Tag Archives: ideas

Managed Futures: Best And Worst Funds In October

By DailyAlts Staff Managed futures funds suffered category-wide losses of 1.82% in October, reversing course after posting gains of 1.21% the prior month. There were still standout performers within the category, though, as the top three managed futures funds notched monthly gains ranging from 1.20% to 2.53%. The category’s bottom three performers, meanwhile, averaged losses of 4.70% – indicating a wide dispersion of returns between the best- and worst-performing funds. (click to enlarge) Top Performing Funds for October The top three managed futures funds for October were: The Dunham Alternative Strategy Fund was the month’s best-performing fund, posting gains of 2.53%. The fund, which debuted in 2009 and recently had $23.4 million in assets under management (“AUM”), had five-year annualized returns of -0.36% for the period ending on October 31. Its one-year returns through that date was positive at +0.29% but still well under the category average of +5.24%. DAASX did significantly outperform its peers over the three months ending on Halloween, though, as it gained 0.04% compared to the category’s losses of 2.56%. It appears that the fund may be gaining steam. The Superfund Managed Futures Strategy Fund and the Grant Park Managed Futures Strategy Fund were the number-two and -three best-performing managed futures mutual funds in October, posting respective gains of 1.28% and 1.20%. It was something of a bounce-back month for both funds, which had each underperformed over the 12 months ending October 31: SUPIX ranked in the bottom three of September’s performers and lost 5.95% for the year ending Halloween, while GPFIX’s gains of 3.87% still trailed the category average of +5.24%. The funds had respective AUM of $4.9 million and $51.8 million, and were originally launched in 2013 and 2011, respectively. (click to enlarge) Bottom Performing Funds for October The managed futures funds that posted the worst one-month returns in October were: The AQR Managed Futures Strategy HV Fund was at the very bottom of the category, with its shares falling 4.93% for the month. Shareholders are likely able to take those losses in stride, though, since the fund gained an impressive 21.54% for the year ending October 31, ranking at the very top of the managed futures category. QMHIX originally launched in 2013, and its AUM recently stood at $505.9 million. The month’s other worst performers were also outperformers over longer periods: The Arrow Managed Futures Strategy Fund, which posted a 4.61% loss in October, had one-year gains of 7.89% for the year ending October 31; and the American Beacon AHL Managed Futures Strategy Fund, which was the month’s third-worst performer with losses of 4.56%, had one-year gains of 9.08%. Of the two funds, MFTNX is older but smaller, with its original launch in 2010 and AUM of $29.6 million, compared to AHLIX’s 2014 debut and $100.8 million in AUM. (click to enlarge) September’s Best and Worst: Follow-Up There were no repeat winners or losers in the top or bottom three from September to October. Indeed, all three of September’s top performers posted losses in October, and two of September’s three worst managed futures funds notched gains – one of September’s worst, the Superfund Managed Futures Strategy Fund, jumped into October’s top three. The Altegris Futures Evolution Strategy Fund (MUTF: EVOIX ), the 361 Global Counter-Trend Fund (MUTF: AGFZX ), and the LoCorr Managed Futures Strategy Fund (MUTF: LFMIX ) – which posted respective gains of 5.30%, 4.40%, and 3.78% in September – saw their shares fall by 2.56%, 1.34%, and 2.39% in October. Meanwhile, the Superfund Managed Futures Strategy Fund ( SUPIX ) and the Discretionary Managed Futures Strategy Fund (MUTF: FUTEX ) – the second- and third-worst performing funds in September, with respective losses of 1.58% and 0.77% – bounced back with respective gains of 1.28% and 0.19% in October. Remember: The category average for October was -1.82%, and with that in mind, even September’s worst performer – the 361 Managed Futures Strategy Fund (MUTF: AMFZX ), which lost 4.81% in September – outperformed the average, as it only lost 1.74% in October. Past performance does not necessarily predict future results.

