Analysis of Jensen Quality Growth Fund
analysis, mutual fund

This week’s piece in Barron’s profiles the Jensen Quality Growth Fund (JENSX; Class J shares). This $5.5 billion no-load fund sports a competitive 0.88% expense ratio and low 14% turnover. According to the article, the fund

… fared well more recently, returning 21% over the past year, beating 86% of its peers, according to Morningstar. Over the past three years, its average annual return of 9% beat 85% of peers.

The primary benchmark for the fund is the S&P 500® Index. One of the long-lived and accessible implementations of the index is the SPDR® S&P 500® ETF (SPY). Alpholio™ calculations show that over the 15 years through 2016 the fund returned more than the ETF in approximately 34% of all rolling 36-month periods, 32% of 24-month periods and 38% of 12-month periods. The median cumulative (not annualized) underperformance over a rolling 36-month period was 5.9%.

The secondary benchmark for the fund is the Russell 1000® Growth Index. One of the popular implementations of this index is the iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). Alpholio™ calculations indicate that over the last 15 years the fund returned more than this ETF in about 30% of all rolling 36-month periods (with median underperformance of 5.3%), 32% of 24-month periods and 40% of 12-month periods.

A comparison of rolling returns is useful in determining a fund’s performance over average typical holding periods. However, it does not account for the fund’s volatility or exposures to particular market capitalizations, styles, sectors, industries, regions or countries. To gain insight into the latter, let’s employ Alpholio™’s patented methodology. In the simplest variant, it constructs a fixed-membership and fixed-weight reference ETF portfolio that most closely tracks periodic returns of the analyzed fund. To make a potential substitution of the fund more practical, in all of the following analyses the number of ETFs in the reference portfolio was capped at six.

Here is the resulting chart with statistics of the cumulative RealAlpha™ for Jensen Quality Growth over the last ten years (to learn more about this and other performance measures, please visit our FAQ):

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for Jensen Quality Growth Fund (JENSX) over 10 Years

The fund subtracted value compared to its reference ETF portfolio that had a similar volatility, measured as the standard deviation of monthly returns. The fund’s RealBeta™ was below that of a broad-based equity ETF.

The following chart with related statistics illustrates the fixed reference ETF portfolio for the fund over the same analysis period:

Reference Weights for Jensen Quality Growth Fund (JENSX) over 10 Years

The fund had equivalent positions in the Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (VIG), iShares MSCI KLD 400 Social ETF (DSI), Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR® Fund (XLP), iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF (IHI), Industrial Select Sector SPDR® Fund (XLI), and SPDR® S&P® Dividend ETF (SDY).

The following chart with associated statistics depicts the cumulative RealAlpha™ for the fund over the last five years:

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for Jensen Quality Growth Fund (JENSX) over 5 Years

With just 0.21% of cumulative excess return, the fund failed to substantially beat its reference ETF portfolio that had a slightly lower volatility. The fund’s RealBeta™ was somewhat higher compared to that over the longer analysis period.

The following chart with accompanying statistics presents the constant composition of the reference ETF portfolio over the same evaluation period:

Reference Weights for Jensen Quality Growth Fund (JENSX) over 5 Years

The fund had just five equivalent positions: in the aforementioned VIG and IHI, as well as in the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF™ (SCHD), iShares Morningstar Large-Cap ETF (JKD) and iShares North American Tech-Software ETF (IGV).

The following chart and statistics show the cumulative RealAlpha™ for Jensen Quality Growth over the last three years:

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for Jensen Quality Growth Fund (JENSX) over 3 Years

The fund failed to add value over its reference ETF portfolio that had a slightly lower volatility. The fund’s RealBeta™ also increased from that over the prior analysis periods.

The following chart and statistics exhibit the static composition of the reference ETF portfolio over the same three-year period:

Reference Weights for Jensen Quality Growth Fund (JENSX) over 3 Years

The fund had equivalent positions in the PowerShares S&P 500 Quality Portfolio (SPHQ), iShares U.S. Industrials ETF (IYJ), Vanguard Information Technology ETF (VGT), as well as the aforementioned IHI, XLP and VIG.

The final chart with conventional performance statistics shows the total return of the fund vs. that of the aforesaid SCHD and SPHQ (the analysis timeframe was determined by the inception date of SCHD):

Total Return for JENSX, SCHD and SPHQ

Either ETF outperformed the fund in terms of the higher annualized return, alpha, Sharpe and Sortino ratios, as well as the lower beta and standard deviation of monthly returns.

