Give a Gift

Fund Watch

A Disastrous Year for the Kiplinger 25

We dropped one fund that performed especially bad and replaced it with a less-risky one.

By Andrew Tanzer, Senior Associate Editor, Kiplinger's Personal Finance

October 31, 2008
Text Size T T
  • Comments
  • Print This Article
  • Order a Reprint
  • Ask a Question
  • Advertisement

Let's hope it happens only once in a generation (if not once in a lifetime). Over the past year, virtually nothing has worked for investors. Through October 30, Standard & Poor's 500-stock index plunged a sickening 36% -- and that was less dreadful than the results of international and emerging-markets stocks. Bonds (save for the highest-quality, U.S.-government-guaranteed IOUs), commodities and real estate have all been hammered. There's been no place to hide.

So it's a good time to revisit the Kiplinger 25, the list of our recommended mutual funds. With precious few exceptions, they have felt the full pain of the markets' fury (see how they have performed). Our domestic stock fund picks dropped 40% on average; our international and global fund selections plummeted an average of 46%; and our suggested bond funds surrendered 8.5%. Because our list didn't include any balanced funds or other hybrid products (to make it easier for readers to assemble portfolios without mucking up their asset allocations), none of our favorite stock funds owned enough bonds or cash to insulate them from the horrible market decline.

But one domestic fund performed notably worse than the others: Bill Miller's Legg Mason Opportunity Primary fund (symbol LMOPX). Opportunity shed a mind-boggling 63% over the past year. As a value investor, Miller, who once beat the S&P 500's returns 15 years in a row with his Legg Mason Value fund, committed the cardinal sin of failing to preserve investors' capital for the past two years.

This is not a question of holding temporarily beaten-down stocks that will spring back when the economy and the animal spirits of investors revive. Money that Miller invested in stocks such as Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac and Countrywide Financial is gone for good. So we have decided to drop Opportunity from our list.

We're replacing it on the Kiplinger 25 with FPA Crescent (FPACX). Manager Steve Romick is one of the best, most disciplined value-investing practitioners in the business. He describes his goal as matching the return of the S&P 500 while taking on much less risk. In fact, in the 15 years through September 30, his fund returned an annualized 11%, an average of three percentage points per year better than the S&P index, with about 25% less volatility. Over the past year through October 30, the fund lost 19%.

Morningstar, which categorizes Crescent as a balanced fund, says it beat 99% of its peer group over the past 15 years. Romick makes the most of his flexible mandate by selling short (a bet on lower share prices) when he spots risks that are not reflected in stock prices (think financials for the past year). And he searches among all types of structures for the best values.

For instance, Romick currently finds much better value in corporate bonds and bank loans than in stocks. "Either debt is way too cheap or stocks are too expensive," he says. He recently bought Home Depot debt yielding 12.3% to maturity in December 2009 and bank debt from Michaels Stores yielding 30% to maturity in October 2013. As long as he finds the potential for stock-like returns in more secure fixed-income instruments, he'll continue to snap them up.

If you consider purchasing FPA Crescent, you should be aware that Romick will hold large cash balances if he finds no value in the markets. As a result, this fund will generally lag in bull markets. But because it tends to hold its value better in down markets, it compounds nicely over long periods.

In the bond column of the Kiplinger 25, the outlier is Loomis Sayles Bond fund (LSBRX). It lost 27% over the past year. By contrast, the Merrill Lynch US Broad Market index was essentially flat. Loomis Sayles Bond fund has been an outstanding performer for many years, but it came unstuck as frightened bond investors dumped corporate bonds, whether high-grade or junk.

We expect Loomis Sayles, led by the peerless Dan Fuss, to rebound. But we should emphasize that this is much riskier than a core bond fund. For something less volatile, we suggest Harbor Bond fund (HABDX), managed by Bill Gross and his team at Pimco, or, for money in taxable accounts, Fidelity Intermediate Municipal Income fund (FLTMX).

What's the outlook for the Kiplinger 25 funds? Many of the securities these funds own -- both stocks and bonds, domestic and foreign -- are certainly cheap after they beating they took over the past year. On the other hand, the U.S. economy is almost certainly in recession and economies elsewhere around the world are weakening. That does not bode well for corporate profits, and that could hurt stocks, at least through the first few months of 2009.

In any case, you should have a horizon of at least seven years, preferably longer, for money you invest in stocks. We expect that stock funds, both domestic and international, will generate annualized returns of 7% to 10% over the next seven to ten years.

SEE THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL THE KIPLINGER 25 FUNDS


DISCUSS

Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy

Reader Comments (17)

Posted by: Arjaybee at 10/31/2008 10:23:20 PM

Some time ago, I started to have doubts about Kiplinger's judgment...This just confirms my doubts.

Posted by: JustinTime at 11/02/2008 12:41:08 PM

Arjaybee...I question (your) judgment. Virtually EVERYONE has taken a hit this year. Kiplinger helps us to sort out low cost funds that beat their peers over the LONG term. Any stock picker or fund manager who was able to sidestep this downturn either got lucky or has a crystal ball.

Posted by: MD at 11/02/2008 05:42:51 PM

One of the real problems is that Fund Mgrs and the "experts" are always quick to offer reasons for problems in hindsight, like us all, but the investor is the only one losing real money...

Posted by: SteveTheHawk at 11/03/2008 12:01:04 PM

I'm surprised that more financial publications and web sites weren't out there preaching caution and perhaps even suggesting paring down equities during the last year and half. I started moving to cash last year. I'm still down about 15% from the peak though so I feel like a schmuck for being in stocks at all. I made a big move out of mutual funds last year, thankfully. Wish I had moved more. Still...while one of the worst markets in recent memory carried on, most publications just continued talking about the best places to invest. Sad. Only recently have I seen a large increase in suggesting caution....It's a bit late for that. I guess that on the plus side, if they keep recommending particular stocks and/or funds, eventually some of the suggestions will be right.

