.

Total money market mutual funds rose by $16.47 billion in latest week: ICI

Thu May 8, 2014 3:54pm EDT
Article from http://www.reuters.com/

(Reuters) - The Investment Company Institute on Tuesday issued the following money market mutual fund assets report:

"Total money market fund1assets increased by $16.47 billion to $2.59 trillion for the week ended Wednesday, May 7, the Investment Company Institute reported today. Among taxable money market funds, treasury funds (including agency and repo)increased by $6.96 billion and prime funds increased by $7.37 billion. Tax-exempt money market funds increased by $2.14 billion.

Retail:2 Assets of retail money market funds increased by$5.30 billion to $906.64 billion. Treasury money market fund assets in the retail category increased by $1.88 billion to $201.36 billion, prime money market fund assets increased by $2.20 billion to $517.37 billion, and tax-exempt fund assets increased by $1.22 billion to $187.91 billion.

Institutional:2 Assets of institutional money market funds increased by $11.16 billion to $1.68 trillion. Among institutional funds, treasury money market fund assets increased by $5.08 billion to $712.74 billion, prime money market fund assets increased by $5.16 billion to $899.97 billion, and tax-exempt fund assets increased by $920 million to $71.20 billion.

ICI reports money market fund assets to the Federal Reserve each week. Data for previous weeks reflect revisions due to data adjustments, reclassifications, and changes in the number of funds reporting. Weekly money market assets for the last 20 weeks are available on the ICI website.

1 Data for exchange-traded funds and funds that invest primarily in other mutual funds were excluded from the series. ICI classifies funds and share classes as institutional or retail based on language in the fund prospectus. Retail funds are sold primarily to the general public and include funds sold predominantly to employer-sponsored retirement plans and variable annuities. Institutional funds are sold primarily to institutional investors or institutional accounts purchased by or through an institution such as an employer, trustee, or fiduciary on behalf of its clients, employees, or owners. For a detailed description of ICIclassifications, please see ICI New Open-End Investment Objective Definitions."



Thu May 8, 2014 3:54pm EDT
Article from http://www.reuters.com/

Top Ranked Socially Responsible Mutual Funds

Article from http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/
Published on April 30, 2014


Back in 2008, some MBA students at the University of California, Berkeley, launched a Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) fund that has returned over 50% in six years. Performance of this fund, Haas Socially Responsible Investment Fund, is just an example of the potential of SRI funds.

The demand for SRI has been gaining strength in recent years and is most likely to grow. F&C Asset Management says environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues are now “material to long-term company performance”. The asset management firm believes investor values, management of risks and stronger codes and standards will drive responsible investing, which “continues to gather momentum globally”.

For investors interested in socially responsible investment, we have certain top ranked funds to suggest. Before that, let us take a look at what socially responsible investment is about and its performance so far.

Growth of SRI

SRI is indeed witnessing higher demand. A Forbes article last year said that $1 of every $9 in professional management in the US can fall under the SRI category. The Forbes article also reported that SRI investing has increased over 22% to $3.74 trillion worth of total assets under management (period not specified).

The Wall Street Journal reported “environmental and social issues have accounted for 56% of shareholder proposals, representing a majority for the first time” in 2014. The surge in number of socially responsible mutual funds itself echoes the growth story. Reportedly, there were over 50 mutual funds in this category in 1995. As of 2012, the number reached almost 500.

Changing Dynamics

Over the years, the SRI term has evolved to be also known as sustainable responsible investing. SRI investors now stand better chance of getting more returns banking on larger options of funds, diversification of investments and improved approach.

The number of funds has increased by a great margin and investors also get option to invest in Exchange Traded Funds. There are funds of all market capitalization and investors can also pick among domestic, foreign and global funds. In fact, investors get the option to invest in funds whose strategy and social responsibility agenda matches with that of investor financial objectives. The approach thus has improved.

Investments are now made not only based on social or environmental conscience. Now, there are funds that may invest in companies such as gun manufacturers or casinos.

3 Social Responsible Funds to Buy

It is obvious that investors are not only looking for social causes. iShares MSCI USA ESG Select Social Index Fund (KLD), which tracks equity performance of companies with positive environmental, social and governance (ESG) characteristics, has returned 108.4% in the last 5 years. Thus, the chance of earning is strong enough from these socially responsible funds. Here we will suggest 3 such funds that carry Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #2 (Buy) and have provided decent returns.

Domini Social Equity Investor (DSEFX - MF report) seeks to provide total return over the long term. The fund invests a lion’s share of its assets in securities of mid to large domestic companies. Investments are made after evaluating the social and environmental standards in which the businesses are involved in.

Top holdings include Microsoft Corporation, Eli Lilly and Co and Apache Corporation

The fund currently carries a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy). The fund has returned 2.3% year to date. Over the last one, three and five years, the fund has returned 22.1%, 11.2% and 18.8%, respectively.

Calvert Large Cap Core A (CMIFX - MF report) seeks to provide return higher than that of Russell 1000 Index. It invests a lion’s share of its assets in large-cap domestic companies whose financial, sustainability and social responsibility investment factors match the fund’s strategy. It is part of Calvert Investments, which is considered to be one of the largest SRI firms in the US.

Top holdings include Apple Inc., Johnson & Johnson and Capital One Financial Corp.

The fund currently carries a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). The fund has returned 1.2% year to date. Over the last one, three and five years, the fund has returned 15.5%, 11.7% and 18.3%, respectively.

Parnassus Small-Cap (PARSX - MF report) invests in companies whose market capitalization is below $3 billion during the initial purchase. It is part of Parnassus Investments which claim their “investment philosophy is to own good businesses at attractive valuations”. Parnassus’ funds fund generally omits securities from alcohol, tobacco, gambling and even at times companies that engage in producing electricity from nuclear power.

Top holdings include Compass Minerals International, Inc., Gentex Corporation and Dominion Diamond Corp. The fund currently carries a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy). The fund has returned -7.31% year to date. However, over the last one, three and five years, the fund has returned 17.0%, 3.5% and 16.1%, respectively.


Article from http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/
Published on April 30, 2014

Should you invest in multi-cap mutual funds?


Sanjay Kumar Singh, ET Bureau Apr 21, 2014, 08.00AM IST
From http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/

Avantika Singh, a 23-year-old electronics engineer, has just begun investing in equities. Having already put money in a couple of large-cap funds with consistent track records, she now wants to invest in a mid- and small-cap fund. However, her uncle, a financial planner, suggested that she should not overlook the multi-cap category, which has an important role to play in an equity portfolio.

Retail investors like Singh need to have an allocation to multi-cap funds for various reasons. Why invest in multi-cap funds One reason to opt for this category is that different parts of the stock market tend to do well at different times. The data from 2006 onwards shows that while the large-cap index has done well in a given year, in the next, the mid- and small-cap indices have done the same.

"A multi-cap fund, which has exposure to all the categories, can benefit from the outperformance of any of these," says Taher Badshah, senior VP and co-head of equities, Motilal Oswal AMC, which has recently launched Motilal Oswal MOSt Focused Multicap 35 Fund.

