My 3 Favorite Mutual Fund Managers for Navigating the Market Going Forward

The mutual fund world has no shortage of managers. But when it comes to finding managers which have a rock solid understanding of market history, a real grasp of the true drivers of long-term investment returns, a strategy for capturing those returns over time, an eye for avoiding market fallacies that lead the herd and most importantly -- know what it means to be stewards of Other People's Money. Well, that list is much shorter.

Most of the investment landscape is filled with products in a race of relative performance. It is rarely about making decisions to maximize long-term returns. Too often it is only about making decisions to outperform some index -- without making any decisions that might lead to temporarily underperforming that index, even when it is the best long-term decision. Therefore, it is a world of closet indexers and many of those who don't closet index still wouldn't dare be anything other than 100% invested.

While there are some very good managers who only manage funds with less flexible investment mandates, my purpose here is to highlight my 3 favorite mutual fund managers with the flexibility for navigating the markets . This isn't about past performance -- these are the managers I would feel most comfortable allowing to manage my money over the next full market cycle for the reasons described at the start of this post. Is it subjective? Of Course! This is MY list (and in no particular order).

Rob Arnott (Pimco All Asset and Pimco All Asset All Authority)

At Pimco essentially everything is managed "in-house". That is except for these 2 funds sub-advised by Rob Arnott of Research affiliates. These are tactical asset allocation strategies and the only limitation for Rob is that he must use Pimco Funds and abide by these very loose guidelines.

Rob Arnott is a great "big picture" guy and truly understands valuation. He is also well known for his fundamental indexes.

John Hussman (Hussman Strategic Growth)

This is not Hussman's only fund but it is his flagship fund and where he has the majority of his own investable assets. Hussman invests the portfolio like a traditional equity fund and then "hedges" using index options and futures based on his outlook for the market in general -- which has resulted in a highly hedged stance most of the time.

Someone might look at his performance year-to-date (-6.8%) while the market is up 11.1% or point to his performance over most of the rally since 2009 and think I'm crazy. Hussman is catching a lot of flak recently and you can see his response in one of his commentaries from February "Notes on Risk Management - Warts and All". But as I said before -- this isn't a backward looking list of my favorite mutual fund managers.  

There aren't many that understand the drivers of long-term returns more than Hussman and I think his ability to stay true to his strategy will prove out in the long run (the next full market cycle). Even if you don't invest in his fund, his weekly commentaries are always worth the read.

Ben Inker (GMO Benchmark-Free Allocation and Wells Fargo Advantage Absolute Return)

This is less a story just about Ben Inker himself and more about all the people at GMO including Jeremy Grantham and a more recent addition of James Montier. It is a good meeting of the minds there at GMO and their Asset Allocation Team.

The GMO Benchmark-Free Allocation Fund is actually not open but they started a distribution agreement with Wells Fargo in March. Therefore the strategy can be accessed in mutual fund format through the Wells Fargo Advantage Absolute Return Fund. I personally like the GMO name for the fund better -- but I am assuming for marketing reasons Wells Fargo chose the "Absolute Return" name. I am personally not a fan of most "Absolute Return funds" I see in the market, as most are nothing more than a giant ball of derivatives (but that's another story). 

Wells Fargo already had a fund (Wells Fargo Advantage Asset Allocation) sub-advised by GMO but the investment mandate did not give GMO very much flexibility in the allocation. You can see the difference this flexibility made below.

Jeremy Grantham talks about the advantages of flexible investment mandates, as well as the "career risk" it introduces in GMO's most recent quarterly letter (definitely worth the read).

There you have it!

It is important to remember this is not my 3 favorite managers for the next month, or the next year. These are my favorite mutual fund managers for the next full market cycle. Some will perform better than others during different parts of the cycle. For instance, if the market were to begin falling tomorrow, based on current positioning, I would expect John Hussman's Strategic Growth to perform best, then Rob Arnott's All Asset Strategy (either one), then Ben Inker's Benchmark-Free strategy. And obviously opposite if it continued up.

