1st Quarter Report - 2010
2nd Quarter Report - 2010
2009
4th Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio - 2009 (pdf link)
3rd Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio - 2009 (pdf link)
2nd Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio - 2009 (pdf link)
1st Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio - 2009 (pdf link)
4th Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio - 2008 (pdf link)
If you can not view this file please download the reader. (download)
3rd Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio - 2008
2nd Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio - 2008
1st Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio - 2008
Previous Years 1998-2008
Please note: The Vertex Balanced Fund has a new name, as of June 1, 2007 it will be referred to as the Vertex Managed Value Portfolio.
3rd Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio- 2008
Although the markets are down this quarter, we’ve never really paid much attention to markets. It’s been said by many before me that it’s a market of stocks not a stock market. What’s implied by this statement is that as investors we have a choice in the companies purchased and of more importance, the price paid for our interest in this fractional ownership. Even the greatest company in the world is a terrible investment at too high a price and a mediocre business can be a great investment when it can be purchased at a fraction of its worth. Often an opportunity shows up to buy a mediocre company at a big discount but seldom does one get an opportunity to purchase a great company at that same large discount. Fortunately for investors, both opportunities are showing up in abundance after many years of up markets. Fear has finally trumped greed and this is why I’m very excited as an investor.
For those of you who haven’t read my previous reports, I’ll reiterate I’m not hot on prospects for most Canadian stocks. Where the real bargains, where real value has been showing up, is in the most denigrated and defamed market of stocks in the world…..this is the market of stocks that belongs to our southern neighbor. The reason for this is simple; America’s problems have been well documented by every media source around the globe for two years now. Fear priced into these stocks is so great that literally, if the world were going into a depression tomorrow, countless stocks are already there in terms of pricing. Most other major economies have been in denial about their own vulnerability to economic downturns. As the reality of this vulnerability sets in, Canada, Europe, and Asia look increasingly less attractive and that in its own right tips the value scale in America’s favour. While on this subject I must confess that this is an unpopular view. Investing, however, is not about winning a popularity contest, it’s about managing downside risk while focusing on growing wealth to achieve an adequate return for the risk one is exposed to.
With the paragraphs above as preamble, I want to cover two subjects pertinent to understanding the management of your fund:
First is fixed income. Last quarter, I made reference to the fact that yields on many good quality companies’ common stock is considerably higher than Government bonds. What I failed to mention previously was the risk level in owning many corporate bonds has gone up without enough of a commensurate rise in yields as evidenced by some major corporate bond collapses in recent months. In addition, yields on government bonds reflect a flight to quality, not value, thus masking the potential risk of a significant rise in interest rates. I don’t believe a rise in rates is imminent but risk verses return is skewed drastically against with yields of only 3.6% for a 10 year Canadian bond. Accordingly, bond weightings have been reduced in favour of equities with sturdy yields. Although these adjustments were discussed in your last quarterly update, it’s worth highlighting again. To conclude on this subject, with very low yields, bonds other than short term Government guarantees are more risky than high quality stocks and unfortunately those short term Government guarantees yield only about two and one half percent. South of the border, they yield one and one half percent.
Second are equities or stocks as most call them. As BCE closed in on $40 a share in August, all BCE shares were sold. Also sold was our entire holding in Sceptre Investment Counsel. The proceeds from these sales were moved into a diversified portfolio (diversified meaning many small positions) of US regional banks, US and international commercial banks and some small diversified financial firms. I’ll address this portfolio change in two parts - the reasons for the sales and the reasons for the purchases. Both Sceptre and BCE served your portfolio well. BCE paid us a very attractive dividend and since our purchase price was close to $30, a capital gain of almost $8 per share was recorded. The most investors were to receive for BCE was $2.75 higher than our sale price, (the Teachers Pension takeover price of $42.75) the dividend had been eliminated and opportunities with radically higher returns were showing up south of our border. Sceptre had also served us very well. Sceptre was purchased as it was turning around on better investment performance and ran very well with the concomitant rise in the TSX index. The firm paid us a very high dividend on top. Performance is now significantly lagging and with the TSX declining in value so is their asset base. Next shoe to drop is the inevitable large redemptions. Your penman has had very recent and vivid experience how this story unfolds. To be short - assets under management will be reduced appreciably leading to a lower stock price.
On the buy side, referring back to paragraph one, the place where maximum fear exists and thus maximum discounts to value to be found is in financials and especially so those of our neighbor. Many of these firms are trading at enormous discounts to book and tangible book value leading to a large opportunity at an even larger margin of safety. Not that there is ever a time but this is certainly a time not to run with the herd. It is time to stand up and make investment choices that will pay off when this financial crisis comes to a close. Interestingly, many of you may have noticed that the “markets” have had the worst quarter in modern history while your fund went up 7.9%. More to the point, these investments are already working.
