Dec 10

As part of my litigation practice, I represent investors harmed by the misconduct of their stockbroker, investment advisor, or financial planner. Some of these cases can be brought in court; most are required to be arbitrated before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). In either venue, however, many of these cases have common themes, which teach important lessons about investing.

Wall Street Doesn’t Have a Crystal Ball

The financial industry spends millions of dollars convincing the investing public that it can predict with some accuracy the future price movements stocks. We all know that predicting the future is impossible, but when Wall Street breaks out its technical charts, graphs, and its highly paid analysts discussing “P/E ratios,” “EBIDTA,” “relative strength,” “quantitative analysis,” “momentum plays,” “valuation,” “trading strategies,” “market timing” and the like, it sounds as if they have discovered a window on the future. But the reality is that price movements of stocks are unpredictable and random because stock prices react to news, which by definition is unpredictable and random. The resignation or indictment of a CEO, a product recall, an “earnings disappointment,” the failure of a new product to generate significant sales, or an international crisis all will affect stock prices. These types of events are rarely anticipated and occur randomly. Therefore, contrary to what Wall Street’s very effective marketing would have you believe, those who “beat the market” in the short term do so because of luck, not skill. Academic Research has shown that there is a very low probability — less than 3% — that any one broker, money manager, or investment newsletter can pick investments that consistently outperform benchmark market averages (such as the S&P 500) over long periods of time (10 years or more). Those odds are about the same as the odds of throwing “snake eyes” at a craps table in Vegas. What is the probability that with the money you have to invest today, you can identify the lucky broker, financial advisor, or mutual fund who will consistently roll snake eyes and beat the market for the next 10 or 20 years? Very slight.

Lesson learned: Avoid actively managed investments; stock picking and market timing are losers games.

One Size Doesn’t Fit All.

When you shop for clothes or shoes, there are a variety of sizes and styles because each of us is physically different, and each of us has our own fashion style (or lack of style). Investing choices should also be “tailored” to fit you as an individual. Just as a tailor or shoe salesman measures you before determining what clothes or shoes will fit, a conscientious advisor will similarly “measure” you to determine what types of investments are suitable for you, and how those investments should be allocated in your portfolio to meet your needs, goals and risk tolerance. The advisor should make inquiries to determine your investing time horizon, short and long term liquidity needs, income and savings rate, net worth, tax bracket, and investment experience and knowledge.

Most importantly, the advisor needs to understand what level of risk gives you discomfort. Can you tolerate a decline of 20% in your portfolio without panicking, or do you need to construct a portfolio which, based on historical data, is likely to fluctuate up or down only 5% per year? As a general rule of thumb, more aggressive, risk tolerant investors should be more heavily weighted in small capitalization “value” equities, while conservative, risk adverse investors should be more concentrated in bonds and large capitalization “Blue Chip” securities.

An advisor who takes the time to understand your needs and risk tolerance will recommend diversifying and allocating assets amongst various types of investments consistent with your goals and risk profile. Studies show that over 90% of your investment returns depend on how your assets are allocated among different investment classes, while only about 2% is due to the specific stocks, bonds and other investments you choose to buy.

Lesson learned: An advisor should spend the time to learn your particular circumstances, and tailor investments to fit your own risk tolerance profile. Run, don’t walk, from any advisor who tries to sell you something without first learning about you and your risk tolerance, who has the same solution for everyone, or who recommends putting all your assets into a single type of investment.

Wage War on Fees, Expenses and Commissions.

Over long periods of time (10-20 years), well diversified portfolios have returned approximately 9% per year. Fees, expenses and commissions, imposed year after year, substantially reduce the long-term net investment return. The average expense ratio for actively managed mutual funds is approximately 1.5%. Similar or higher charges are assessed in “managed accounts” or “wrap accounts” where the investor is charged a fixed percentage of the portfolio rather than commissions on each trade. Because of the miracle of compounding, even a small difference in expenses charged against your investments can make a significant difference in the final long term investment results. For example, the final value of an initial $100,000 equity portfolio earning on average 9% a year for 10 years with 1.25% in annual fees and expenses will be $208,754.58. That same portfolio, with identical returns, but with 2% in annual expenses, will be worth $193,439.835, or $15,323.73 less. Additional fees, commissions, and expenses, by themselves, can make it difficult to “beat the market.” As we have seen, there is a high probability that an advisor cannot select investments that beat the market, and the probability of market underperformance is necessarily increased when the account is subject to excessive fees, commissions, and expenses.

Lesson learned: Keep the fees and expenses charged to your portfolio as low as possible. Avoid advisors who are paid on commission.