20 Largest Private Companies in the U.S.

Here is a look at the 20 largest private companies in the U.S.

Interesting how many of them (8 of the 20) are in some way highly involved in food -- Cargill, MARS, Publix, C&S Wholesale Grocers, US Foods, H-E-B, Meijer and Reyes Holdings (and although not grouped as such below, you could arguably add Love's Travel Stops, Pilot Travel Centers and Aramark to that group -- bringing it to 11 of the 20). Think any of these will go pubic?

Click image to enlarge

by hightable. Browse more infographics.

Sheila Bair's Humorous & Sadly Ironic Rant

Usually this is something I would just post on Facebook or retweet on Twitter but this from Sheila Bair (formerly from the FDIC) I just had to post for those that may only follow my blog. Funny and sadly ironic -- definitely check out the whole thing here "Fix income inequality with $10 million loans for everyone!" .

Here is a piece from the Washington Post....

"For several years now, the Fed has been making money available to the financial sector at near-zero interest rates. Big banks and hedge funds, among others, have taken this cheap money and invested it in securities with high yields. This type of profit-making, called the “carry trade,” has been enormously profitable for them.

So why not let everyone participate?

Under my plan, each American household could borrow $10 million from the Fed at zero interest. The more conservative among us can take that money and buy 10-year Treasury bonds. At the current 2 percent annual interest rate, we can pocket a nice $200,000 a year to live on. The more adventuresome can buy 10-year Greek debt at 21 percent, for an annual income of $2.1 million. Or if Greece is a little too risky for you, go with Portugal, at about 12 percent, or $1.2 million dollars a year. (No sense in getting greedy.)"

and some more.....

"Some may worry about inflation and long-term stability under my proposal. I say they lack faith in our country. So what if it cost 50 billion marks to mail a letter when the German central bank tried printing money to pay idle workers in 1923? 

That couldn’t happen here. This is America. Why should hedge funds and big financial institutions get all the goodies?  

Anyway, check out the whole thing .

Sorry, only the Fed and their friends at the banks get free money. Can't let that money get out to the general public -- That's inflationary! Gotta bailout only a select group of people so not too much of that money gets out into the general economy....that way inflation stays where they want it.....in asset prices.....

Related Post: Some Commentators Still Clueless That Fed's Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) Is A Backdoor Bank Bailout

The Lovely World of S&P Analyst Price Targets

If you want a good chuckle you can always turn to a S&P stock report. Take for example their recent research report on Netflix. Right there at the top of the report they blessed the stock with a "Buy" rating and slapped a 12-month price target of $135 on it. Who can complain with a 17% gain? Looks like it's time to buy!

Oh wait, what is this on page 3?

Gotta love it! So on the one hand their analyst is saying 'Buy" because with a price target of $135 it is 17% undervalued. Then your later being told that, by the way, our "proprietary quantitative model" says you should lose about 42% listening to that Analyst.

This isn't some one-off thing, in fact, it is amazingly common. How about Boeing? Looks like another buy! Price Target $86. Not a bad 16% gain.

Oh wait......

Sorry, S&P actually says you should lose 27%.

So how about something your not being told to buy? Chipotle...

Don't worry, your not the only person wondering why something has a "Hold" rating when it's price target is 11% lower. However, to the analysts credit the "hold" rating was put on when it was trading at $378 (but don't give too much credit -- why is he recommending to hold something he thinks should go down in price?)

Worse yet, not only does the analyst think it's overvalued but so does S&P's "fair value calculation". By 30% in fact. Yet still no "Sell" rating?

I think you get my point......These "Price Target's" are pure humor. And as you may have guessed, the corresponding star ratings provide nothing useful in performance -- and actually have detracted as you can see in the below performance of their "All Stars" basket of stocks vs the regular S&P 500.

You gotta love these "useful" price targets!