In sum, the Jensen Quality Growth Fund did not substantially outperform its respective reference ETF portfolios over the standard ten-, five- and three-year evaluation periods. The fund could have easily been substituted, and with better results, with either of the two ETFs picked from its reference portfolios. Despite a low turnover, in the past four years the fund had significant long-term capital distributions, which made it less suitable for taxable accounts.

To learn more about the Jensen Quality Growth and other mutual funds, please register on our website.


Pin It
Stockpicker’s Delight
active management, active share, analysis, correlation, mutual fund

A recent piece in Barron’s proposes an investment into seven actively-managed mutual funds. This recommendation is motivated by the following observation:

A long, humiliating period for professional stockpickers might be giving way to something different. Stocks that have moved in near unison in recent years are beginning to chart more distinct paths. Data points that haven’t mattered in a decade, like the relationship between prices and fundamental measures of value, are starting to have more sway on returns. The divide between cheap stocks and expensive ones remains exceptionally wide, which could mean last year’s shift in favor of value investing is just the beginning.

Supposedly, were on the verge of entering the “stockpicker’s market,” as shown in this chart:

Average Pair-Wise Correlation of All S&P Stock Combinations

The myth that low correlations between stock returns lead to active manager’s outperformance has long been debunked. Similarly, a high active share is cited as one of the reasons actively-managed funds will outperform their passive peers. Please refer to our earlier post for a discussion of this topic.

So, this post will instead focus on the long-term performance of the funds featured in the article:

Time for Proactive Investing

The following charts with related statistics show the cumulative RealAlpha™ for each fund that has at least ten years of history through 2016 (to learn more about this and other patent-based performance measures Alpholio™ uses, please consult our FAQ). In all analyses, the number of ETFs in the reference portfolio was limited to no more than seven. The ETF membership and weights in each reference portfolio were constant throughout the entire evaluation period.

Here is a chart with statistics for the AllianzGI NFJ Dividend Value Fund (PNEAX; Class A shares):

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for AllianzGI NFJ Dividend Value Fund (PNEAX) over 10 Years

The fund cumulatively returned over 20.5% less than its reference ETF portfolio of lower volatility.

Here is a chart with statistics for the DFA US Large Cap Value Portfolio (DFLVX; Class I shares):

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for DFA US Large Cap Value Portfolio (DFLVX) over 10 Years

The fund cumulatively returned about 8.5% more than its reference ETF portfolio of lower volatility.

Here is a chart for the Dodge & Cox Stock Fund (DODGX):

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for Dodge & Cox Stock Fund (DODGX) over 10 Years

While the fund produced a 14% higher cumulative return than its reference ETF portfolio, by early 2016 it also lost virtually all of its cumulative RealAlpha™ generated since 2007.

The following chart is for the Sound Shore Fund (SSHFX):

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for Sound Shore Fund (SSHFX) over 10 Years

On a cumulative return basis, the fund underperformed its reference ETF portfolio by over 7.7%; most of that loss occurred over the past two years.

This chart is for the T. Rowe Price Equity Income Fund (PRFDX):

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for T. Rowe Price Equity Income Fund (PRFDX) over 10 Years

The fund’s cumulative return was over 23.3% lower than that of its reference ETF portfolio of a slightly higher volatility.

The final chart is for the Vanguard U.S. Value Fund (VUVLX; Investor Class shares):

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for Vanguard U.S. Value Fund (VUVLX) over 10 Years

The fund cumulatively returned about 9.1% more than its reference ETF portfolio of a slightly lower volatility. However, as recently as at the end of October 2016, the cumulative RealAlpha™ was only 4.4%.

In conclusion, only three out of the six funds analyzed above added some value when compared to their respective reference ETF portfolios. The rest of the funds underperformed, and in some cases quite significantly. It remains to be seen whether a combination of the expected low stock correlations in the market and a high active share of these funds leads to their significant outperformance in 2017.

To learn more about these and other mutual funds, incl. the composition of their reference ETF portfolios, please register on our website.

To learn more about the these and other mutual funds, including the composition of their reference ETF portfolios, please register on our website.


Pin It
Analysis of Berwyn Income Fund
analysis, mutual fund

This week’s mutual fund profile in Barron’s features the Berwyn Income Fund (BERIX). This $1.7 billion no-load fund has a 0.66% expense ratio (decreasing to 0.64% under a fee waiver) and 2.2 year duration. According to the article

[The fund’s managers] earned customers an average of 6.8% a year over the past decade, better than 98% of their fund’s Morningstar peers—and with roughly 25% less risk, as measured by standard deviation. Their aim is to find undervalued securities and deliver consistent risk-adjusted returns. The fund’s universe is limited to income-generating investments; it can put up to 30% of its assets into dividend-paying stocks; the balance is in fixed income and cash.