Don’t Chase Last Year’s or Last Month’s Winners

Mutual funds, Wall Street firms, and financial newsletters love to tout their recent successes. Investors flock to the fund, firm, newsletter, or investment category with the highest recent returns. But what happened in the past is a poor predictor of what will occur in the future. One study suggests that only 14% of the top performing investment managers for a particular year will be among the top performing managers the following year. The same historical reality that applies to stock picking applies to recent “market beating” firms and mutual funds — the fund or firm that did well last year is not likely to repeat that success the next year, and highly unlikely to consistently outpace its peers for long periods.

Lesson learned: Don’t chase recent winners.

Be Leery of Investment “Products” Wall Street loves to sell “investment products.” These come in a variety of forms, including limited partnerships, investment trusts, variable annuities, variable life insurance, mortgage backed securities, and others. Some of these products cobble together investment and insurance concepts in a single package, to be sold as something that will supposedly cure one or another investment risk, or provide a benefit, such as life insurance or a guaranteed return. Often, these products pay the highest commissions to brokers and insurance agents. When I see the phrase “investment product,” my expectation is that I will see an investment loaded with fees and expenses, and which is often too complicated for the average investor to understand. These products are suitable for some people, but are often too costly or complicated to be appropriate for most investors.

Lesson learned: Be leery of “investment products.” Look carefully at the fees and expenses for such products, and if the investment is very complicated, ask yourself whether you should risk your hard-earned money in something you don’t understand.

Make Sure Your Money Lasts as Long as You Do.

In retirement, many baby boomers suddenly will have access to significant lump sums of money, accumulated through savings, pensions, IRA’s, and 401k’s. There is a temptation to spend those assets freely, without considering that those funds may have to last 20, 30 years or more. It is critical for the investor to structure their retirement investments, and any withdrawals from retirement funds, so as not to outlive their money. As a rule of thumb, a withdrawal rate of 4% or less, adjusted for inflation, will increase the chance that there will not be a shortfall. Of course, each investor must consider their life expectancy, the composition of their portfolio, any other sources of funds (such as Social Security or company pensions), and their spending habits.

Lesson learned: The higher the withdrawal rate from your retirement assets, the greater the risk you will outlive your money.

Avoid All the Noise and Invest in Index Funds.

An index fund seeks to match the returns of a specified benchmark by buying representative amounts of each stock in the index, such as the S&P 500 or the Wilshire 5000. Other index funds focus a particular industry, or a particular geographic area, such as the telecommunications or health care sectors, or the leading publicly traded companies of South America or Japan. There are also index funds that track corporate government bond indexes. These funds don’t try to “beat the market,” they “meet the market,” by investing in the securities comprising the benchmark index. As seen, only a small percentage of active money managers beat the market over the long term. That being so, having an investment that “meets the market” year after year is, based on historical data, statistically more likely to provide superior long term returns than active money management trying to “beat the market.” Much of the superior performance of index funds is due to their low expenses, which average.25%, or about 1/5 of the expenses charged by actively managed mutual funds. Additionally, most index funds necessarily provide diversification (e.g., owning the 500 companies in the S&P 500, or the 5000 companies in the Wilshire 5000), and are tax efficient, since there is no active manager trading for short capital gains.

Lesson Learned: Allocate your investments among a variety of national and international equity and bond index funds. A 60/40 portfolio (60% diversified equities, 40% diversified bonds and cash) is generally considered to be a well diversified balanced portfolio of moderate risk. Those seeking more risk should consider increasing their exposure to equities, while those desiring less risk should increase their bond and cash balances. The particular percentages suitable for you must be based on upon your particular risk tolerance, goals, and financial needs.

Robert C. Port is a partner with the Atlanta law firm of Cohen, Goldstein, Port & Gottlieb, LLP, where he practices business and securities litigation. He has a particular emphasis on representing investors harmed by the misconduct of their stockbroker, investment advisor, or insurance agent. Mr. Port has an AV Rating by Martindale Hubbell Law Directory, and has been selected as a “Georgia Super Lawyer” in the practice areas of Business Litigation and Securities Litigation by Atlanta Magazine.

Oct 18

Portfolio optimizer software is a tool used by investment professionals to test the risk and return characteristics of their portfolios on historical data. This article discusses the benefits and myths of these types of tools on real world investment returns.

Mutual fund managers, hedge fund managers, and wealth managers are all judged on the real performance of their managed portfolios over time. This is typically compared to a major benchmark such as the S&P500, MSCI World Index, High Yield Bond Index, or other well-known diversified measure.

The goal is to outperform the benchmark consistently. This can be done by generating the same returns with less risk, greater returns with more risk, or more returns with less risk. The optimum theoretical investment portfolio lies on something called the Efficient Frontier. So how do investment managers build a portfolio that performs at its best?

