Today’s Q&A piece in The Wall Street Journal features the Smead Value Fund (SMVLX; Investor Class shares). This post is an update to the previous analysis of the fund. According to the article, the fund’s manager
…doggedly has followed his beliefs to lead Smead Value Fund (SMVLX) to the top 20% of its Morningstar peer group in each of the past five calendar years.
While this is a worthwhile accomplishment, it does not take into account that the performance bar in a peer group is set too low. That is because an average fund underperforms its benchmark by slightly more than the expense ratio. Consequently, even if all funds in a given category failed to beat their benchmarks, some would still receive highest possible ratings because of the imposed quasi-normal distribution. This rating methodology was perhaps applicable when the traditional mutual funds were the only way to pool investments, and when actively-managed funds dominated the field. However, today the exchange-traded products (ETPs), and most notably the exchange-traded fund (ETF) subset thereof, constitute easily-accessible investment alternatives.
In this follow-up post, let’s see how the Smead Value Fund performed compared to a reference portfolio of ETFs with both fixed membership and weights. This is the simplest variant of Alpholio™’s patented methodology. The reference portfolio was constructed such that its periodic returns most closely tracked those of the fund. Here is a chart of the resulting cumulative RealAlpha™ for the fund:
From February 2008 (the earliest full calendar month since inception) through February 2016, the fund generated a negative 0.6% of discounted cumulative RealAlpha™ (to learn more about this and other performance measures, please consult the FAQ). Put another way, at the end of the evaluation period, an investor who chose the reference ETF portfolio would realize an over 6% higher cumulative return than an investor in the fund. Moreover, the standard deviation of the reference portfolio (a measure of return volatility) was 0.55% lower than that of the fund.
The following chart shows a constant composition of the reference portfolio for the fund over the same analysis period:
The fund had major equivalent positions in the iShares U.S. Consumer Services ETF (IYC; fixed weight of 30.1%), iShares S&P 100 ETF (OEF), First Trust US IPO Index Fund (FPX), iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF (IYH), iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT), Guggenheim Spin-Off ETF (CSD), in addition to six other ETFs with smaller weights.
In sum, the Smead Value Fund could have easily been substituted, and with better risk-adjusted results, by a fixed portfolio of readily-available ETFs. Apart from superior performance and clear visibility of exposures, such a portfolio would offer intra-day trading capability, which some investors may find of value.
To learn more about the Smead Value and other mutual funds, please register on our website.