Two, retail investors tend to invest on the basis of recent performance. If, over the past six months, mid-cap stocks have done well, they will tilt their portfolios towards these funds. Fund managers of multi-cap funds are better placed to decide whether to invest more in large-caps or in mid- and small-caps, based on objective criteria like prospects of individual stocks and valuations. They, thus, prevent 'recency bias' from creeping in.
Three, a multi-cap fund is less affected by lack of liquidity when the markets tank. When the markets are rising, investors bet aggressively on mid- and smallcap stocks. When the environment turns adverse, liquidity dries up in these stocks. However, multi-cap funds with the right mix of large-caps and mid- and small-caps are not affected as much.

"To meet redemption requests, the fund manager can sell large-cap stocks. He does not have to sell mid- and small-caps at distressed valuations, as happens in portfolios that are heavily loaded with these stocks," says Vishal Dhawan, chief financial planner, Plan Ahead Wealth Advisors.

How much should you allocate? When you begin to build a long-term equity portfolio, start with products that offer the least risk and move up the risk ladder. So, 30-40% of your equity portfolio should go to large-cap funds. Next comes the turn of multi-cap funds, which should take up another 30-40%. Mid- and small-cap funds will take up the balance that is left after a 10-20% allocation to international funds.

Explaining the rationale behind a 30-40% allocation to multi-cap funds, Dhawan says, "When you invest in equity, you have to take a couple of decisions: one, how much will you allocate to equity versus fixed income? How much will you allocate to different market segments? By investing a good part of your portfolio in multi-cap funds, you delegate the second decision to an expert, the fund manager."

Points to remember While investing in multi-cap funds, keep the following points in mind: Cash allocation: Does the multi-cap fund remain invested in equity at all times or does it take large cash calls? Taking a cash call means that the fund manager moves to cash when he thinks the market may decline, and to equity when he thinks it may move up. 

 Avoid funds that take large cash calls for two reasons. One, taking such calls has an element of market timing, and nobody has ever timed the market right for a considerable period. Two, whether to move to equity or cash is an asset allocation decision that should be taken by the investor or his planner, not the fund manager.

If the fund manager takes high cash calls, the asset allocation decision takes place at two levels.

Consider an investor, who has a negative view on equity, decides to move 30% of his portfolio to fixed income and leaves 70% in equity. His fund manager also decides to move 30% in cash and has only 70% of the fund portfolio in equity. This means that the investor's effective exposure to equity is now only 49%. If the cash call goes wrong, there is a double impact on his portfolio.

Hence, stick to funds that have a less than 5% allocation to cash at all times. Fund manager's limits: Within the multicap category, some fund managers are allowed to go entirely to large caps or entirely to mid- and small-caps. Others are allowed to move to a particular category up to a certain limit.

While the former type of funds can earn higher returns, they can also falter badly if their calls go wrong. Choose a fund that matches your risk appetite.

Expectation mismatch: Multi-cap funds hold a mix of large-cap and mid- and smallcap stocks. In most years, they will produce middle-of-the-road performance. In a year when mid- and small-caps have done well, they will lag behind this category, while doing better than large-caps. The reverse could also happen in certain years.

So, understand why these funds have fared well or badly, and don't fret about their performance.

Sanjay Kumar Singh, ET Bureau Apr 21, 2014, 08.00AM IST
From http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/

Actively managed mutual funds continue to receive a failing grade


Peter Watson, Dollars & Sense|May 08, 2013 - 2:55 PM
From http://www.insidehalton.com/opinion/columns/article/


Why do people invest in a manner that consistently gives them inferior investment returns?

There are two basic but very different approaches to investing. The most common and least successful is to invest in products that use active managers. The second, lesser-used way, is the passive management approach, which mimics an index or provides a broad market exposure.

Standard and Poor’s has been tracking the success of active managers for years. Active managers make ongoing investment decisions on behalf of their clients, who usually hire them by purchasing the mutual funds they manage. Within a mutual fund, active managers decide what stocks to buy and sell and the timing of those transactions.

Mutual funds charge investers fees to delegate investment decisions to an expert, the mutual fund manager, but the outcome is most often less than favourable.

The science of investing has been studied and written about by the academic community for the last 50 years. The conclusion is active managers only outperform the underlying market they invest in about one in every three years. When they outperform, the gains are lower than their shortfall during the years they underperform.

Standard and Poor’s reports the same information and break it down into shorter time periods.

In 2012, 41 per cent of active managers of Canadian Equity funds beat the S&P/TSX Composite Total Return. When we extend the holding period, we see only 10 per cent of active managers beat the index over the past five years. In the U.S., 12 per cent of managers beat the S&P 500 Total Return as measured in Canadian dollars during 2012. During the last five years only five per cent outperformed the index.

Consider the Standard and Poor’s information as a report card for active managers, who do not get a passing grade. Canadians have approximately $800 billion invested in mutual funds and most are actively managed.

The Standard and Poor’s report summarized the performance by stating, “The only consistent point we have observed over a five-year horizon is that a majority of active managers in most categories lag comparable benchmark indices.”

Investment decisions and their performance are vitally important to our well-being as investment dollars help finance our children’s post-secondary education and our own retirement. If active money management doesn’t add value when comparing the performance results to the markets in which they invest, then why pay any form of cost to continue to invest this way?

Now is the time to answer that question and re-evaluate how you invest.


Submitted by Peter Watson, MBA, CFP, R.F.P., CIM, FCSI., Certified Financial Planner
May 08, 2013 - 2:55 PM
From http://www.insidehalton.com/opinion/columns/article/

6 funds for your 401k in 2013


These mutual funds are leaders in their asset classes and are solid choices for IRAs as well. If you can't buy exactly these funds, you may want to look for similar ones.

By Jeff Reeves, InvestorPlace
From http://money.msn.com/mutual-fund/


Best in class

Picking stocks is a difficult game, especially in this volatile market. But mutual fund investors with 401k plans don't necessarily have it any easier.

After all, they still have to decide which funds to buy -- and how much to put in them -- just like stock pickers. And sometimes the strategy and expenses can be just as confusing as dissecting an individual corporation's 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

If you're looking to take the guesswork out of your 401k in 2013, following are five individual funds that rank top of class. These mutual funds would be great additions to your 401k or even your individual retirement account, and each is representative of a specific asset class that I think you should invest in.

If you can't find these particular mutual funds in your 401k group, try to find the "flavor" in a similar investment. That way, even if you can't pick the exact list here you may be able to get similar returns in the new year.

For more on the best 401k funds for 2013, click through this slide show, published Dec. 12.


Index fund

What if you don't want to overthink and simply want to "buy the market" to get a piece of stocks in an easy and low-cost way? If that's the case, there's nothing better than an index fund, which, as the name implies, is a mutual fund that is locked into a benchmark and its constituent holdings.

Vanguard pioneered low-cost index funds, and its Vanguard 500 Index (VFINX) fund is one of the most popular products out there, with more than $25 billion under management and a rock-bottom 0.17% expense ratio. That's a mere $17 on every $10,000 invested!

Its holdings are those in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) -- blue chips you know and love, such as Apple (AAPL) and General Electric (GE). It's easy to track your performance -- you simply watch the headline index; your fund will mirror its performance almost exactly.

Index funds are the bedrock of any good 401k because they are low-cost and because active managers have a hard time outperforming them. It might surprise you, but passive index funds regularly return more money to investors than do funds that rely on human beings picking stocks.

So don't get crazy or enamored with a manager or a strategy. An index fund keeps expenses down and performance up.