After picking the best investments, a fund manager will turn to portfolio optimizer software to determine the optimum weightings for each stock, bond, or ETF. Plugging in the list of possible investments and running multiple simulations will output an estimated optimum portfolio based on the historical correlations, volatilities, and returns of each one. The primary benefit of this process is to understand if the portfolio has sufficient diversification. It is easy to accidentally create a portfolio which is highly correlated and vulnerable to market shocks and this simulation analysis is helpful in reducing this danger.

While the process itself is informative, beware that it’s not perfect and can lead to some erroneous assumptions. It’s based on historical data only and tomorrow may not be the same as the past, so today’s portfolio will not be the optimum one for the future. It assumes no transaction costs which is clearly not the case. It assumes perfect information is available in the market which may or may not be true. Finally, it is based on the belief that a major market index is the most appropriate benchmark when many investors may have other drivers such as tax rates, hedging, or a specific investment time horizon.

This short overview of portfolio optimizer software and its common usage should help you determine if this type of tool is right for you.

If you are looking for portfolio optimizer software you can get started with a low price yet sophisticated model right here: http://www.financial-edu.com/portfolio-optimization.php

Oct 4

While meeting with a marketing agency last week I was asked to explain what was different about the way we invest. What is our ‘key point of difference’ compared to, say, your average managed fund. By far the most significant difference is that we don’t use a model portfolio. In this way we also differentiate ourselves from the majority of IMA’s and SMAs (Individually and separately managed accounts) because they also all use model portfolios.

Saying goodbye to the model portfolio

You don’t have to be a fund manager to know that markets go up and down. Yet it seems that many of the supposedly ’smart’ investment managers writing mandates for managed funds have forgotten this key piece of information.

Cash is king, and the key to out-performance

If you invest in a managed fund, and it is mandated to hold X percentage in one sector, and Y percentage in another, and maximum 15% cash, what happens when the whole market falls? What happens if the whole market falls like it did in the GFC? Even the ‘fund manager of the year’ won’t be able to save your investment from declining. Why? Because there is nothing he or she can do, he can’t move the entire portfolio to cash because more than likely he can’t hold more than 15% cash under his mandate and because even if he wanted to the portfolio is too large to liquidate. (the fund manager of the year manages 4.1 billion dollars)

Saying goodbye to the model portfolio allows us to do what other fund managers can’t. Hold 100% cash if we choose, and move in an out of stocks based on opportunities that present themselves. This leads directly to our next point.

The (trading) opportunity of a lifetime comes around twice a week

In the stock market it might actually be more than twice a week if you know where to look. This is why we based our investment ‘model’ on a cash portfolio. All you need to be able to do is be patient enough to wait for the opportunities to come to you, and I assure you, this is harder than is sounds. But if you can be patient and wait for the market to deliver you an opportunity to buy a great company at a great price (typically when no one else wants it) you have greatly increased your chances of profiting from your investment.

Buying when other are selling is tough

By far the hardest part of our trading strategy is buying quality stocks when they are down. This means buying them when other people are selling them. At times this can be a gut wrenching experience.

Understanding the investment and doing your research is key

One of the biggest keys to our success in the market is having a solid understanding of the businesses we invest in by conducting comprehensive research into them before making an investment. The most important function of the research (besides understanding what we are buying) is it helps us be confident enough to buy these companies when they are on sale.

William Shaw is a boutique investment manager which specialises in offering Managed Accounts to private individuals, Self Managed Super Funds and financial planners in Australia. Our Managed Accounts service has outperformed the ASX 200 by 23.32%. For more information, visit Managed Funds

Oct 3

Investors can be seduced by headline attractive return rates for some managed funds. A cool head and a longer term outlook are valuable assets when considering a managed fund investment.

Investment in a US technology fund may have been a great investment during the “Tech Bubble”. Until the bubble burst. Stock markets in general however, have been shown to have provided more attractive returns that other assets like property, over the longer term. One could then deduce that a managed fund that aims to replicate overall stock market performance is probably a pretty reliable long term prospect. This may not provide as high short term returns as certain “hot” sectors, and the funds that focus on them, but might outperform them over a longer timeframe, and most certainly with a lot less risk.

Stock markets both rise and fall. In a few good years, some funds might show consecutive years of 20% plus appreciation. These are above average returns. Such returns are much harder to replicate when markets are falling. If such returns continue even in falling markets, you should look at the results with a critical eye, lest undue risk is being taken with your money.

