The Hardest Hit Active Managed Funds
These funds illustrate the importance of knowing how a manager is generating performance.
By far the worst hit of the bunch is Neptune Global Alpha. This fund, run by Neptune founder Robin Geffen, is down 49.66% for the year to date through 27 October. The problems are very clear. First, Geffen devoted roughly 68% of equities to emerging markets as at 30 June (the latest data available) including about 30% in China and Hong Kong shares, and another 35% in Russian equities. He also had a sharp bet on continued global growth, with big stakes in energy and materials.
It is not clear how long Geffen held these positions past the end of the second quarter, but the fund's performance suggests he stuck with them to some extent. Among his larger stakes at the end of 2Q were Russian nickel miner MMC Norilsk Nickel, down 68% in the last three months, energy giant OAO Gazprom (down 66%), and Russian steel concern Evraz Group, which is down 82% in the last three months. Such bets have helped the fund deliver returns that still far outpace it average peer's over the long-term, but the positioning of the fund appears to have been startlingly aggressive given concerns about the state of the global economy.
Another hard-hit offering is F&C MultiManager Investment Trust. Although it's not as aggressive as the Neptune offering, the fund still has had a fair amount of exposure to emerging markets and resources through its investment trust holdings. This is both via dedicated offerings such as Templeton Emerging Markets, Baring Emerging Europe, and Merrill Lynch World Mining, but also via less obvious offerings such as SVM Global, which had 23.74% of assets in Emerging Europe at 30 September according to Morningstar's Fundamental Data unit, and Scottish Mortgage, which had north of 20% in emerging markets at 30 September, including a 5.5% position in Brazilian energy champion Petrobras.
The remainder of the bottom five include
None of this means that the above offerings are inherently bad funds. First, we're looking a very short period of performance (a bit over nine months). We are also in the midst of a period of extreme market volatility the likes of which is rare through market history. However, it does point to the need for investor and their advisers to truly understand what funds own before putting them in a portfolio--their presence in an IMA sector or at the top of a league table means relatively little. In fact the latter almost guarantees they're taking on more risk than competitors--there's no such thing as a free lunch in the financial markets.
A version of this article previously appeared in Investment Adviser, Financial Times Ltd.