If you can't add this Vanguard fund, ask your 401k administrator for a similar index fund. Any good plan should provide these kinds of options to investors.


Small-cap growth fund

If you're a long-term investor with many years until retirement, one of the areas you might want to consider in your 401k next year is small-cap growth -- that is, smaller companies that have a lot of upside potential as they gain reach and scale. Small-cap companies can be profit powerhouses when they hit on a great new product, and even if there are some rocky market movements in 2013, you can expect smaller and more agile companies to get up to speed faster than lumbering blue chips.

Check your 401k plan for your personal small-cap growth fund options. If it's available, consider Janus Triton T (JATTX). It has earned a five-star rating from Morningstar, and its lifetime rate of return is about 11% annually.

Current holdings include machinery manufacturer Dresser-Rand (DRC), aircraft components supplier TransDigm Group (TDG) and software developer MSCI (MSCI).

Managers Brian Schaub and Chad Meade have been with the fund since 2006, so there is stability in strategy and leadership.

Janus also has no transaction costs and a reasonable expense ratio of 0.94%. That means its management fee is $94 for every $10,000 you invest.


Large-cap dividend fund

With U.S. Treasurys and investment-grade corporate bonds providing paltry yields, many investors have been looking to blue chips for income opportunities. After all, if you can get a 3% dividend in some of the most stable utility and consumer staples stocks, why settle for half that in bonds?

If you like the idea of bigger yields and don't mind the added risk of stocks, then a dividend fund should be part of your 401k holdings. One of the best -- and most widely held, with more than $2 billion in assets -- is the Fidelity Strategic Dividend and Income Fund (FSDIX).

This fund gets four stars from Morningstar. It has no transaction charges and an expense ratio of just 0.84%. That's an $84 charge on every $10,000 you have invested.

Additionally, the fund has a yield of about 2.5%, thanks to bedrock blue chips like Exxon Mobil (XOM), Verizon Communications (VZ) and Procter & Gamble (PG) in its holdings.

You can find other funds with more yield, but beware chasing large dividends in exchange for share-price declines. Fidelity Strategic Dividend and Income has a lifetime return of about 6% annually, so this is a fund that doesn't trade big dividends for underperforming stocks.

If you're concerned with income but don't want to take on undue risk, consider a large-cap dividend fund in 2013.


International growth fund

Global equity markets have seen tough times in recent years, with China in particular underperforming U.S. benchmarks like the S&P 500 Index ($INX). However, if you're a longer-term investor worried about making sure you find the right investments over the next decade, you should strongly consider investing in international growth. After all, the idea is to buy low and sell high -- not to wait for the rally and buy at the top.

One of the best international growth opportunities for 401k investors right now is the Oakmark International I (OAKIX) fund. This mutual fund has a lifetime return of more than 10% annually, a five-star ranking from Morningstar and an impressive $9 billion under management.

Because this is a "blend" fund that mixes both value and growth plays, there is some stability via international blue chips like Daimler (DDAIF), Credit Suisse (CS) and Canon (CAJ). So don't think you'll be taking a Hail Mary on the next Chinese startup with this fund.

Manager David G. Herro has been with the fund since 1992, and international equity experience is crucial to understanding global markets.

The expense ratio is a reasonable 1.06%, meaning you pay $106 for every $10,000 invested.


Bond fund

When you think about bond investing, one firm comes to mind above all others: Pimco, with its iconic manager, Bill Gross. So if it's offered, you should consider adding the Pimco Total Return C (PTTCX) fund in your 401k portfolio. This fund offers low-risk income as well as a steady foundation of growth.

Bonds are unlikely to outperform stocks, especially in this low-interest-rate environment. However, they are much more reliable in their returns -- especially when you have someone like Gross ranking the bonds based on where he can get the best yield without sacrificing a risk of default. Pimco Total Return C invests only up to 10% of its portfolio in junk bonds, which offer higher yield but greater risk, so this is one of the most stable income investments out there.

The expense ratio is a decent 1.6% -- about $160 on $10,000 invested -- and many participants must pay transaction fees. However, the performance of this fund is well above its peers and could be worth the price of admission.

If you can't add the this fund, however, I strongly advise having some kind of income fund via investment-grade bonds in your portfolio -- particularly if you are close to retirement and are as concerned about capital preservation as about growth.



By Jeff Reeves, InvestorPlace
From http://money.msn.com/mutual-fund/

How To Avoid The Hidden Tax Hits Of Owing Mutual Funds


Deborah L. Jacobs, Forbes Staff
Article from Forbes

This is guest post by Bill Harris, former CEO of PayPal and Intuit, and now CEO of the financial advisory firm Personal Capital.

As you gather various financial documents to prepare your tax return this year, take a look at your investments. Do you own any equity mutual funds? If so, you may be subject to avoidable tax hits. Not sure if your investments are costing you extra? Read on.

Beware Churning

Actively managed mutual funds tend to make a lot of trades during the year. While investment managers may try to maximize returns through frequent buying and selling, they may also be charging you for each transaction. That really adds up if the fund’s turnover rate is 100% or more. And if they’re buying and selling to the point of generating strong returns, they may also be creating taxable gains that you’ll have to pay for come April 17 (that’s when tax returns are due this year).

According to Morningstar, the ten most popular mutual funds by assets under management carried a 1.05% average annual tax cost over a five-year period.

Say you invested $100,000 over the past five years. Using a simple average of these funds’ 5-year annualized returns, your investment would have grown to $115,467 before tax. After taxes, however, your investment would be worth $106,203. That’s a difference of $9,263.

Low Turnover

Turnover is a very real threat. Let’s look at the top ten mutual funds by assets under management as reported by Morningstar. The average turnover rate is 74.4%. This means these particular mutual funds turn over approximately 74.4% of their holdings during the year.

To avoid excess transaction fees and lessen the burden of taxable distributions, some investors choose to buy index funds. Index funds track stock indices, such as the S&P 500, and therefore follow a more passive investment strategy. These can be good options, but they aren’t immune to distributions, especially when the target index replaces one stock with another. To mimic the target index, the index fund will also sell that stock, which could result in capital gains. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) pose a similar risk, but they generally carry lower fee structures, making them more attractive overall.

Tax-Managed?

Of course, some mutual funds are “tax-managed,” meaning the investment manager strategically decides which stocks to buy and which to hold based on capital gains and capital losses. The idea is to add balance and limit tax exposure. Of course, most mutual fund managers would likely sell winning stocks in order to take advantage of gains. Doing so means investment gains for shareholders, but also means greater distributions and potentially higher taxes, too.

Timing Is Everything

When did you buy your mutual fund? Please don’t say November or December. Yearend is the worst possible time to buy a mutual fund. That’s because, in most cases, mutual fund distributions are issued at the end of the year. Unless your mutual fund is an IRA or 401(k), you’ll pay taxes on those distributions. In other words, you’ll pay for a year’s worth of distributions made on a fund you’ve owned for a month or less.

If you buy a mutual fund for a taxable account, you may be paying more in taxes than you’d like. Each mutual fund prospectus has information about how much the average investor actually made after taxes. You’ll definitely want to do your homework before buying.

The ETF Option

Instead of buying a mutual fund, you may consider investing in ETFs. With ETFs, you have access to a professionally managed investment product without the excess taxes that accompany mutual funds.