A fund manager that can reliably outperform the market and its peers, in both rising and falling markets is what most investors should be looking for! If they can do this over the longer term, then they are truly a fund manager to hold on to. Realistically, reduction in value of managed fund investments is to expected from time to time. Good fund managers that switch to capital preservation in such periods, or invest in companies that can weather such storms and come out stronger is the type of manager you want looking after your funds.

When viewing respective performances of various managed funds, it is worthwhile to view these figures against the stock market’s overall performance for the same period. Since many stock markets have rallied over 50% since the financial crisis low, most managed funds should be showing very healthy returns over this period. A fund boasting a 20% return during this timeframe is actually, comparatively, quite a poor performance. Conversely, a fund that declined 20% during the global financial crisis, where markets fell around 50% is actually a stellar result in very trying times. Such a fund would then have been better placed to participate in the subsequent market rally.

Don’t expect consistently huge returns, don’t take undue risk, pick a reliable fund manager and invest for the long term. Stock markets have been shown to outperform all other asset classes over the longer term. The investor that is satisfied so long as his managed fund(s) outperform cash, bonds or property is therefore unlikely to be disappointed over the longer term. Any returns over and above this are a bonus.

Sustainability of Returns
Levels of Risk
Proven Track Record
Managed Fund Performance vs Overall Market Performance
Outperformance vs Other Asset Classes

Share Trading contains risks, and does not guarantee profits. Having a realistic view of what performance one can reasonably expect from investment markets will assist in also making a more realistic decision with regards to managed fund choice.

William Shaw is a boutique investment manager which specialises in offering Managed Accounts to private individuals, Self Managed Super Funds and financial planners in Australia. Our Managed Accounts service has outperformed the ASX 200 by 23.32%. For more information, visit Managed Funds.

Oct 3

Good professionals should not only take the leg-work out of managed funds research and selection. Their expertise can also help guide an investor through potential caveats, in addition to highlighting potential attractive investment opportunities.

Familiarising yourself with the vast array of managed funds available is an impossible task. Just picking one and hoping for the best is also not a wise strategy. A managed fund professional should be able to narrow down and provide you with a small handful of the best managed funds, from which to choose. He or she should also be able to explain the relative merits of each.

The financial world is full of jargon. Collateralised debt obligations, long-short strategies, vulture funds. A good financial adviser should be able to break down financial jargon for the layman. If more “sophisticated” managed funds are deemed appropriate, then your adviser should also be able to clearly articulate the fund’s strategy and investment philosophy.

A managed fund professional can help guide you away from overly risky or inappropriate investments. They can also recommend strategies that actually reduce your overall risk, such as finding funds that complement your existing investments, or funds that are quite diversified themselves.

“Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”. It’s an old saying, but it’s very appropriate for investing. Managed funds can complement your existing property assets. Similarly, a managed fund itself is made up many smaller investments. Further still, a diversified fund might give you access to investments in local equities, international equities, property, bonds, commodities and so on. The more diversified your investments are, the lower the potential for volatility.

Buying Eastern European shares, or trying to gain exposure to high growth Chinese technology companies on your own can be a difficult, time consuming, and often expensive exercise. An investment professional can find suitable funds for the international exposure you may be seeking, eliminating such problems.

Managed funds can be broad based investments, or may have a very narrow specific investment strategies. A broad based fund may give you access to shares, bonds and property. More specific funds might have a narrow focus such as commodities, or just one commodity, like gold. Others might just focus on commercial property.

A professional can find appropriate investments for your personal situation and investment outlook. A passive “index” fund that aims to mirror the performance of a certain index (eg the ASX100) is a simple product that may be appropriate to an investor looking for general stock market exposure. An investor that has a view that Asian economies are due to outperform may be interested in an Asian specific fund. There is literally a whole world of investment options, but a good financial professional can filter this down to the managed funds most appropriate for you.

Research
Breaking Down Jargon
Risk Reduction
Diversification
Access to Global Markets
Access to Different Asset Classes
Tailored Financial Solutions

Consistently profitable share trading by individuals requires substantial knowledge and expertise. Using an industry professional can provide just this, along with the other added benefits mentioned above.

William Shaw is a boutique investment manager which specialises in offering Managed Accounts to private individuals, Self Managed Super Funds and financial planners in Australia. Our Managed Accounts service has outperformed the ASX 200 by 23.32%. For more information about our managed share investment service and about our high conviction active investment methodology, visit Managed Funds.

Sep 20

What is “Alpha”?

In investment terminology, “alpha” refers to the level of out performance of a portfolio relative to an appropriate benchmark. Of course, everyone would like to achieve returns in excess of their benchmark. But you’re advised to have a good grasp of the cost and chance of achieving alpha before you decide to chase it.