401(k) Fund Spotlight: Janus Triton

Summary Janus Triton is a small to mid capitalization growth stock fund. Triton has consistently beaten the Russell small capitalization growth indexes, but not the higher quality S&P 600 Small Cap indexes. Triton is overweight the technology sector, which comprises about 31% of the fund. A look at some of the fund’s largest technology holdings reveal the manager is true to the fund’s promise of investing in companies with “differentiated business models”. Introduction I select funds on behalf of my investment advisory clients in many different defined contribution plans, namely 401(k)s and 403(b)s. I have looked at a lot of different funds over the years. 401(k) Fund Spotlight is an article series that focuses on one particular fund at a time that is widely offered to Americans in their 401(k) plans. 401(k)s are now the foundational retirement savings vehicle for many Americans. They should be maximized to the fullest extent. A detailed understanding of fund options is a worthwhile endeavor. To get the most out of this article, it is helpful to understand my approach to investing in 401(k)s . I strive to write these articles for the benefit of the novice and professional. Please comment if you have a question. I always try to give substantive responses. Janus Triton Fund The Janus Triton Fund has the following share classes: I will assume the “T” shares for this article, since that is the share class that holds the most assets of the fund. It is also the primary share class used by Janus to evaluate historical calendar year returns. The net expense ratio for the T shares is .93. Evaluating Historical Performance Triton is a small/mid capitalization (“cap”) growth fund. Janus compares the fund’s historical performance to the Russell 2000® Growth Index and the Russell 2500™ Growth Index and it comes out favorably, as shown on the following table: as of September 30, 2015 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year Janus Triton – T Shares 5.1% 14.2% 14.1% 11.4% Russell 2500™ Growth Index 3.4% 13.8% 13.9% 8.4% Triton Outperformance (Underperformance) 1.7% .4% .2% 3.0% Russell 2000® Growth Index 4.0% 12.9% 13.3% 7.7% Triton Outperformance (Underperformance) 1.1% 1.3% .8% 3.7% Triton has outperformed both growth benchmarks over all four of these time periods. Most notably, Triton’s outperformance in the important (for long term investors at least) 10-year category ranged from 3.0% to 3.7%. This particular 10-year period is also noteworthy, because it included one of the worst bear markets in U.S. stock market history. However, taking a step back, it is important to ask the question: “Are the Russell indexes the best for comparison?” Perhaps they are if your fund is always outperforming them. There are other widely used small cap indexes from S&P that have outperformed the Russell small cap indexes over time. (This article explains the difference between the two.) The S&P Small 600 Index tends to hold a bit higher quality stocks. For example, it requires index members to have at least four consecutive quarters of positive earnings. I drew up a chart of Triton versus the SPDR S&P Small Cap 600 Index ETF (NYSEARCA: SLY ) and the SPDR S&P Small Cap Growth Index ETF (NYSEARCA: SLYG ) since March 1, 2009 (arguably the approximate date of the current secular bull market). Here is what it looks like: JATTX Total Return Price data by YCharts A:JGMAX C:JGMCX I:JSMGX N:JGMNX S:JGMIX R:JGMRX T:JATTX Out of the three, the SPDR S&P Small Cap 600 Growth Index ETF was the winner, but only slightly. Overall, I think it could be said that all three have pretty much been running neck and neck throughout this bull market. According to Barrons , Triton has outperformed 89% of its peers, as measured by the Lipper Small Cap Growth Index, over the last five years. I think the fact that it beat such a large percentage of its peers, but still trailed the S&P Small Cap 600 Growth Index ETF during this bull market, really speaks to the quality of the S&P Small Cap 600 indexes. Overall, the fund has a solid performance track record. If available in a 401(k), I would likely choose either of the similar S&P Small Cap 600 Indexes though instead. The index gives you a lower expense ratio, so you have a slight advantage right out of the gate. Triton, like so many other mutual funds, is so widely diversified that it really cannot stray to far from the index as long as it remains fully invested. The problem is not so much that the fund holds 120 different stocks, it is that there are only four stocks that comprise more than 2% of the fund each. Other Noteworthy Tidbits Triton does have a substantially overweight position in information technology (31% of the fund as of October 31, 2015) compared to the Russell 2500 ™ Growth Index’s (21%). The fund may present a good angle for investors interested in having more exposure to the sector without going overboard. However, the overall fund has a forward Price to Earnings (“P/E”) multiple of 24, which is very high. I suspect that some of the information technology stocks it holds are widely overvalued. Let us dig a little deeper. The industries the fund has most exposure to are Software (12% of fund) and Information Technology Services (9%). The following table lists the fund’s largest holdings within these two sectors and their trailing twelve month (“TTM”) and forward looking P/E multiples (taken from Yahoo! Finance). Company P/E Multiple (Last 12 Months) Forward P/E Multiple SS&C Technologies Holdings ( SSNC ) 98 22 BlackBaud ( BLKB ) 121 36 Cadence Design Systems ( CDNS ) 30 19 Euronet Worldwide ( EEFT ) 44 22 Broadridge Financial Solutions ( BR ) 24 18 Jack Henry & Associates ( JKHY ) 30 26 I tend to focus on forward looking multiples and most of these are too high for my liking, although I was a bit off on my speculation of wild overvaluation. They are not in the extreme territory of some overplayed growth stocks. Janus states in the Triton fund description that: “The Fund invests in small-cap companies with differentiated business models and sustainable competitive advantages that are positioned to grow market share regardless of economic conditions.” Glancing at the business descriptions of just these six companies leads me to believe that Triton’s manager is following through on this promise. These companies strike me as those that are not going away anytime soon and could continue to experience solid growth in their niches (e.g., payment processing for small financial institutions and designing web solutions for non-profits). Conclusion The Janus Triton Fund is a solid option for 401(k) investors looking to get exposure to small/mid cap growth stocks. I would not choose the fund over the S&P Small Cap 600 Growth Index, but that is rarely a choice. Triton has consistently beaten the comparable Russell growth indexes and most of its peers. I would likely choose it, or at least give it a higher allocation, than other such available options. Investing Disclosure 401(k) Spotlight articles focus on the specific attributes of mutual funds that are widely available to Americans within employer provided defined contribution plans. Fund recommendations are general in nature and not geared towards any specific reader. Fund positioning should be considered as part of a comprehensive asset allocation strategy, based upon the financial situation, investment objectives, and particular needs of the investor. Readers are encouraged to obtain experienced, professional advice. Important Regulatory Disclosures I am a Registered Investment Advisor in the State of Pennsylvania. I screen electronic communications from prospective clients in other states to ensure that I do not communicate directly with any prospect in another state where I have not met the registration requirements or do not have an applicable exemption. Positive comments made regarding this article should not be construed by readers to be an endorsement of my abilities to act as an investment adviser.