The turnover ratio for ETFs also tends to be lower. For the top ten ETFs (as ranked by ETFdb), the turnover ratio is an average of 9.7%, according to Morningstar, compared with the average turnover rate of 74.4% for the top ten mutual funds. Where would you rather put your money?

DIY Tax Optimization

To avoid excess taxes at yearend, your best option is to forgo mutual funds and ETFs altogether in favor of a separately managed account. By purchasing individual securities, you can track and monitor investment performance and capital gains. Then you can decide which securities to buy and sell according to your own personal tax optimization strategy.

Managing your own investments for tax optimization may sound time consuming and complicated. For a long time, these types of personalized strategies were available only to the super rich who could afford a team of financial advisors to run the numbers. Not anymore. New technology and free online resources allow investors to easily track their investments regardless of their total net worth. You can now sign up for financial services online and easily build your own investment strategy.


Article from Forbes

Is Your Mutual Fund Too Risky?


WSJ.COMAPRIL 9, 2012, 6:13 P.M. ET
Article from Smart Money

The Sharpe ratio is a measure that helps investors figure out how much return they're getting in exchange for the level of risk they're taking on. It can help in comparing funds that invest similarly.

By JONNELLE MARTE

Investors have long measured their mutual funds against benchmarks like the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, content with a fund that could keep up with or top the index.

But when the broader market itself is unimpressive -- or downright nightmarish -- some pros say investors may need to rethink their standards. Instead of just focusing on returns, investors need to be conscious of the risk and volatility they expose themselves to along the way, advisers say.

Enter the Sharpe ratio, a measure that helps investors figure out how much return they're getting in exchange for the level of risk they're taking on.

"A lot of folks just look at the return side of the equation," says Wasif Latif, vice president of equity investments for USAA Investments in San Antonio. "But how smooth was your ride to get to that return?" The Sharpe ratio puts those two pieces together.

Getting Paid for Risk
Created by Nobel laureate William Sharpe, a Stanford University finance professor, the ratio is intended to be a measure of what an investment returned for each "unit" of risk it carried. The top half of the ratio looks at what a fund returned over a set period and subtracts what an investor could have earned in a risk-free investment, typically defined as three-month Treasury bills, over that same period. The denominator is the fund's standard deviation, which measures how much a fund strays from its average performance -- in other words, its volatility.

The higher the ratio, the more an investor is compensated for the risk he takes on, says David Blanchett, a research consultant for Morningstar (MORN: 60.40, -0.75, -1.23%) Inc.'s Morningstar Investment Management unit.

Consider two hypothetical stock funds with similar returns. Fund A gained an average of 12% a year over the past three years, but had a standard deviation of 30%, giving it a Sharpe ratio of 0.4. Fund B returned an average of 10% over that same period but had a standard deviation of 20%, giving it a Sharpe ratio of 0.5. (With short-term Treasury yields near zero, the amount to be subtracted -- the return on a risk-free investment -- for now is basically zero.)

[SHARPEillo]While Fund A had a better return, Fund B delivered more return for the amount of risk it took, says Mr. Blanchett.

Some portfolio managers say they aim to have certain Sharpe ratios on their funds, using it as a checkpoint of sorts to make sure a fund's returns are in line with its risks.

Investors tend to have weaker stomachs during rocky markets, says Jeff Knight, head of global asset allocation for Putnam Investments, so having an easy way to compare investments on a risk-and-return basis can help them take emotion out of portfolio decisions.

"It's really about finding a good stable path," says Mr. Knight, who explains that he uses low-volatility stocks and options to help smooth out fund performance.

Useful Comparisons
For advisers and individual investors, Sharpe ratios, which Morningstar.com lists under a fund's "Ratings & Risk" tab, can be a particularly useful tool for comparing funds with similar strategies. For instance, two funds can end up with identical returns but have very different ways of getting there, Mr. Blanchett says. The Sharpe ratio can help investors determine which fund is causing them to take on more risk.

Sharpe ratios work best when figured over a period of at least three years, advisers say. Looking at the fund's risk-adjusted performance over several years offers insight on how the fund weathered different market environments, says Denny Baish, a mutual-fund analyst with Fort Pitt Capital Group, a wealth-management firm based in Pittsburgh. For instance, a fund with an attractive Sharpe ratio over the past 10 years would have managed to bring in returns to compensate investors for the risk it took through the recession of the early 2000s, the subsequent boom years, the recession that started in 2008 and the volatility of last year.

"You get more of a full market cycle," says Mr. Baish.

When used in conjunction with other measures, the Sharpe ratio can help investors develop a strategy that matches both their return needs and risk tolerance, advisers say. Mr. Baish, for instance, looks first at a fund's performance to get a sense for whether it might produce the sort of returns his clients need. Then he will look at the Sharpe ratio to see which funds are taking on outsize risk to get those returns. Some, like small-cap funds, will require taking on more risk than others, he notes.

No Predictor
To be sure, the measure has its limitations: It can be difficult to interpret and use for comparisons in periods when some funds' returns are below the Treasury-bill return or even negative. Investors should also keep in mind the Sharpe ratio is calculated using past performance, meaning it offers no guarantee on how a fund might behave in the future, says Mr. Blanchett.

But the ratio can be telling when comparing two funds that compete in the same category. For example, in Morningstar's large-blend peer group, the $2.3 billion Nuveen Tradewinds Value Opportunities has a three-year Sharpe ratio of 1.3 through March, while the $413 million Alpine Dynamic Dividend, came in at 0.66. The Nuveen fund bested the Alpine offering in both components of the Sharpe ratio: It delivered higher returns over the period -- an average of 22% a year versus 12% -- and was less volatile, as measured by standard deviation.

An Alpine Funds spokesman says the international exposure in the Dynamic Dividend fund caused it to underperform its peers in the past several years. Nuveen declined to comment.

— Ms. Marteis a reporter for SmartMoney.com. Email her at jonnelle.marte@dowjones.com.



Article from Smart Money

The Dividend-Fund Dilemma


THE INTELLIGENT INVESTOR

April 6, 2012, 7:28 p.m. ET
By JASON ZWEIG
Article from The Wall Street Journal

Sooner or later, the markets always punish investors who do the right thing for the wrong reason.

Some investors in dividend-oriented stock funds might end up learning that lesson the hard way.

So far this year, $9 billion has gone into mutual funds and exchange-traded funds that focus on U.S. stocks that pay stable, high or rising dividends, estimates EPFR Global, which tracks where investors are moving their money.

All other U.S. stock funds combined have had a net outflow of $7.3 billion.

Many of the investors joining the dividend stampede appear to be motivated by the low interest rates mandated by the Federal Reserve, which have led to a yield famine among traditional income investments like bonds, certificates of deposit and money-market funds.

Others might just be chasing past performance. The 100 highest-yielding stocks in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index outperformed the overall market by an average of eight percentage points last year, according to Birinyi Associates.

Think twice before you jump on the bandwagon. While dividend-oriented funds are a perfectly legitimate way to invest in stocks, you shouldn't mistake them for bonds.

Nor, popular belief to the contrary, are they much safer than the stock market as a whole. And they could suddenly go from being tax-friendly to painfully taxable.

