , up 0.29%). Casualties at the other end saw losses over the same period of up to 18.2%. Some big name losers over the period included AllianzGI’s China A-Shares , which fell 13.8%; BNP Paribas Investment Partners’ Flexi I CSI 300 Index , which returned minus 15.5%; and KBC Horizon China , returning minus 17.3%. The overall average return during this seven-day period was minus 5%. It is an unusual practice and possibly unwise to spend too much time examining such short-term performance-especially in collective investment vehicles, but the overall volatility of some of these examples was breathtaking in isolation. Let’s not forget, though, that over that same short period the Investment Association U.K. All Companies sector, for example, also returned minus 5%-a figure comparable to the average return of the China fund. Similarly, the IA North America Sector returned -5.6% over the same period. Consider also some longer-term performance. Taking the one-year period to 27 August, there were some fairly impressive returns even with the Black Monday correction. KBC Horizon China , so maligned in our seven-day analysis, returned 57% over this period; Allianz China A-Shares (USD) , 69%; and the average of all the funds was a fairly robust 10%.

What’s The Point Of Mutual Funds? According To Standard And Poor’s There Isn’t One

By Valentin Schmid Leave it to the pros. That’s what mutual fund companies tell the layman when he wants to invest in the stock or bond market. After all they know better, right? Right. However, they don’t know better than the benchmarks they are supposed to outperform, according to a recent study by Standard and Poors, the parent of the famous S&P 500 index. For the period of June 30 2014 to June 30 2015, 65.34 percent of U.S. large cap equity portfolio managers underperformed the S&P 500, which was up 7.42 percent. They did even worse over 5 and 10 years, when 80 percent of fund managers didn’t manage to beat the benchmark. The same is true for fixed income and municipal bond funds as well as international stock funds-a large majority of them underperform their benchmarks over different periods. Why? Gordon Gekko from the 1987 movie “Wall Street” thought he knew the answer: “Ever wonder why fund managers can’t beat the S&P 500? Cause they’re sheep, and sheep get slaughtered,” he opined. Maybe it’s just the opposite. Of course, you can’t accuse fund managers of being greedy, which Gekko would have said was good, but it has to do with the fees they charge for their management. They are relatively modest, around 1.15 percent on average per year, but that amount alone is often enough to make the difference between being better than the index or not. On top, you have hidden trading fees (brokers usually charge funds 0.2 percent on stock trades, which is directly deducted from the fund’s assets), and market impact: this means the stock price goes up if the fund is buying in large quantities. The S&P 500 doesn’t have these problems. It just exists in a computer database. S&P collects the prices of the stocks and calculates the index in a massive excel spreadsheet. No trading costs, no market impact, and no fees. And it gets even better: By definition, companies that do poorly just get kicked out of the index (because their market cap declines) and strong companies on the rise get included, again at no cost, whereas the mutual funds have to turn over a good chunk of their portfolio to make the necessary changes. So what can you do? Obviously investing in the S&P 500 spreadsheet, which doesn’t have all the costs won’t do any good, but there are lower cost alternatives. John Clifton Bogle, former CEO of the Vanguard Group pioneered the concept of index trackers. They slash costs to the bone and just replicate the index. This will still cost you, but it will cost you much less than people charging more and failing to beat the index. Over 10 years, Vanguard is the winner : “For the 10-year period ended June 30, 2015, 10 of 10 Vanguard money market funds, 48 of 52 Vanguard bond funds, 18 of 18 Vanguard balanced funds, and 110 of 121 Vanguard stock funds-for a total of 186 of 201 Vanguard funds-outperformed their Lipper peer-group averages”-without even trying. (click to enlarge) An infographic showing the hidden fees in 401ks. ( Personal Capital )