Best And Worst Q4’15: Small Cap Blend ETFs, Mutual Funds And Key Holdings

Summary The Small Cap Blend style ranks last in Q4’15. Based on an aggregation of ratings of 28 ETFs and 642 mutual funds. VB is our top-rated Small Cap Blend style ETF and PCOEX is our top-rated Small Cap Blend style mutual fund. The Small Cap Blend style ranks twelfth out of the twelve fund styles as detailed in our Q4’15 Style Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. Last quarter , the Small Cap Blend style ranked last as well. It gets our Dangerous rating, which is based on an aggregation of ratings of 28 ETFs and 642 mutual funds in the Small Cap Blend style. See a recap of our Q3’15 Style Ratings here. Figures 1 and 2 show the five best and worst-rated ETFs and mutual funds in the style. Not all Small Cap Blend style ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 23 to 2053). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. Investors seeking exposure to the Small Cap Blend style should buy one of the Attractive-or-better rated mutual funds from Figures 2. Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 (click to enlarge) * Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings 5 ETFs are excluded from Figure 1 because their total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 (click to enlarge) * Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings The Boston Trust & Walden Funds Mid Cap Fund (MUTF: WAMFX ) and the Boston Trust & Walden Funds SMID Cap Innovations Fund (MUTF: WASMX ) are excluded from Figure 2 because their total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. The Vanguard Small-Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: VB ) is the top-rated Small Cap Blend ETF and the Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund (MUTF: PCOEX ) is the top-rated Small Cap Blend mutual fund. VB earns a Neutral rating and PCOEX earns a Very Attractive rating. The State Street SPDR Russell 2000 Low Volatility ETF (NYSEARCA: SMLV ) is the worst-rated Small Cap Blend ETF and the ProFunds Small Cap Fund (MUTF: SLPSX ) is the worst-rated Small Cap Blend mutual fund. SMLV earns a Dangerous rating and SLPSX earns a Very Dangerous Rating. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NASDAQ: GT ) is one of our favorite stocks held by VB and earns our Very Attractive rating. Since 2010, the company has grown after-tax profits (NOPAT) by 18% compounded annually and doubled its NOPAT margin. Goodyear has also improved its return on invested capital ( ROIC ) from 5% to 9% over the same timeframe. Despite the impressive profit growth, GT remains undervalued. At its current price of $35/share, GT has a price to economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 1.0. This ratio means that the market expects Goodyear to never meaningfully grow NOPAT over the remaining life of the corporation. If Goodyear can grow NOPAT by 7% compounded annually for the next five years , which is well below the historic growth rate, the company is worth $49/share today – a 40% upside. Ruby Tuesday (NYSE: RT ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by Small Cap Blend ETFs and mutual funds and earns our Dangerous rating. Since 2010, Ruby Tuesday’s NOPAT has declined by 11% compounded annually while its NOPAT margins have fallen from 9% in 2010 to 3% on a trailing-twelve-month basis. Ruby Tuesday’s ROIC has followed this downward trend and is currently a bottom quintile 3%, down from 6% in 2011. To justify the current price of $5/share, Ruby Tuesday must grow NOPAT by 5% compounded annually for the next 12 years . This expectation is awfully optimistic for a business that has failed to grow profits at all over the past five years. Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Small Cap Blend ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst ETFs (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Funds (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer and Thaxston McKee receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, or theme.