When you buy a Treasury, you collect interest and get your money back (not counting inflation) when the bond matures. When you buy a dividend-paying stock, you collect a quarterly payment—but that certainly doesn't mean the stock price will be stable.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, the S&P 500 fell 21.9%; dividend-oriented mutual funds lost 20.2%, according to investment researcher Morningstar MORN -0.79% . In other words, the average dividend fund fell nearly as much as the overall stock market. Bonds, meanwhile, performed beautifully: Over the same period, the Barclays Capital U.S. Treasury index returned 8.75%.

And from the stock market's peak in the fourth quarter of 2007 through its bottom in the first quarter of 2009, the Dow Jones U.S. Select Dividend index lost 53.8%, versus a 50.2% loss for the S&P 500, according to Fran Kinniry, an investment strategist at Vanguard Group.

In the long run, dividend-paying stocks are slightly less risky—and more rewarding—than the equity market as a whole. In the short run, however, they can expose you to the risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In 2007, 29% of the S&P 500's dividend income came from banks and other financial stocks, according to Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at Standard & Poor's.

That didn't end well. Many banks that had been paying steady income to shareholders suspended their dividends—or even went bust. Their investors suffered.

Today, financials account for only 13% of the S&P's dividends, with consumer staples (15%) and technology (14%) contributing the biggest share. Apple's AAPL +1.50% recent declaration of a dividend might prod more tech companies into distributing cash to shareholders. Some dividend funds could thus end up concentrated in technology stocks, much as they once were in financials, says Steve Condon, investment director at Truepoint, a financial-advisory firm in Cincinnati.

Another point: Since 2003, dividends have generally been taxed at just 15%, much lower than most bonds, whose interest payments are taxed at ordinary-income rates. Unless Congress and the White House take action, the dividend rate will leap to 43.4% next year for investors in the top federal tax bracket—the same rate that would apply to most bonds. You can avoid this problem in a tax-sheltered 401(k) or individual retirement account.

Robert Gordon, a tax expert at Twenty-First Securities in New York, thinks "there's a good possibility" that politicians can work out a deal to keep dividends taxed at today's lower rate, but there isn't any assurance of that.

The right reason to own one of these funds, says Daniel Peris, author of "The Strategic Dividend Investor" and co-manager of the Federated Strategic Value Dividend fund, is that stocks with growing cash distributions tend to be solid businesses that earn greater returns in the long run than stocks as a whole.

"I would like to think that every client who's buying a fund is buying for the right reason, but that would be naive," he says. "I acknowledge that some people, based on last year's strong returns, may be chasing past performance."

Any memory more than three years old is ancient history on Wall Street. But investors on Main Street should hark back to 2008. That year, many dividend funds provided at least 3% in income—but their average total return was minus-35%.

There aren't any easy ways to get income when the bond market is this stingy. Expecting the stock market to be generous certainly isn't one of them.

— intelligentinvestor@wsj.com; twitter.com/jasonzweigwsj
A version of this article appeared April 7, 2012, on page B1 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Dividend-Fund Dilemma.

Article from The Wall Street Journal

Mutual of Omaha Announces New Strategic Alliance with W.E. Donoghue & Co., Inc.


April 4, 2012, 4:32 p.m. EDT
Article from Market Watch

OMAHA, Neb., Apr 04, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Mutual of Omaha’s Retirement Plans Division and Mutual of Omaha Investor Services, Inc. (MOIS), have announced a new strategic alliance with W.E. Donoghue & Co., Inc. (WEDCO) to provide wholesale distribution of its long-term investments including WEDCO’s Power Income Fund.

This alliance with WEDCO is part of Mutual of Omaha’s Retirement Plans Division and MOIS’ strategy to expand its established and successful asset management distribution by building alliances with innovative fund companies with the objective of providing risk controlled or defensive strategies.

“The Power Income Fund’s strong track record of trading between high yield bond funds and money markets to maximize outcomes while minimizing risk during economic shifts is an attractive option for advisors looking for retirement and long-term savings solutions for their clients,” said Seth Friedman, national sales director for Mutual of Omaha’s Retirement Plans Division.

Friedman also noted that the company expects to form strategic alliances with additional fund managers that feature risk controlled or other defensive strategies in the coming months.

“W.E. Donoghue is proud to announce our distribution alliance with Mutual of Omaha. As a seasoned asset management wholesaling team, Mutual of Omaha fits perfectly into our business model and provides the depth of professionalism WEDCO is privileged to collaborate with,” said Curt Meyer, managing director, W.E. Donoghue & Co., Inc. “We are confident this alliance will impact our growth initiatives across all channels and look forward to a long, healthy relationship with Mutual of Omaha.”

About W.E. Donoghue & Co., Inc:

W.E. Donoghue & Co., Inc (WEDCO) is a registered investment advisor established in 1986. The firm is a pioneer in the industry in providing tactical asset allocation solutions. WEDCO manages in excess of $650 million for individual and institutional separate account clients as well as mutual fund clients. The firm has been recognized by institutional and independent advisors as an investment solution highly sought out by their clients.

About Mutual of Omaha

Founded in 1909, Mutual of Omaha is a full-service, multi-line provider of insurance and financial services products for individuals, businesses and groups throughout the United States. With a client base of nearly 21,000 employer groups nationwide, Mutual of Omaha offers a wide range of plan designs and delivery options for employee benefits, including disability, life, dental, voluntary, special risk and retirement plans.

Mutual Funds involve risk including the possible loss of principal. Derivatives are subject to credit risk and liquidity risk. Additionally, even a small investment in derivatives may give rise to leverage risk, and can have a significant impact on the Fund's performance. In general, the price of a fixed income security falls when interest rates rise. The Fund will invest in high yield securities, also known as "junk bonds." High yield securities provide greater income and opportunity for gain, but entail greater risk of loss of principal. Mutual funds and ETFs are subject to investment advisory and other expenses, which will be indirectly paid by the Fund. As a result, your cost of investing in the Fund will be higher than the cost of investing directly in other mutual funds and ETFs and may be higher than other mutual funds that invest directly in fixed income securities. The Fund will incur a loss as a result of a short position if the price of the short position instrument increases in value between the date of the short position sale and the date on which the Fund purchases an offsetting position. A higher portfolio turnover will result in higher transactional and brokerage costs.

Investors should carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses of the Power Income Fund. This and other information about the Fund is contained in the prospectus and should be read carefully before investing. The prospectus can be obtained by calling toll free 1-877-779-7462 (1-877-7-PWRINC). The Power Income Fund is distributed by Northern Lights Distributors, LLC member FINRA.

SOURCE: Mutual of Omaha

       
        Mutual of Omaha 
        Lisa Wadell Smith, 402-351-5941 
        lisa.wadell@mutualofomaha.com
      

Article from Market Watch

Fact check: Is this mutual fund ad misleading?


April 2, 2012 11:17 AM
By Allan Roth
Article from CBS News

(MoneyWatch) Commentary Last month, I read an advertisement in Investment News, a weekly publication for financial advisors. The advertisement for Prudential mutual funds announced, in big bold capital letters, "HIGHLY RATED BY MORNINGSTAR. POWERED BY PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENTS." It went on to boast that "over 60% of our Morningstar-rated funds have earned 4 or 5 stars,*" the top two ratings of the five star historic performance rating system.

The ad was similar to this more updated Prudential brochure, which can be found on the company's web site. You can read the smaller print from this brochure, but I'll get back to that in a bit.

