Global Growth: Are These Top Performers too Risky?

We take a closer look at Neptune Global Equity and M&G Global Basics.

Christopher J. Traulsen, CFA | 05-08-08 | E-mail Article

In our last column, we highlighted two funds that we believe are among the best in IMA's global growth sector. This week, we'll take a look at two of the highest returning fund over the past five years and the risks they took to drive that performance.

The chart-topper in the sector is Robin Geffen's Neptune Global Equity. The fund is up 23.5% annualised over the five years ended 25 July 2008, and has started to attract a serious level of assets: It had swelled to £639 million at last count. The key thing for investors considering this fund to remember is the following: There is no free lunch. If a fund is outperforming by this magnitude, it is almost always going to be taking on substantially more risk than its rivals.

A closer look at this fund versus its sector peers show this very clearly to be the case. The fund has the highest standard deviation in its category over the past five years, so if past volatility is any indicator, the fund is risky. Looking through to the portfolio, the fund's risk exposures show why. At the end of the first quarter, it had 23.6% in Russia, including 4% in Gazprom, 2.8% in Rosneft, and 3.3% in MMC Norilsk Nickel. The average fund in the sector had just 1% in Russia. The nickel exposure is worth noting. It is part of a 30% stake in industrials, which gives this fund a large exposure to economic cycles. The price of nickel has also plummeted this year, taking the share price of Norilsk with it. We think Robin Geffen is a very talented manager, and this fund could well play a diversification role in a broader portfolio. However, it's not a core global equity fund, and investors who like it for its performance should be aware of the risks involved.

M&G Global Basics--another top performer--suffers from similar risk factors in terms of its cyclical exposure (it is primarily focused on developed markets, however). Graham French is highly experienced and we think he's very good at what he does, but this fund had 50% in industrials issues and another 14% in energy at end of April. Although that's fully in keeping with its remit, there's no way investors should view this fund as vehicle for core global equity exposure. It's quite simply a bet on continued robust global growth and/or continued scarcity of resources via resources and materials plays. If you want to make that bet, be aware that it may well be highly correlated with resources exposure you may already have via a UK equity fund, and stand ready for a downturn should the case for resources crumble.

A version of this article previously appeared in Investment Adviser, Financial Times Ltd.

Christopher J. Traulsen, CFA, is Director of Pan-European and Asian Research for Morningstar Europe. He would like to hear from you, but cannot give financial advice. You can contact the author via this feedback form.
© Copyright 2024 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Terms of Use        Privacy Policy        Cookie Settings        Disclosures