lth care and biotech, and high quality government debt over corporates and high-yield issues fared much better than peers that did not.
Given this environment, it's worth seeing how Balanced Managed funds held up. More specifically, which protected capital, and which did not?
Q3 "Winners": We'll put winners in quotes here because unless you had a large bet on the US dollar, invested heavily in biotech or healthcare, or were substantially short the market, you probably lost money. Only three funds beat a simple combination of 50% MSCI World and 50% Lehman Sterling Aggregate Bond Index. This is partly down to the MSCI World having a large US exposure in period when the dollar surged against Sterling, but it isn't very encouraging for a sector that is described as balanced.
The top five funds in the period were CF Arch Cru Balanced, Troy Trojan, CF Miton Special Situations, Fidelity Moneybuilder Balanced, and JP Morgan Balanced Total Return. That doesn't mean that they are the best funds--3 months of performance can't tell you that. Of these, we'd highlight CF Miton Balanced as at least worth a look from cautious investors. Its TER of 2.5% is high for our tastes, but it does offer multi-asset exposure and has done a very good job of balancing returns and risk through time. We find Fidelity Moneybuilder Balanced's low TER of 1.18% much more appealing, but we haven't seen enough of what the recently appointed equity sleeve manager Matt Siddle can do yet to have a strong view on his capabilities.
The worst performers in the quarter contain few surprises. MFM CFS Opportunities rode its large stake in micro-cap issues to a staggering 22.5% loss. The rest of the bottom four are: Scottish Friendly Managed Growth, CF BWH International, New Star Balanced, and CF OPM Balanced Managed. The New Star offering appears to have been hurt by a low allocation to US equities and from a holding in Bill Miller's
A version of this article previously appeared in Investment Adviser, Financial Times Ltd.