There are two broad approaches to investment management: active and passive. An active approach seeks to add value, or alpha, by over weighting exposure to securities that are believed to be undervalued and under weighting those believed to be overvalued. The obvious aim is to perform better than a strategy that simply holds all securities according to their market weight (i.e. benchmark portfolio).

Passive investment managers believe that it’s highly improbable that you’ll be able to reliably outperform the benchmark over the long term (without taking more risk). Their focus is therefore not on beating the benchmark but replicating it as cheaply as possible. Their value add is in providing a diversified portfolio with minimal trading and management costs.

Shouldn’t everyone go for “Alpha”?

If you knew that your additional return would more than offset your additional costs, it would always make sense to try to outperform your relevant investment benchmark. However, the difficulty is that while you know the quest for alpha will increase your costs you don’t know for certain that your return will increase. You could end up with the additional costs and worse than benchmark performance (i.e. negative alpha).

In fact, it’s impossible for all active investors to achieve positive alpha. Let’s have a look at an example that illustrates this for the two investment approaches described above.

The small, mythical country of Tinyville has only 4 companies on its stock exchange: Beta, Delta, Gamma and Omega. The values of the companies and their market weightings are shown below for “yesterday” and “today”:

Companies
Passive Investors
Active Investors

Pink
Orange
Blue
White
Black
Brown
Total

Beta Ltd
$14,000
$10,000
$30,000
$25,000
$15,000
$6,000
$100,000

Delta Ltd
$9,800
$7,000
$25,000
$10,200
$8,000
$10,000
$70,000

Gamma Ltd
$7,000
$5,000
$15,000
$7,000
$16,000
$0
$50,000

Omega Ltd
$4,200
$3,000
$10,000
$0
$6,000
$6,800
$30,000

Total
$35,000
$25,000
$80,000
$42,200
$45,000
$22,800
$250,000

Also, there are only six investors in Tinyville: Mr Blue, Mr White, Mr Black, Mr Brown, Mr Pink and Mr Orange. Pink and Orange are passive investors and, therefore, their portfolios will reflect market weightings. The other four are active investors, so their portfolios will differ from the market weightings.

Points to note include:

The total value of the portfolios for all six investors equals (and must always equal) the value of the overall market;

The weighted average return of all investors equals (and must always equal) the market’s total return;

The passive investors earned the market’s return;

The overall weighted average return of the active investors equals the market’s return; and

Black’s outperformance is offset by the underperformance of the other three active investors.

The “Alpha” bet may not be the smartest

The findings from our mythical market apply to real share markets. An active approach is not synonymous with outperformance. In fact, any outperformance by some active investors must be matched by the underperformance of all other active investors.

Many active investors are of the opinion that it’s nave not to try and “beat the market”. They either don’t understand that active management is a zero sum game or, unrealistically, all believe they are better than average investors!

And let’s not forget the certain losses you will incur as a result of the additional costs of being an active investor. Generally, compared with passive investment, they include higher transaction and management costs, early crystallisation of capital gains tax and reduced diversification benefits.

What level of outperformance is required to justify this ongoing drag? Over a 30 year period of share market investment, our estimate is that you would have to generate an additional (risk-adjusted) return of at least 2% p.a. just to breakeven with a passive investment approach. You need to be pretty confident (perhaps, overconfident) of your investment abilities to take this “Alpha” bet!

Wealth Foundations is an independently owned personal financial advisory firm that offers wealth management and strategic financial planning services. For more information, visit Wealth Advisers.

Sep 1

Many wealth managers approach investors positioning themselves as “trusted advisors”. Can you develop this type of relationship with someone who is compensated for selling product, or should you seek out a wealth manager who operates without conflicts of interest between the firm and the client? As more independent advisors arise, this question will present itself more frequently to investors.

One of the biggest complaints investors have is that they feel they are being “steered” towards specific investments by their advisor. Frequently, these products are manufactured and/or managed by the firm that employs the relationship manager. They can take the form of mutual funds, managed accounts, or partnerships. This is true for brokerage firms, investment banks, and trust banks. In many instances, the compensation of the “trusted advisor” is largely impacted by how much proprietary product he or she can sell. With that type of motivation in place, it is fair for investors to ask if their best interests are being placed first.

Some large financial services firms responded to investor’s lack of trust by creating a “platform” that includes a limited number of outside advisors side by side with their own offerings. This is frequently presented in the form of a “wrap” program that entails a large, all-encompassing fee. The wrap fee includes compensation to the investment manager, the advisor, and the advisor’s employer. These layers of fees add up. While convenient, it may prove to be an expensive proposition to the investor. As a result, many investors are gravitating to fee-only independent wealth managers who offer open architecture in a conflict-free manner.