Posted by: DG at 11/03/2008 04:35:05 PM

The Kiplinger list is generally OK - at least a good start. A lot of individuals and institutions have lost big with Legg and Miller. Money has been pouring out of Legg Mason - I think they have announced substantial layoffs. Can't really fault Kiplinger for the law of averages catching up to Bill Miller - what he held matched his style and this time around he was dead wrong. Personally, I began moving to index funds over the last 10 years and this takes the guesswork out of choosing funds and managers, but you do have to believe markets will generally rise over time.

Posted by: Isrek at 11/05/2008 05:53:49 PM

Most all funds tanked in this market. Kiplinger was no exception. Now if say a year ago Kiplinger had advised its readers to get out of funds and get CDs then they would have been the exception. I believe that the next generation of managers will be more nimble and not stick to say the "25" etc. As of now my 401K is dog meat - down 45%.

Posted by: tbdadoc at 11/12/2008 12:16:47 AM

I am amazed that Kiplinger thinks dropping Bill Miller's fund will in any way make it look "smart". If you were smart, you would have dropped his fund BEFORE the 63% drop you now lament! Now you are hailing the Steve Romick fund claiming he is the "disciplined" value guru and not the guy who outperformed the SP500 for 15 years. If you think Mr Romick will outperform the SP500 you should be willing to explain WHY. All of these actively managed funds are just sucking higher fees for a definite track record of underperformance compared to the market indexes. Get your house in order. The fees/expenses saved by indexing always beat any theoretical performance edge over time. And short term speculation is just that ... a crap shoot. Serious investors should own a balanced portfolio of stock index funds, bonds or bond index funds, international index funds and 5% or so in a hedge like commodities/metals/REITs, etc. This does not guarantee high returns, but you will outperform 80% of actively managed funds over the long term. These balanced portfolios will never be the best performing, but they will be in the top quartile consistently and isn't that where you should be directing your readers/customers.

Posted by: John at 11/24/2008 08:28:58 AM

...Are you guys just becoming lazy, ignorant, or complacent? (Some) people look up to you...for guidance and support and (there is) no doubt that mutual funds, by far, are the most common and practiced investment vehicle....Readers need to know which funds...are still inherently (fundamentally) sound and offer best opportunities for certain window of time, despite the current hickups and the negative consequences of greedy Wall Streeters. Perhaps one way to communicate this to your readers is by CONTINUALLY, REGULARLY publish(ing) your FUNDWATCH articles and exercise your contrarian traits and highlight (and/or remind us of) all the + and - aspects of "effective/efficient" funds....

Posted by: Gnirk at 11/26/2008 07:27:18 PM

I looked to Kiplinger for top notch information on mutual funds. For years they have been touting the Dodge and Cox funds (even when they were losing)and Loomis-Sayles Bond fund. Guess what? Those are the funds I invested in a little over a year ago. Don't need to say any more.

Posted by: Lynne at 11/30/2008 01:31:01 PM

...I trusted Kiplinger's commentaries on these funds. Even when the market was changing, they kept saying these are great funds. Guess what? I invested in these funds, and they have tanked more than most!!

Posted by: divad41 at 12/03/2008 06:06:55 PM

I also feel there is a lot of post-occurrence wisdom in the magazines, including Kiplinger's. I used their info as a source, but not the source. I fortunately 'escaped' TRP New Era as it was headed for 70+, in part because of info in Kiplnger (and am now contemplating when to get back in). As far as Dodge and Cox Stock is concerned, read what the mag said this month... they are cleaning up the portfolio much qucker than most of their peers - more good Kiplinger-based info....whatever it is in the magazine you like, but (to) make it just one source of investing decisions(?). Otherwise the poster's comment about going with indexes is a better alternative. I bet a lot of us are freshly looking to learn about dividend paying funds just now...

Posted by: Peter Gregory at 12/26/2008 01:45:28 PM

What an appalling commentary on the wisdom of buying huge collections of stocks for "safety at the expense of return"...

Posted by: Jay at 01/07/2009 12:29:59 PM

I followed the Kiplinger model portfolio and lost a bundle. Goodbye Kiplinger Reirement letter. Not worth the paper its printed on

Posted by: GameOver at 01/18/2009 02:01:16 AM

I was completely wiped out in American Funds in 2008. I am sick of hearing how good the track record is, and management. The 'top 25' destroyed people's wealth and proved diversification is a false premise.

Posted by: Jack at 01/28/2009 08:07:41 PM

Why not recommend a hybrid fund, who better to allocate back and forth between stocks and bonds than someone who understands them both. I have to admit, the allocation model of yours that I have implemented has not worked! Are you better able to allocate than a single manager who is on the ground valuing these assets? Mucking up the waters is looking pretty good right now.

Posted by: robert schultze at 03/29/2009 02:11:58 PM

The article from Oct 2008 said fund LMOIX is being replaced in the "Kip. Top 25 List" by FPACX. Since I've not seen the list in the magazine yet in 2009, I looked at the list on-line. I see the change is not made to the on-line list. What goes??

Posted by: Dave Park at 04/03/2009 10:32:05 AM

Twice in recent issues you`ve hyped FPA Crescent fund, and put it on the "top 25" list. I`m finding it closed to new investers. Could you clarify?



Featured Videos From Kiplinger





Connect With Kiplinger

E-mail Updates: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox.

email-sign-up

facebook
twitter
RSS