The primary prospectus benchmark for the fund is the Citigroup Broad Investment Grade Index. At present, there are no ETFs tracking this index. The iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG) can be used as a substitute reference. Alpholio™ calculations show that over the ten years through 2016 the fund returned more than the ETF in approximately 96% of all rolling 36-month periods, 69% of 24-month periods and 55% of 12-month periods. The median cumulative (not annualized) outperformance over a rolling 36-month period was 13.8%.

The secondary prospectus benchmark for the fund is the Merrill Lynch High Yield Master II Index. Currently, there are no ETFs tracking this index. The SPDR® Bloomberg Barclays High Yield Bond ETF (JNK) is one of substitute references. According to Alpholio™ calculations, over the ten years through 2016 the fund returned more than the ETF in approximately 66% of all rolling 36-month periods, 59% of 24-month periods and 52% of 12-month periods. The median cumulative outperformance over a rolling 36-month period was 3.3%.

While comparisons of rolling returns provide useful statistics of the fund’s returns over typical holding periods, they do not take the fund’s exposures or risk into account. To gain insight into the latter, let’s employ Alpholio™’s patented methodology. The simplest variant thereof constructs a custom reference ETF portfolio with fixed membership and weights that most closely mimics periodic returns of the analyzed fund. Here is the resulting chart with statistics of the cumulative RealAlpha™ for Berwyn Income over the ten years through 2016 (to learn more about this and other performance measures, please visit our FAQ):

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for Berwyn Income Fund (BERIX) over 10 Years

While the fund added a substantial amount of value over the entire analysis period, it did so in relatively short bursts rather than a steady progression. Between mid-2014 and early 2016, a large portion of cumulative RealAlpha™ was lost. The fund’s volatility, measured as an annualized standard deviation of monthly returns, was about 10% above that of the reference portfolio. The RealBeta™ of the fund, measured against a broad-based domestic stock ETF, indicated an equity exposure slightly above that implied by the 30% maximum.

The following chart and statistics show the fixed composition of the reference ETF portfolio over the same ten-year period (in this and subsequent analyses, the membership of the reference portfolio was restricted to no more than six ETFs):

Reference Weights for Berwyn Income Fund (BERIX) over 10 Years

The fund had equivalent positions in the iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond ETF (SHY), iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD), iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF (IHI), SPDR® S&P® Retail ETF (XRT), iShares U.S. Technology ETF (IYW), and Utilities Select Sector SPDR® Fund (XLU).

The following chart with related statistics depicts the cumulative RealAlpha™ for the fund over the last five years:

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for Berwyn Income Fund (BERIX) over 5 Years

The fund practically failed to add value over its reference portfolio, which had a lower standard deviation. The RealBeta™ of the fund was unchanged from that over the longer analysis period.

The following chart and associated statistics illustrate the constant reference ETF portfolio for the fund over the same five-year period:

Reference Weights for Berwyn Income Fund (BERIX) over 5 Years

The fund had just three equivalent positions: in the SPDR® Bloomberg Barclays Short Term Corporate Bond ETF (SCPB), SPDR® Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) and iShares Select Dividend ETF (DVY).

The following chart with accompanying statistics shows the cumulative RealAlpha™ for the fund over the most recent three-year period:

Cumulative RealAlpha™ for Berwyn Income Fund (BERIX) over 3 Years

The fund’s cumulative return was about 0.9% lower than that of its reference ETF portfolio. Compared to previous evaluation periods, the fund’s volatility relative to that of its reference portfolio increased, which was also reflected in a higher RealBeta™.

The final chart and statistics present the composition of the reference ETF portfolio over the same three-year period:

Reference Weights for Berwyn Income Fund (BERIX) over 3 Years

The fund had just four equivalent positions: in the SPDR® Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLRN), Guggenheim BulletShares 2017 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJH), iShares U.S. Preferred Stock ETF (PFF), and First Trust Materials AlphaDEX® Fund (FXZ).

While its longer-term performance record is encouraging, the Berwyn Income Fund failed to add value over its reference ETF portfolio over the last three and five years. With the low duration of its bond holdings, the fund is clearly trying to protect its investors against rising interest rates. Despite “not viewing equity and fixed income any differently,” over the trailing 12 months, the fund had only a 1.63% yield, quite low for an investment vehicle that is primarily income-oriented. Investors should also note that the fund’s advisory firm was acquired in April 2016 and that lead managers are currently under a three-year contract.

To learn more about the Berwyn Income and other mutual funds, please register on our website.


Pin It
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Meta