Balanced Funds Make a Comeback

March 22, 2012

According to an article in Smart Money, balanced funds have been attracting client money this year.

So-called balanced funds, which invest in a mixture of stocks and bonds — and occasionally cash, commodities and other asset classes — suddenly are back in style. So far this year, investors added $7.1 billion to these portfolios, according to Lipper, a research firm. That is a huge reversal from last year, when investors yanked $20 billion from these funds.

The turnaround also stands in contrast to pure stock funds, which had inflows of just $56 million this year through March 14. And some investing experts say demand for balanced strategies is likely to rise. “There’s a little ‘Goldilocks’ appeal for investors,” says Russel Kinnel, director of fund research for Morningstar, meaning the funds are “just right” in finding a spot between timid and risky.

Indeed, advisers say they are using the funds to bring clients who are still spooked by last year’s extreme market volatility — but tired of record-low yields in the bond market — back into stocks. The pitch is that these funds offer most of the upside if the market surges but less of the downside if it tanks.

…advisers say balanced funds are often a good fit with younger investors, or those looking for a set-it-and-forget investment. Some also use the funds as core holdings for clients, and supplement them with alternative assets and funds to get even broader diversification.

Advisors are finding that clients are a bit more receptive to the equity story, but far from willing to go “all in.” We’re seeing some glimmers of that in our own survey of investors’ risk appetite. Investors are finally peeping out of the foxhole they have been in since 2008 and surveying the environment. They are beginning to realize that today’s low bond yields will not get them to their goals, but they also seem to want some fixed income as a buffer from market volatility. A balanced fund is a pretty good compromise. (You can find more out about balanced funds generally here.)

The Arrow DWA Balanced Fund (DWAFX) that we sub-advise crossed its 5-year anniversary last summer, while outperforming 90% of its peers. There are dedicated sleeves for fixed income, domestic equities, international equities, and alternative investments. The alternative sleeve, which is something many balanced funds do not include, can come in pretty handy for inflation protection and always adds an additional layer of diversification.

I’ve included a snip with the asset allocation as of 12/31/2011 and the performance of each strategy sleeve. Every sleeve has a positive return since inception in 2006, even with the 2008-2009 bear market. I think it is primarily the hybrid nature of these funds that is making them attractive to clients right now—and DWAFX might be something to consider for clients just easing back to a more normal asset allocation.

Source: Arrow Funds

Click here to visit ArrowFunds.com for a prospectus & disclosures. Click here for disclosures from Dorsey Wright Money Management.

Posted by:


From the Archives: Why Systematic Models Are Great

March 22, 2012

James Montier wrote this piece in 2006, but it is so great that I have to bring it up again! This article is a gem, worth reading over and over again.

What could baseball, wine pricing, medical diagnosis, university admissions, criminal recidivism and I have in common? They are examples of simple quant models consistently outperforming so-called experts. Why should financial markets be any different? So why aren’t there more quant funds? Hubristic self belief, self-serving bias and inertia combine to maintain the status quo.

Montier gives numerous examples of situations in which the models outperform both experts and experts using the models as additional input. Using your “expert knowledge” just makes it worse most of the time. In fact, in a study of over 130 papers comparing systematic models with human decision-making, the models won out in 122 events.

So why don’t we see more quant funds in the market? The first reason is overconfidence. We all think we can add something to a quant model. However, the quant model has the advantage of a known error rate, whilst our own error rate remains unknown. Secondly, self-serving bias kicks in, after all what a mess our industry would look if 18 out of every 20 of us were replaced by computers. Thirdly, inertia plays a part. It is hard to imagine a large fund management firm turning around and scrapping most of the process they have used for the last 20 years. Finally, quant is often a much harder sell, terms like ‘black box’ get bandied around, and consultants may question why they are employing you at all, if ‘all’ you do is turn up and crank the handle of the model. It is for reasons like these that quant investing will remain a fringe activity, no matter how successful it may be.

Lack of competition may be the best reason of all to use a systematic approach. How many investors are willing to go through a thorough and rigorous testing process to build a robust model—and are then willing to stick with the model through thick and thin? As Montier points out, it may remain a “fringe activity” no matter how successful it is.

—-this article originally appeared 12/22/2009. This is a powerful, powerful argument in favor of using a systematic model. Montier’s discussion of why investors resist using models is still very true.

Posted by:


Fund Flows

March 22, 2012

The Investment Company Institute is the national association ofU.S.investment companies, including mutual funds, closed-end funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and unit investment trusts (UITs). Members of ICI manage total assets of $11.82 trillion and serve nearly 90 million shareholders. Flow estimates are derived from data collected covering more than 95 percent of industry assets and are adjusted to represent industry totals.

Posted by: