A Rough Patch for Flexible Allocation Funds
Boring balanced funds plus one bold allocation manager rule the roost this year.
Boring balanced funds plus one bold allocation manager rule the roost this year.
Funds with bolder allocation strategies are struggling because of the Greek financial crisis.
In recent years, aggressive asset-allocation funds have run circles around traditional balanced funds. Some of these flexible funds cut back their stock holdings dramatically during the 2007-09 bear market--or even bet against stocks during part of the downturn. As a result, they emerged from the carnage as heroes. If they also leaned heavily on foreign stocks, they performed even better.
But it's been another story in 2010. Boring balanced funds, which typically keep about 60% of their assets in stocks and the rest in bonds and tend to focus on U.S. securities, have come on strong. Take Fidelity Balanced (FBALX), which epitomizes dullness. It sticks with a 60/40 mix and keeps its sector weightings in line with those of Standard & Poor's 500-stock index. Year-to-date through August 25, the fund was up about 3%, topping 86% of its peers. Vanguard Balanced Index (VBINX), as humdrum as they come, outpaced 88% of its rivals.
A Lousy Year
In the meantime, some funds with bolder allocation strategies, including those that shift assets all over the world, have seen some bold bets go bad. For example, Ivy Asset Strategy (WASAX) has lost 2.3% so far this year, worse than 90% of its peers. Leuthold Asset Allocation is down 3.4%, lagging 92% of its peers.
But one active allocator, Rob Arnott, is looking downright Delphic. Two funds he runs, PIMCO All Asset and PIMCO All Asset All Authority , have gained 9% and 10%, respectively, so far this year. Both funds can invest in any of PIMCO's Institutional funds, giving Arnott the ability to tap nearly every asset class.
As you might guess, All Authority is the bolder of the two, permitting Arnott to short stocks (bet that their prices will fall) and to use leverage. A bearish outlook on the United States prompted Arnott to short 14% of All Authority's assets at the start of 2010. Although shorting Europe would have been even better, the bet against U.S. stocks paid off during the spring swoon, as did an outsize bet on emerging-markets stocks, which dropped about 3 percentage points less than Europe did. Arnott says emerging nations have stronger economies and healthier balance sheets than most developed countries. A move into Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities also paid off nicely.
One once-hot fund that has turned cold is Ivy Asset Strategy. Manager Michael Avery had also bet against U.S. stocks, so why has his fund struggled so much? As the Greek crisis intensified in early May, Avery grew more bearish and reportedly placed a big order to short the S&P 500 (through futures contracts on the index known as e-minis). Some observers have pinpointed that order, placed precisely at the time of the flash crash on May 6, as a contributor of that debacle. (Waddell & Reed, Ivy's parent, says that neither it nor the fund contributed to the sharp drop in the stock market that day--almost 1,000 points on the Dow Jones industrial average.)
In any event, Asset Strategy lost 8.4% in May, and it seems likely that part of the problem was that a chunk of those short-sale orders were placed near the market low on May 6. The Dow subsequently rebounded 600 points that afternoon.
Avery is now running $27 billion, and it could be that he hasn't adjusted his fast trading style to the reality of his funds' burgeoning asset base. The reports on the e-mini trade said he tried to sell 75,000 contracts (only 50,000 normally trade in an hour, and that's when markets are behaving normally and there's plenty of liquidity, which was not the case on May 6). Asset Strategy, with a 10-year annualized return of 7.9%, still ranks in the top quartile of the world-allocation group for that period, but I'm becoming uncertain about its future.
This article originally appeared in Kiplinger's.
FundInvestor Newsletter | ||||
Morningstar FundInvestor is a 48-page newsletter dedicated to helping investors pick great mutual funds, build winning portfolios, and monitor their funds for greater | gains. This one-year subscription consists of 12 monthly issues, a Reader's Guide, and four free investing reports. Learn more. | |||
$129.00 for 12 Print Issues | $119.00 for 12 PDF Issues | |||
Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.
We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.
We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals
and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through
license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates
asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management.
We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences
and advertising on our websites and newsletters.
How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:
To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.
Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.
To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.
Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.