The role of a fee-only advisor is quite different from that of the more traditional relationship between the client and his broker or trust officer. A fee-only wealth manager does not and will not manufacture or sell investment products; their only source of income comes directly from their clients. They will refuse compensation from investment managers, insurance companies, banks, and other sources of investment merchandise. His or her role is to work with you to structure a multi-manager portfolio that fits your specific investment needs. The advisor will likely spend time with you to understand your goals, objectives, and risk tolerance long before the investing process begins. Many fee-only advisors have Certified Financial Planners on staff. These professionals will work with you to ensure that you have the right structure around your assets (i.e. wills, trusts, etc.) to help you meet you your long-term financial goals in the most tax efficient way possible.

It is becoming more difficult for investors to pinpoint outstanding investment talent. There are so many choices that one can become overwhelmed. Fee-only wealth managers offer true open architecture. They are not limited by an investment platform. This enables them to seek out the best and brightest managers in all asset classes. You should expect that your wealth manager has conducted a thorough amount of due diligence on each of the managers in the suggested portfolio. The advisor should suggest separate accounts over mutual funds. Separate accounts are less expensive and more tax efficient than commingled funds. Since your advisor is not compensated for transactions in your account, he or she will probably recommend that your assets be held at a large discount brokerage firm. This will help minimize overall costs to you. While you will be receiving monthly statements from your brokerage firm, the wealth manager should provide consolidated performance reporting on a monthly basis.

To review, here is what individual investors should expect from an independent, fee-only wealth manager:

* A thorough independent appraisal of your current investment portfolio,
* A discussion about what you want to accomplish with your investment capital,
* An examination of the structures around your assets such as wills, trusts, and retirement plans,
* A well-designed asset allocation model that fits your investment goals,
* A suggested multi-manager portfolio that foots with your goals and objectives,
* Thorough and ongoing due diligence on each of the managers in your portfolio,
* Face-to-face meetings at least twice a year to update you on performance and review your objectives,
* A strong effort to reduce investment costs (i.e. manager fees, brokerage commissions, etc.),
* Monthly performance statements,
* No pressure to buy or sell any investment product,
* A fee based upon the amount of assets under advisement.

Fee-only wealth managers offer an attractive alternative to traditional sales-based financial relationships. You have the comfort of knowing that the advisor is working in your best interests and that all recommendations come from a desire to do an excellent job for you.

Copyright 2010 Massey Quick and Co., LLC – All Rights Reserved

Stewart R. Massey is a Founding Partner and the Chief Investment Officer of Massey, Quick and Co., LLC, an investment consulting and wealth advisory firm. Founded in 2004, Massey Quick provides comprehensive wealth management services to high net worth families and individuals and traditional investment consulting services to endowments and foundations. More information is available at http://www.MasseyQuick.com.

Aug 24

As a Socially Responsible Investment manager the most common question we hear from potential clients is “and adviser told me that socially responsible investing isn’t profitable” versus non-screened portfolio management. In general the adviser providing the dogmatic opinion does not offer any foundation for their opinion but this is their chance to influence the potential client especially if they cannot offer an Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) option for the investor. Unless you have a few arrows of your own in your quiver you may be quite likely shrug your shoulders and resign yourself to an non-screened portfolio versus a clean portfolio.

Probably due to the fact that I’m over 50 now with a repellent view of hyperbole and unsubstantiated opinions I have been uncomfortable with opposite view as well: socially responsible investing improves rate of return. It has been my view based upon empirical experience of managing Socially Responsible portfolios for 20 years that social responsibility is not a significant determinant of investment performance. Socially Responsible Investing is a highly subjective practice where investors can have divergent opinions on industries and companies. There is not unified screening standard amongst the ethical investing industry, each firm or fund makes their own decisions on screening criteria. While some funds screen for only 3 or 4 issues there are other funds that screen over a dozen.

Practitioners of ethical investing may draw attention that investors always assume a given level of risk with any equity investment but that the risk premium associated with SRI is less. Case in point the risks associated with Tobacco, Asbestos or BP and the Gulf oil disaster. However in my 20 years involved with socially responsible investing, screening stringency is often a matter of interpretation as BP was considered Best of the Lot for many years for funds that desired petrochemical exposure.