The claim that 60 percent of Prudential funds received the top two Morningstar ratings appears to be conclusive evidence that Prudential funds are indeed highly rated by Morningstar. That's because Morningstar only gives 10 percent of each category of funds a five star rating and 22.5 percent of the funds a four star rating. The big bold print appears to imply that 60 percent of Prudential mutual funds are in the top 32.5 percent of performers.

Fact Check

Now before handing your money over to Prudential Investments, you may want the following facts on how Morningstar actually ranked Prudential funds in each of four fund categories. Here are the average rankings:

Domestic stock: 3.1 stars
International stock: 2.5 stars
Municipal bonds: 3.0 stars
Taxable bonds: 3.2 stars

A three star ranking translates to average mutual fund performance, and, thanks to expenses, a mutual fund that turns in average performance typically underperforms the index it is trying to beat. The big bold print on the brochure claims that the funds are highly rated, but my interpretation is that Morningstar considers Prudential mutual funds merely average.

Prudential responds

I spoke to Scott Benjamin, Executive Vice President of Marketing for Prudential Investments, who defended the advertisement's accuracy. While he wasn't aware of the overall average Morningstar ratings I noted above, he pointed out that the advertisement clearly said "for class Z shares." It stated this in smaller print in the upper half of the Investment News advertisement and on page two of the brochure. 

Class Z shares are a lower cost version of a mutual fund that cannot be purchased directly by the investor and can only be purchased through an advisor or a company's retirement plan. For example, the brochure lists the Prudential Government Income Fund (PGVZX) as a four star rated fund with a 0.68% expense ratio. If you bought the B share class of the same Prudential Government Income Fund (PBGPX), you'd own a two star rated fund with a 1.68% expense ratio. That's an above average fee level and below average performance, according to Morningstar. Typically, the advisor charges the client an additional fee in the Z shares, while the B shares have fees built in, and Prudential pays a "distribution" fee. The overall ratings of the funds are based on a weighted average of all share classes. Morningstar notes Prudential Investments have an overall average expense ratio so it's not surprising to see average performance.

Benjamin insisted the advertisement was accurate and strongly disagreed with my assertion that it was misleading, noting that it was in compliance with FINRA regulations. He also stressed that the company's funds are sold largely through financial advisors, and because more and more sales are coming through broker/dealer platforms that feature Z shares, Prudential now sells more in this share class than any other. Benjamin further pointed out that the advertisement in Investment News was directed to financial advisors, who understand share class pricing.

Still, I asked him why not be more clear and have the advertisement state something like "60 percent of our lower cost share class funds are highly rated by Morningstar"? Benjamin responded by saying that's what the advertisement does state.

My take

This Prudential advertisement is just an example of how the financial services industry selectively includes certain facts. Nowhere in the advertisement was there a disclosure that Morningstar considers the overall average of all of Prudential's mutual funds to have ratings between 2.5 and 3.2 stars. And you have to read on to see that the claim of being highly rated by Morningstar only applies to certain share classes. I'm saddened to say that I'm sure Prudential is right in stating it complies with FINRA regulations.

Prudential and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on whether the advertisement and brochure could be more straight forward. Still, my advice is to read any advertisement with the following in mind:

Spend even more time reading the small print than the large. Ask yourself what's not in the advertisement.

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.
Allan Roth

Allan S. Roth is the founder of Wealth Logic, an hourly based financial planning and investment advisory firm that advises clients with portfolios ranging from $10,000 to over $50 million. The author of How a Second Grader Beats Wall Street, Roth teaches investments and behavioral finance at the University of Denver and is a frequent speaker. He is required by law to note that his columns are not meant as specific investment advice, since any advice of that sort would need to take into account such things as each reader's willingness and need to take risk. His columns will specifically avoid the foolishness of predicting the next hot stock or what the stock market will do next month. His goal is to never be confused with Mad Money's Jim Cramer.


Article from CBS News

Are funds too full of Apple?


If stock drops, some investors could take hit

By David K. Randall, Reuters April 1, 2012 2:06
Article from Calgary Herald

When it comes to Apple, investors could become victims of their own success.

It is a dilemma more mutual fund managers are wrestling with after the company's nearly 48 per cent gain this year. Those who bought Apple well below its current price have seen the value of their investment balloon, sometimes to more than 10 per cent of their fund's assets.

That effectively turns a brilliant decision into a concentrated stake, undercutting the benefits of diversification and making some mutual funds riskier.

As Apple stock has marched higher, well-timed bets on the company have helped some growth-oriented and blended mutual funds outperform the broad market. But in doing so, many of those funds have now tied investor dollars closer to the performance of a single company.

This isn't much of an issue when it comes to funds that market themselves as narrow bets on technology. But many funds whose broad holdings could be the core of a retirement plan are stocking up on Apple.

A dramatic fall in Apple's shares, however unlikely that may seem at the moment, would quickly ripple across the retirement accounts of millions of investors who thought they were safer investing in funds than individual shares.

"It adds to the risk profile of a fund to have a significant stake in one stock because it makes them more susceptible to bad news on one or two stocks and they won't be able to cushion the blow with diversification," said Todd Rosenbluth, a senior fund analyst at Standard & Poor's Capital IQ.

Generally in the mutual fund industry, any position over five per cent of assets is considered a large bet that may influence a fund, said Dan Culloton, a fund analyst at Morningstar.

Shares of Apple have nearly doubled from the $310 they hit in June, and at about $600 a share are up nearly 48 per cent in 2012 alone. Apple, the world's most valuable company by market capitalization, now has a weighting of 4.2 per cent in the broad S&P 500 portfolio, the benchmark against which the performance of most U.S. mutual funds are judged. That means 4.2 cents of every $1 invested in an S&P 500 index fund will be allocated to Apple shares, before fees.

By definition, actively managed mutual funds have overweight positions in companies they think will outperform the broad market, but usually not more than five or six per cent.

But 46 funds tracked by Morningstar have stakes in Apple that exceed nine per cent of assets, or roughly double the company's weighting in the S&P 500 index. This does not include sector funds that focus on technology or other specialized investment.

Some reluctance on the part of portfolio managers to sell Apple shares is understandable. Trimming exposure could lead to underperformance for a fund.

Some fund managers are taking steps to lower the weighting of Apple in their portfolios. "We got to the point where it was an inordinate part of our portfolio, and in order to control risk it was only prudent to trim it back," said Robert S. Bacarella, a Wheaton, Ill., fund manager.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Article from Calgary Herald

Analysis: Apple's gains make some mutual funds riskier


Article from Reuters
By David K. Randall
NEW YORK | Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:54am EDT

An employee presents purchased new iPads to a customer at the Apple flagship retail store in San Francisco, California in this March 16, 2012, file photo. REUTERS/Robert Galbraith/Files
(Reuters) - When it comes to Apple, investors could become victims of their own success.

It is a dilemma more mutual fund managers are wrestling with due to the company's nearly 48 percent gain this year. Those who bought Apple well below its current price have seen the value of their investment balloon, sometimes to more than 10 percent of their fund's assets.

That effectively turns a brilliant decision into a concentrated stake, undercutting the benefits of diversification and making some mutual funds riskier.

As Apple stock has marched higher, well-timed bets on the company have helped some growth-oriented and blended mutual funds outperform the broad market. But in doing so, many of those funds have now tied investor dollars closer to the performance of a single company.