The Markets Know What The Analysts And Economists Don’t

Scores of analysts insist that U.S. stocks cannot fall a bearish 20% or more because the U.S. is not entering a recession. Haven’t these market watchers learned that financial markets themselves are better at forecasting than they are? It is important to realize that the markets themselves know what analysts and economists do not. The best economists on the planet regularly hamper the investing community. For example, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) acknowledged in December of 2008 that a recession had started one year earlier (December 2007). Unfortunately, by December of 2008, the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) had already forfeited close to half of its value (46%). Similarly, by the time that NBER recognized the existence of the 2001 recession in November of that year, the S&P 500 had shed 29% and the “New Economy” NASDAQ had plunged 65%. Nevertheless, scores of analysts insist that U.S. stocks cannot fall a bearish 20% or more because the U.S. is not entering a recession. Haven’t these market watchers learned that financial markets themselves are better at forecasting than they are? And it’s not just equities. Consider the bond market at the start of 2014. Bloomberg News surveyed the top banks and securities companies on where the 10-year Treasury yield would finish by December 31st. Every economist of the 50-plus in the poll had projected higher 10-year Treasury bond yields (i.e., lower prices on 10-year Treasury bonds). The average projection? The 10-year yield should move from 3.01% up to 3.41%. Instead, the 10-year dropped to 2.17%. Every single top economist had completely whiffed with respect to the direction of interest rates (10-year yields). What’s more, every analyst who subscribed to the notion that economists are helpful in forecasting the direction of market-based securities missed out on an extraordinary bullish trend in bonds. Those who went against the herd in contrarian fashion – those who had followed basic technical trendlines and/or understood the fundamental backdrop of Treasury bond supply and demand – profited from an allocation to the long end of the yield curve. Indeed, one of our largest client holdings in 2014 had been the Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: BLV ) – an asset that outperformed our stock holdings as well as the major benchmarks. Are analysts or economists doing any better with their expectations for bond yields in 2015, with the average anticipated to move up from 2.17% to 2.75%? In spite of bond market volatility, the 10-year essentially remains unchanged and I doubt that the same prognosticators are confident in a year-end rate of 2.75% today. Note: For our clients, we did move down the yield curve to reduce volatility . Clients currently hold positions in the iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: IEI ) or the iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: IEF ). If the information provided by economists and like-minded analysts tend to lead investors astray, why do so many folks listen? I’m not sure that I have an adequate answer for that. My own approach to tactical asset allocation involves a wide range of data – fundamental, technical, economic and historical. Evidence in the aggregate is what led me to reduce exposure to riskier assets prior to the 2000-2002 tech wreck, 2007-2009 financial collapse, 2011 eurozone crisis and the 2015 selloff. As I explained prior to the August-September downturn in “Market Top? 15 Warning Signs”: “If your asset allocation target is typically 65% stock (e.g., domestic, foreign, large, small, etc.) and 35% bond (e.g, short, long, investment grade, higher yielding, etc.), you might choose to downshift. Perhaps it would be 50% stock (mostly large-cap domestic), 25% income (mostly investment grade) and 25% cash/cash equivalents. Raising the cash level and modifying the type of stock and bond risk will help in a market sell-off as well as offer opportunity to purchase risk assets at better prices in the future.” In practice, I am neither bearish nor bullish; rather, we have target asset allocations for a “risk-on” environment and we reduce exposure to riskier assets when a wide variety of data set off alarms. The cash that we raised prior to the August-September downturn can be used to acquire beaten-down bargains today or broader market benchmark ETFs tomorrow. The one thing that I am not particularly interested in? Economist and analyst “group-think.” It fails miserably when it comes to stocks. It fails miserably when it comes to bonds. And it may be equally inept on the currency front. For instance, how many of these people are insisting that the U.S. greenback can only go up? Meanwhile, the PowerShares DB USD Bull ETF (NYSEARCA: UUP ) has fallen below its 200-day moving average and has been declining since mid-March. In essence, the big move higher in the dollar occurred between July of 2014 and March of 2015; the markets moved dramatically long before analyst-economist “group-think” expressed a belief that the dollar can only move higher. Don’t get me wrong. I do not anticipate a rapid-fire dollar demise. The global economic slowdown provides support for ownership of U.S. currency while Fed cautiousness on the pace of rate hikes should keep the dollar from eclipsing the March highs. Still, it is important to realize that the markets themselves know what analysts and economists do not; that is, market-based securities – stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities – know where they are heading. Economists? Analysts? The media? These groups mislead as often as they succeed. Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.