Let’s take a look at some of the academic studies that have touched upon the issue of the factors of Socially Responsible Investment performance:

* Moskowitz Award winner, John Guerard, Jr., director of quantitative research at Vantage Global Advisers, examined the returns of Vantage’s 1,300 stock non-screened stock universe and a 950 screened universe (The screens eliminated companies that failed to pass alcohol, gambling, tobacco, environmental, military, and nuclear power). He found “that there is no significant difference between the average monthly returns of the screened and non-screened universes during the 1987-1994 period. The “un-screened 1,300 stock universe produced a 1.068 percent average monthly return during the January 1987-December 1994 period, such that a $1.00 investment grew to $2.77. A corresponding investment in the socially-screened universe would have grown to $2.74, representing a 1.057 percent average monthly return. There is no statistically significant difference in the respective returns series, and more important, there is no economically meaningful difference in the return differential.”

Guerard’s conclusions are reinforced by other works:

* “Socially Responsible Investment: Is it profitable” Dhrymes, Columbia University July 1997 June 1998.Dyrymes concluded that: “that by and large the Concerns and Strengths of the KLD index of social responsibility are not consistently significant in determining annual rates of return.”

* Socially Responsible Investment Screening Strong Empirical Evidence For Actively Managed Value Portfolios. June 2001, revised December 2001 Stone, Guerard, Gultekin, Adams.”No Significant Cost” means no statistically significant difference in risk adjusted return”. In addition, they surmise that “the conclusion of no significant cost/benefit is not just a long term average. It has remarkable short term consistency!”

In my opinion this report presents a balanced view in that they concluded that the during the time of the study 1984-1997 the stock market rewarded the growth oriented style and that the performance of SRI investments could become “brittle” if markets were to become risk averse and adopt a more Value oriented style……….a remarkably accurate presumption!

Could the performance of SRI funds which have exceeded or lagged their respective benchmarks be in part due to size (average capitalization from micro cap to large cap) and style (Value or Growth)?

Fama and French of Dartmouth University examined the annual rate of return and beta (volatility) of an non-screened universe of Growth vs. Value from 1928 to 2009 by dividing stocks into ten deciles (groups) based on book-to-market value, rebalanced annually and found that Value had the lower risk while Growth had the higher risk. In addition, they found that the highest book -to-market stocks exceeded the return of the lowest book-to-market by 21% to 8% on average. Stock valuation was as significant factor in the Fama and French study where the cheaper the equity valuation the better the return.

Market Cap size was important in the Fama and French study as well (1992). Market cap size showed a significant edge to small and micro cap equities on a monthly basis. *Monthly returns for the smallest 10% of equities were 1.47% versus 0.89% for the largest decile.

It is our contention that there are attributes that could account for performance to equities other than social profiles and that concurrently a portfolio of socially screened equities with the highest book-to-value ratios could exceed comparative benchmarks largely due to valuation metrics and capitalization size. In a case of pure cherry picking the monthly rate of return smallest market cap and lowest book value to market price was 1.63% versus.93% monthly for largest market cap and highest book value to market price.

I tested this theory using data supplied by the Social Investment Forum and Russell Index regarding the 10 year average rate of return for socially responsible mutual funds versus their respective benchmarks trends do emerge.

Data as of June 30, 2010

Benchmarks

* Russell Mid Cap Value Index was the top 10 year performer +7.55%.
* Russell Mid Cap Growth Index returned -1.99%.
* Russell 2000 Value returned +7.48%
* Russell 2000 Growth Index returned -.92%

Equity Large Cap performance (information provided by SIF)

* 4 mutual funds show positive 10-year average annual rates of return:
Calvert Social Investment Equity +0.14% (Growth)
Neuberger Berman Socially Responsive +3.18% (Value)
Walden Social Equity +1.46% (Value)

Parnassus Equity Income +4.65% (Value)

Equity Small Cap performance

* 2 mutual funds from one mutual fund company showed a positive 10-year rate of return.
Ariel Appreciation +6.16% (Value)

Ariel Fund +5.62% (Value)

Disclaimer: While the sample size of SRI fund performance is very small. I gleaned data from only the profitable SRI funds for the last 10 years. The SIF forum does not show fund performance information for funds that have closed, merged or liquidated. It would be a safe presumption IMO that funds that no longer exist were weak performers since money will flock to where it’s treated best. Plus, hedge fund performance data was not available on the SIF site.

The results do fall in line with substantial academic works (Fama and French, Lakonishok) and it is possible that SRI performance should be viewed thru the lens of Value/Growth and Market Cap size.

A logical question that must be asked upon reading this might be: “If small market cap and low valuations are the sweet spot for investing, then why are there so few funds or managers focusing on this strategy?” Not to be obvious… ok, well lets be obvious: The small cap / low price to BV tends to be the focus of many private portfolio managers since our small size allows us the dexterity to invest in companies that are simply too small for billion dollar mutual funds. Successful funds tend to outgrow the size/valuation strategy espoused by Graham as assets become larger and the investment selection becomes narrower. But this topic should best be explored at a later date.