This isn't much of an issue when it comes to funds that market themselves as narrow bets on technology. But many funds whose broad holdings could be the core of a (401)k or similar retirement plan - Fidelity's $14.7 billion Blue Chip Growth and the $28.7 billion T. Rowe Price Growth fund among them - are stocking up on Apple.

Apple makes up nearly 9 percent of Fidelity's $80.8 billion Contrafund, for instance. The fund is the sixth-most popular holding in 401(k) plans nationwide, according to BrightScope, a firm that ranks company (401)k plans.

A dramatic fall in Apple's shares, however unlikely that may seem at the moment, would quickly ripple across the retirement accounts of millions of investors who thought they were safer investing in funds than individual shares.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For a graphic on fund managers stocking up on Apple, click: link.reuters.com/qaq37s

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"It adds to the risk profile of a fund to have a significant stake in one stock because it makes them more susceptible to bad news on one or two stocks and they won't be able to cushion the blow with diversification," said Todd Rosenbluth, a senior fund analyst at Standard & Poor's Capital IQ.

Generally in the mutual fund industry, any position over 5 percent of assets is considered a large bet that may influence a fund, said Dan Culloton, a fund analyst at Morningstar.

CONCENTRATED BETS

Shares of Apple have nearly doubled from the $310 they hit in June 2011, and at about $600 a share are up nearly 48 percent in 2012 alone.

Apple, currently the world's most valuable company by market capitalization, now has a weighting of 4.2 percent in the broad S&P 500 portfolio, the benchmark against which the performance of most U.S. mutual funds are judged. That means 4.2 cents of every $1 invested in a S&P 500 index fund will be allocated to Apple shares, before fees.

By definition, actively managed mutual funds have overweight positions in companies they think will outperform the broad market, but usually not more than 5 or 6 percent.

But 46 funds tracked by Morningstar have stakes in Apple that exceed 9 percent of assets, or roughly double the company's weighting in the S&P 500 index. This does not include sector funds that focus on technology or other specialized investment.

The $1.5 billion Oppenheimer Main Street Select fund, for instance, blends value and growth stocks in its portfolio of 34 companies. It had 10.5 percent of its assets, or two and half times the benchmark weight, in Apple as of the end of January, according to Morningstar data.

That concentrated bet is one reason that the fund is up 13.9 percent so far this year, or 2.6 percentage points above the broad S&P 500 index. A dip in Apple's share price and the fund could fall more than the broad market. The fund managers declined to comment.

Fidelity's Contrafund, meanwhile, focuses on growth stocks. It holds 427 stocks, but 8.6 percent of its portfolio, or a total of $6.6 billion, was concentrated in Apple at the end of January. That stake is more than even Apple's weighting of 7.6 percent in the narrower Russell 1000 Growth index, which many growth fund managers use as an internal benchmark.

The Contrafund is up 13.7 percent since the start of 2012. Fidelity declined to comment.

Some reluctance on the part of portfolio managers to sell Apple shares is understandable. Trimming exposure could lead to underperformance for a fund.

"We hear about this a lot from portfolio managers. I have no doubt that they'd like to sell it and take their profits, but you have to be in it to win it and right now Apple's momentum is going up," said Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P.

These fund managers usually realize that they are taking on additional risk, Silverblatt said. "What helped you on the way up kills you on the way down."

CUTTING RISK

Some fund managers are taking steps to lower the weighting of Apple in their portfolios.

"We got to the point where it was an inordinate part of our portfolio, and in order to control risk it was only prudent to trim it back," said Robert S. Bacarella, a Wheaton, Illinois fund manager who runs the $49 million Monetta fund with his son.

Bacarella first bought 10,000 shares of Apple in early 2005 when it traded at around $40 per share. In September 2005, those 10,000 shares were worth $536,100 and accounted for 0.9 percent of his portfolio, according to Morningstar data.

Fast forward to December 2011, and Bacarella again had 10,000 shares of Apple. This time, however, their value was nearly $4.1 million, which accounted for 9.3 percent of his fund's weight. He trimmed his shares by 5,000 earlier this year. Apple now makes up 5 percent of his assets.

"This is about risk control. You never know what is going to happen," he said. The sizeable positions built up by other funds would only exacerbate an Apple fall , he added.

"If everyone sees deceleration of earnings growth, what will you do?" Bacarella asks. "I would think that you're going to bail and that will compound to the downside."

(Reporting By David Randall; Editing by Walden Siew, Jennifer Merritt and Tim Dobbyn)


Article from Reuters

The Actively Managed Mutual Fund Racket


MAR 27 2012, 9:45 AM ET 38
Timothy B. Lee -- Writer with Ars Technica and the Cato Institute
Article from The Atlantic

While I didn't discuss it in detail, one of the implicit points of my last post is an endorsement of index investing. That's the investment strategy that tries to replicate the performance of the market as a whole, at the lowest possible cost. The alternative is to buy into an "actively managed" mutual fund, which has a professional manager that tries to pick assets that will produce above-average returns. I claim that because active portfolio management costs more than passive management, the real-world returns of actively managed funds tend to be lower than passively managed ones.

Reader Moneyrunner disagreed with me:

If you invested in the vaunted, low cost, Vanguard 500 Index fund for the 10 years from 2000 to 2010 the good news is that your expenses were low, the bad news is that you lost money. For comparison, one of the biggest actively managed funds with expenses that are nearly 10 times higher than Vanguard's index fund - Growth Fund of America - made 13%. The truth is that in Bull markets, index funds do well partly by definition. Laggards are dropped from the index and indexes are weighted toward the largest market capitalizations. It's when markets fluctuate or go down that having active management becomes important.
This is reminiscent of a dealer at the casino arguing that his craps table will be a good deal tonight because one guy tripled his money last night. There are hundreds of actively-managed mutual funds out there. Obviously, with the advantage of hindsight you'll be able to point to examples of funds that did better than average. The question is whether there's a reliable way to identify such funds in advance.

There have been numerous studies comparing index funds to actively-managed ones, and they almost always reach the same conclusion: index funds consistently beat the average actively managed fund. This is for a simple reason: it's hard to consistently beat the market, but it's easy to waste money trying to do so.

But even if the average actively managed fund performs poorly, isn't it possible to find an individual fund that will beat the market? The problem is that it's impossible to know if a manager's past performance was the result of skill or luck—and most of the time it's luck. People point to Warren Buffett as an example of a guy who was able to consistently beat the market for decades, but he's famous precisely because people like him are so rare. And it's much easier to identify such people at the end of a long career, when it's too late to do any good.

If you were trying to decide how to invest your money in 1980, buying shares in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway would have been an option. Buffet had a couple of decades of solid performance under his belt and many people did invest with him. But Buffett was just one of many investors who had enjoyed above-average returns in the 1960s and 1970s. If you'd picked one of the other guys with Buffett-like results during the 1960s and 1970s, you almost certainly wouldn't have done as well in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Indeed, Buffett himself is a fan of index investing, betting in 2008 that an S&P 500 index fund could out-perform a collection of hedge funds over a 10-year period when fees are taken into account.

It's extremely difficult to identify, in advance, particular actively managed mutual funds that will consistently beat the market as a whole. But it's practically guaranteed that, on average, such funds will under-perform the market as a whole due to their high costs. So the smart investment strategy is to replicate the performance of the market as a whole at the lowest possible cost. And that means choosing passive money managers like the good folks at Vanguard.


