| NEW YORK
NEW YORK Aug 19 With the Federal Reserve
expected by many to begin increasing interest rates next month,
investors will be looking to the managers of unconstrained bond
funds for protection.
But figuring out what the managers of these "go anywhere
funds" are doing can give investors whiplash: managers are
allowed to buy whatever securities they want whenever they want,
and have carte blanche to do such things as sell Treasury bonds
short and stuff their portfolios with derivatives.
On top of that, the average unconstrained bond fund has 198
percent annual turnover, according to Lipper, meaning that the
securities in the funds in March could have been completely
swapped out by September.
Understanding the mechanics of these funds has gotten so
difficult that even analysts at fund research shops Morningstar
and Lipper can't get a handle on what these portfolios
are doing, analysts told Reuters.
"A lot of promises have been made about unconstrained fixed-
income approaches and those promises have been a lot more
powerful than the level of disclosure that the funds provide,"
said Michael Herbst, an analyst at Chicago-based Morningstar.
Fund companies say that the whole reason investors choose
their funds is because they don't want to be bothered with the
nuances of what the managers are doing.
"When you switch over to an unconstrained portfolio mandate
you are lowering your interest rate risk, but taking on manager
risk," said Anne Walsh, assistant chief investment officer for
fixed income at Guggenheim Investments and co-manager of the
$3.6 billion Guggenheim Macro Opportunities Fund.
If the past few months are an indication, investors are
right to be concerned. Nine of the 10 largest unconstrained bond
funds underperformed the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index in the 12
months ending June 30, as managers bet wrong by positioning
their portfolios for the Fed to raise rates last year, according
Unlike most "core" or intermediate-term bond portfolios,
unconstrained bond funds can have long, short or negative
duration. Duration is a measure of a bond's sensitivity to
interest rate fluctuations, and going shorter or negative
duration is an investment strategy pursued when rates are
expected to rise.
A negative duration bond strategy can give investors a way
to profit from rising rates and lower bond prices by taking a
"short" bond position through Treasuries and/or Eurodollar
futures. Conversely, a negative-duration portfolio could
underperform or even suffer losses if rates fall.
And if the Fed doesn't raise rates, investors in funds
including the Pimco Unconstrained Bond Fund, which had a
negative duration of 0.68 years as of July 31, and the Putnam
Diversified Income Fund, which had a negative duration of 1.54
years as of July 31, will likely be disappointed if bond prices
A Putnam spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail that the company
believes its Diversified Income Fund is well positioned for
investors, given that traditional multi-sector bond funds expose
investors to interest rate risk, while often underusing other
areas of fixed income such as credit risk, prepayment risk and
"There has been much frustration by investors relative to
core bond funds because these unconstrained funds have been
positioned for rising interest rates and we have only seen
Treasuries rally," said Marc Seidner, chief investment officer
for non-traditional strategies and lead portfolio manager of the
$7.9 billion Pimco Unconstrained Bond Fund.
As an example, the $20.4 billion
Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Fund performed well
during the "Taper Tantrum" of the summer of 2013, as it shorted
Treasuries, thus having negative duration, and delivered a
positive return of 1.47 percent. By year end, the fund's total
return was 6.43 percent.
The Goldman portfolio had a negative duration of 5.3 years
at the end of July 2014. However, that same negative duration
turned out to be a two-edged sword: In 2014, the fund was down
0.50 percent, a year that saw the 10-year Treasury yield fall
from 3.029 on December 31, 2013, to 2.172 on December 31, 2014.
"It is not a timing product," said Michael Swell, portfolio
manager of the Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Fund. "We aren't
going to get it right all the time but our investment strategy
is more right than wrong."
As of June 30, the Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Fund had a
positive duration of two years. As of the end of last month,
Goldman Strategic Income's duration was 0.75 years.
While many of these funds' duration can swing wildly from
one month to the next, not all of them disclose their holdings
and their portfolios' duration monthly.
Only 50 percent of funds in Morningstar's "non-traditional
bond fund" category, which includes unconstrained bond funds,
reported their duration to the company every month.
For example, the Virtus Strategic Income Fund
discloses its duration and holdings quarterly.
One example of how difficult it is to discern what is going
on with these funds is with the $994 million Western Asset Total
Return Bond Unconstrained Bond Fund, which held about
17 percent cash as of June 30, according to the firm. But until
Reuters pointed it out, Morningstar's data showed the fund had
over 66 percent cash. Lipper showed that the fund held 90
percent in cash, but the company noted the fund was negative 75
percent in the "other" category.
The Western fund, which like many unconstrained bond funds
uses future contracts and other derivatives widely, was not
including the notional value of these contracts when determining
the entire value of the portfolio, while Morningstar was
including the negative exposure posed by these contracts,
accounting for the discrepancy, said John Martin, a portfolio
data specialist at Morningstar.
The problem is that every fund company discloses and values
its derivatives differently, he said. "It's a foggy area,"
Western said it works with Morningstar and other data
providers to make sure that the characteristics of its funds are
Morningstar changed the cash number for the Western Fund to
16 percent after Reuters discovered the discrepancy.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is working on a
rule to standardize disclosure of how funds use derivatives.
Given the lack of transparency and the latitude that managers
of these funds have, some advisers, like Josh Brown, chief
executive officer of Ritholtz Wealth Management, are telling
their clients to steer clear of these funds.
"Some of these funds will do well, and some won't," he said.
"Based on the limited amount of knowledge about what they are
doing, how can I possibly represent to my clients that I know
which one is going to work?"
(Reporting By Jessica Toonkel and Jennifer Ablan; Editing by