No holdings mentioned.

Brad Pappas
President of Rocky Mountain Humane Investing
Allenspark, Colorado
303-747-0500
http://www.greeninvestment.com
copyright Rocky Mountain Humane Investing, Corp 2010

Jul 22

With literally thousands of managed funds available, selecting a good one can be a daunting task. Following a few simple guidelines will assist in picking a sound one.

Objectives and Timeframe
Part of the key to picking a good managed fund is first looking at your own personal situation. A retiree may look for a fund with solid income (i.e. regular dividends or distributions along with a high yield), whereas a young first time investor might be looking for long term capital growth. The former might be reliant on their managed fund for income, whereas the latter might prefer a fund that re-invests dividends, potentially leading to even greater returns at a later point in time. The proportion of one’s investments a proposed managed fund is likely to be (including other stock investments, property etc) also needs to be considered.

Risk Profile
Staying with the same example, a retiree who has accumulated substantial assets might elect to choose a managed fund with lower risk, to maintain those assets (for example, a diversified fund, or a fund that invests in only larger “blue chip” securities). Such a retiree’s assets, if diversified, might allow for investment in a higher risk, but potentially higher reward fund (such as a sector specific fund, or a fund that only invests in small start up companies) if this makes up only a small overall proportion of their net wealth. Conversely, if a first time investor’s proposed managed fund investment is likely to make up a high proportion of their savings, then investing in a lower risk fund may be more prudent. Risk may be able to be increased as savings are built up over time, and investments diversified.

Independent Research Houses
Every fund manager is always going to sing the praises of their own products. Highlighting attractive investment returns over one year as compared to similar funds might not tell the whole story – the comparative returns over three or five years might not be as attractive. An independent research house can assist in providing detailed analysis of a fund, and also the fund manager’s relative merits. Bear in mind that fund managers pay independent research houses to research their funds.

Consistent Track Record
Look for a fund manager and a fund that have provided reliable returns over a medium to longer term timeframe (more than 1-2 years). Short term performance can sometimes be anomalous. Performance also needs to be viewed with regard to overall market conditions. A rise of ten percent in a year is great compared to bank interest, but very poor if the overall market has risen thirty percent.

Past Performance Is Not Necessarily An Indicator Of Future Performance
This common disclaimer does highlight the inherent risks in investing. One take away from this is that it is important to look at past performance, but it is equally important to look at the reasons behind the figures. Are the results based on sound investment principles or good fortune? Does the fund manager’s outlook and strategy give you confidence in their ability to continue to provide you with good returns in the future?

Share Trading can contain many pitfalls. Heed each of the factors listed above, and you will give yourself the best chance of choosing a managed fund with positive performance.

William Shaw is a boutique investment manager which specializes in offering Managed Accounts to private individuals, Self Managed Super Funds and financial planners in Australia. Our Managed Accounts service has outperformed the ASX 200 by 23.32%. For more information about our managed share investment service and about our high conviction active investment methodology, visit Managed Funds

Jun 25

There are two main types of accounts that you can have when it comes to purchasing securities. These are active and passive accounts. It is up to you to choose which is right for your investment style and portfolio.

A professional manager can make all the difference in the world in helping you make money and to keep you from loosing a lot of money. You can be your own professional manager, but that requires hard work, education, and time from you. I know a lot of people that use other people as well as do it themselves. It is all who you are and who you want to be. If you don’t want to manage money and have no interest, then you should find a great money manager.

An actively managed account is overseen by an institution who’s investment experts watch your money. They research the top companies that are on the market and offer them to you to invest your money in. Some of these people often trade many times per day, all depending on what you want with your money. You will need to look into the investment managers track record to see that know what they are doing. Interview and sit down with them. Don’t just hand your money over to someone that you think will do a good job. This is money you have worked hard and long for. Look online at sites like MorningStar or Value Line to see reviews of good companies to work with.

A passive management style is very common also. These type of strategies involve a lot of buying and holding. This type of account just needs to be over seen everyday to make sure they don’t keep a loosing stock. Most of these accounts will be based off a particular index that the account manager will want to mirror. If you take the Dow Jones Industrial Average for example. Lets say a fund manager wants to mirror this fund because they think it will be going up. They will most likely buy the DIA or the actual Dow Jones fund to mirror this. It is a very good strategy and can help you make money.

Darius has been writing online for a while now and has a lot of different interests. You can check out some of his websites at http://www.colemanmosquitodeleto.com and http://www.citronellabarkcollar.net

« Previous Entries Next Entries »