Article from The Atlantic

Smart Investing Is Easier Than You Think


MAR 25 2012, 11:59 AM ET
Timothy B. Lee -- Writer with Ars Technica and the Cato Institute
Article from The Atlantic

Farhad Manjoo gives Slate readers advice on "how to stop investing your money like an idiot." He lucidly explains the principles of good investing, but then says that "for people who have extra money but not a lot of time or facility with investing, there has never been a simple way to invest in the rigorous, disciplined way that experts advise." Manjoo is far from the first writer to make this claim (and I'm kind of a broken record on the subject), but this isn't true. Vanguard has had funds that do exactly that since 2003, and they're significantly cheaper than the options Manjoo discusses in his article.

Manjoo reviews three options, and the one option Manjoo ultimately recommends, called Betterment, is pretty good. You tell Betterment how you want to allocate your money between relatively risky assets (like stocks) and relatively safe ones (like Treasury bonds). Betterment then automatically buys a mix of assets that fit your criteria and automatically adjusts them over time.

It's a great service, with one major weakness: the cost. Betterment itself charges between 0.15 percent and 0.35 percent of your money to help you decide which funds to buy, and the underlying funds Betterment buys, called ETFs, cost another 0.19 percent, on average. For example, if you invest $50,000 with Betterment, the annual costs will be around 0.44 percent, or about $220. That's pretty good. Many mutual funds have "expense ratios" around 1 percent, so you can save hundreds of dollars each year in fees--and end up with thousands of dollars more at retirement--by transferring your money from a higher-cost fund to Betterment.

But you can get an even better deal from Vanguard, long considered the lead in low-priced mutual funds. For example, my wife has her IRA invested in Vanguard's Target Retirement 2045 fund, which as the name suggests is for people planning to retire around 2045. Like Betterment, this fund buys a mix of stocks and bonds, automatically keeps its portfolio balanced, and gradually shifts to more conservative assets as you get closer to retirement. But for our hypothetical customer with $50,000 to invest, this fund costs less than half what Betterment does--0.19 percent, or about $95 per year. The $125 you save each year by switching from Betterment to Vanguard will really add up over the course of your career.

Vanguard has two big advantages that allow it to keep its costs much lower than its competitors. First, while most mutual funds are run by commercial firms that expect to earn a profit, Vanguard is owned by its customers. That means there are no conflict of interest between customers and shareholders--customers get every dime of Vanguard's "profits." Second, Vanguard's vast size--$1.8 trillion under management--allows them to take advantage of economies of scale.

I talked to Betterment CEO Jon Stein about how his service compares to Vanguard, and he didn't dispute that Vanguard has him beat on cost. But he argued that Betterment offers more sophisticated tools for fine-tuning your asset allocation. For example, saving for college or a new house might require a different asset allocation than saving for retirement. Vanguard may not offer a fund that meets the needs of these savers. Betterment also offers advanced portfolio customization features for users with more than $100,000 invested.

Stein also touted Betterment's for-profit structure as an advantage, noting that the most innovative companies in America tend to be for-profit firms, not cooperatives like Vanguard. But when it comes to retirement savings, it's not obvious that more innovation is better. After all, innovation typically costs money, and one way or another any money your mutual fund company spends is going to come out of your pocket.

So for the average consumer, smart retirement investing really is as simple as going here and clicking on the link corresponding to your expected retirement date. Betterment's fees are lower than most other mutual fund companies, so it's worth giving them a look if you need their "power user" features. But for most investors Betterment's premium features are overkill; you're better investing in Vanguard's more frugal funds and pocketing the difference.

And for the record, my only conflict of interest is that I'm a satisfied Vanguard customer.
 

Megan McArdleEGAN MCARDLE - Megan McArdle is a senior editor for The Atlantic who writes about business and economics. She has worked at three start-ups, a consulting firm, an investment bank, a disaster recovery firm at Ground Zero, and The Economist. She is currently on leave.



Article from The Atlantic

BMO Investments Inc. Announces Proposed Changes to its Mutual Fund Line-Up


March 23, 2012, 3:17 p.m. EDT
Article from The Marketwatch

TORONTO, ONTARIO, Mar 23, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- BMO Investments Inc. today announced proposed changes to the BMO Mutual Funds and the BMO Guardian Funds line-ups. The primary objective of these changes is to reduce duplicate fund offerings and streamline the product suite to provide more cost-effective investment solutions for investors.

Proposed Fund Mergers

Subject to obtaining all necessary securityholder and regulatory approvals, BMO Investments Inc. proposes that each Terminating Fund listed in the table below be merged into the corresponding Continuing Fund also listed below. If approved, the mergers will be effective in June 2012.

If the proposed mergers are approved, securityholders of each class or series of each Terminating Fund will receive securities of the equivalent class or series of the corresponding Continuing Fund, determined on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Securities of the Terminating Funds will no longer be offered for sale beginning May 24, 2012. The Terminating Funds will be wound up as soon as possible following the mergers.

Securityholder approval for the relevant funds will be sought at special meetings to be held on or about May 18, 2012. In advance of the meetings, full details of the proposed mergers will be set out in notices of meetings and management information circulars that will be sent to securityholders of record as at April 9, 2012. The notices of meetings and management information circulars will also available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com .

The Independent Review Committee of the funds listed above has reviewed the potential conflict of interest matters related to the proposed mergers and has provided BMO Investments Inc., the manager of the funds, with a positive recommendation for each merger after determining that each merger, if implemented, achieves a fair and reasonable result for the applicable funds.

Pre-Approved Fund Mergers

BMO Investments Inc. also announced today that the following two pre-approved mergers will be effective in June 2012.


Each of these mergers has received approval from the Independent Review Committee after determining that each merger, if implemented, achieves a fair and reasonable result for the applicable funds. As these mergers satisfy certain regulatory criteria, they are not subject to securityholder or regulatory approvals. However, securityholders of each of these Terminating Funds will receive written notice of these mergers at least 60 days prior to the effective date of each merger.

Securityholders of each series of each of these Terminating Funds will receive securities of the equivalent series of the applicable Continuing Fund, determined on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Securities of these Terminating Funds will no longer be offered for sale beginning May 24, 2012. These Terminating Funds will be wound up as soon as possible following the mergers.

BMO Investments Inc. encourages securityholders to contact their financial advisor to determine the solution that best meets their individual investment needs and circumstances.

About BMO Investments Inc.

BMO Investments Inc. is a member of BMO Financial Group and part of the organization's Private Client Group. The Private Client Group provides integrated wealth management services and had total assets under management and administration of $435 billion as at January 31, 2012.

     
        Contacts:
        For all news media enquiries please contact:
        Amanda Robinson, Toronto
        (416) 867-3996
        amanda.robinson@bmo.com
       
        Sarah Bensadoun, Montreal
        (514) 877-8224
        sarah.bensadoun@bmo.com
       
        Laurie Grant, Vancouver
        604-665-7596
        laurie.grant@bmo.com
       
        
SOURCE: BMO Financial Group and BMO Bank of Montreal

        mailto:amanda.robinson@bmo.com
        mailto:sarah.bensadoun@bmo.com
        mailto:laurie.grant@bmo.com
       
Copyright 2012 Marketwire, Inc., All rights reserved.

Article from The Marketwatch