|Your account||Today's news index||Weather||Traffic||Movies||Restaurants||Today's events|
Sunday, May 16, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.
Your Funds / Charles Jaffe
I can't accept the job, as writing about funds and helping to direct one would be a conflict of interest. But the thought of becoming a director is interesting, as I believe I'd be a fund-management company's worst nightmare, an active director prepared to ask awkward and difficult questions.
What's more, it made me recognize that investors would benefit from thinking not just like an owner of the fund which they are but like a director.
If fund management can't answer your toughest questions about its strategy and ability to serve you, it doesn't deserve your money.
With that in mind, let's examine some of the tough questions that would have faced the folks at TFS Capital in Richmond, Va., a hedge-fund company that has filed registration papers for its first mutual fund. It hopes to launch the TFS Market-Neutral Fund in July.
For starters, I am no big fan of market-neutral funds, which attempt to use a hedge fund's strategy in an ordinary mutual fund. Market-neutral is a strategy designed to profit in all conditions, regardless of the market. Too often in the 20 or so funds that follow the strategy, it has meant "flat performance in all market conditions."
TFS Capital appears ready to try the kind of arbitrage-based market-neutral strategy that has worked best when translated into mutual funds, but management would be on a short leash.
The question a director and a shareholder should be asking management: "How long are we waiting to prove this strategy?"
Plenty of funds are born of ideas that sound good, and stick around because investors think management has an ability to deliver.
But half of all funds are below-average performers. If a fund can't prove its worth, it shouldn't be allowed to continue; within three years of my becoming a director, I would have been asking management to liquidate if results were consistently below average.
Shareholders shouldn't stick around even that long.
Once assets grow, a fund should be able to charge less. Directors have a responsibility to push a fund toward lower costs, because that's in the best interest of shareholders.
If TFS can't get costs down to the average level of roughly 1.4 percent after the first three years, I'd be ready to pull the plug.
Of course, for TFS to survive its early years and lower costs, it would have to be a success, at which point its size becomes an issue.
Larry Eiben of TFS noted that the company thinks its strategy will work with a fund of between $225 million and $500 million. I'd push for a commitment to shut down at the lower level until the fund can prove itself.
Investors looking at a new fund should be aware that when money rushes in performance might change. They should expect management to put the brakes on cash in-flows until they are sure the strategy will stand up.
Eiben acknowledged that both directors and shareholders have a right to be skeptical about a new fund following a strategy.
"Hopefully, we can prove that this works to directors and for the shareholders," Eiben said. "If not, then we shouldn't expect to stay around for very long. Shareholders have a right to expect results, and they should expect directors who ask tough questions and demand a lot of management."
Chuck Jaffe is senior columnist at CBS Marketwatch. He can be reached at email@example.com or Box 70, Cohasset, MA 02025-0070.
Copyright 2004, CBS Marketwatch
Home delivery | Contact us | Search archive | Site map | Low-graphic
NWclassifieds | NWsource | Advertising info | The Seattle Times Company
Back to top