PERFORMANCE
| VERTEX MANAGED VALUE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE (Class A) |
| 3 Mos. |
1 Yr.* |
2 Yrs.* |
3 Yrs.* |
5 Yrs.* |
Since Inception* |
| 7.90% |
-1.57% |
-2.70% |
0.42% |
4.87% |
7.57% |
| Rate of Return September 30, 2008: Net Asset Value $12.5042* |
*Annualized
Past performance is not indicative of future results
All data based on the Class A unit values
The holdings in the Vertex Managed Value Portfolio at September 30th, 2008 include:
| Fairfax Financial Holdings |
Walt Disney Co. |
Manitoba Tel |
| Montpelier Re Holdings |
Pfizer Inc. |
Zions Bancorporation |
| Mattel Inc. |
Ingersoll-Rand Co. |
Sun Trust Banks Inc. |
| IPC Holdings Ltd. |
Odyssey Re Holdings |
JP Morgan Chase |
| Johnson & Johnson |
Seamark Asset Mgmt. |
Bank of America |
| Partner Re Ltd. |
Merck & Co. |
QLT Inc. |
ASSET MIX
Cash 0%
Fixed Income
Canadian 12.2%
Foreign 4.8%
Canadian Equities 17%
Foreign Equities 66%
Vertex One Asset Management

2nd Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio- 2008
Expect the Expected
A year ago today I wrote in your June 30th quarterly report about investors’ “entitlement to high returns”. Certainly it was not my expectation that I would be reporting to you a negative 18.5% return one year since writing that particular piece. My investment philosophy has as one of its core principles “expect the unexpected” and thus in general terms to do the opposite of what newspaper headlines would imply one should do. Over the last few years however, it has really paid off to “expect the expected” – that is to do exactly what newspaper headlines have implied one should do….to keep buying stocks with positive headlines and selling everything else. Although our companies have generally been subject to good news, this news has been relegated to the back page. Front page news has been dominated by two stories: Credit Crisis and Energy Crisis – the key word is “crisis”. There simply hasn’t been a crisis, positive or negative, within our portfolio of stocks.
Let’s do a brief review of what’s happened year to date:
Fairfax Financial traded December 31, 2007 at $287 a share. The company reported spectacular diluted earnings per share of $33.78 in Q1 and looks like they very well could repeat this in Q2. Fairfax trades today at $268 - below its book value and down from year end. Our other insurance companies have also had similar positive but not such spectacular results yet their stock price performance to June 30th has been as follows: Fairfax (-9%), Partner Re (-16%), Montpelier Re (-13%), IPC Financial (-8%) and Odyssey Re 0%. These firms have extremely strong balance sheets and like Fairfax trade below book value - most below tangible book and with low single digit price earnings multiples. Based on these incredible value metrics, Property and Casualty insurance companies make up our largest equity commitments.
Our next biggest commitment is pharma/healthcare. These stocks have simply been subject to no real news at all. Thus despite trading at very low double digit or single digit price earnings multiples with huge dividends and impenetrable balance sheets, stock price performance has been as follows: Pfizer (-23%), Merck (-35%) and Johnson & Johnson (-3%). We added Bristol Myers during the quarter and are up since our purchase but its stock price decline since January has mirrored Pfizer and Merck.
Others in the portfolio include Ingersoll Rand and BCE. Ingersoll Rand is down 23%, with a price earnings multiple of 9 times and trading close to book value with an earnings per share growth rate well into the double digits. Recently Ingersoll Rand completed its acquisition of Trane making it a power house in refrigeration and air conditioning and this should bode very well for the company going forward. BCE is flat at $39 year to date. Fortunately, most hurdles to closing their $42.75 deal with Teachers’ Pension have been removed and it looks likely BCE will close by year end yielding us a decent return from here.
Our last two major holdings are Disney (down 3.5%) and Mattel (down 10.5%) both incredibly strong franchises trading at 12 and 10 price to earnings multiples respectively. Mattel is the only company we own subject to a disappointment in Q1. Reality is every company runs into headwinds from time to time as all companies enjoying tail winds today inevitably will. Overall, within the context of a weakening global economy, to have one disappointment in a quarter is fine with me.
With regard to our mix of investments, bonds have been reduced in favour of equities with high yields. Government bonds now yield about three and a half percent. Regardless of one’s view on inflation, 3.5% doesn’t get us very excited especially when we can achieve yields in excess of 3.5% from stocks. Mattel yields 4%, Pfizer yields 7%, Manitoba Tel yields 6.3%, Seamark yields 4.6%, Sceptre yields 5.7%, CI Funds yields 9.7%, Merck yields 4.1% and Bristol Myers yields 5.8%. Johnson & Johnson, Partner Re, Montpelier Re, IPC Financial all are between 2% and 3%. There is more to this story than just the current dividend yield. Dividend growth rates for our companies are listed below:
|
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mattel |
0.4 |
0.45 |
0.5 |
0.65 |
0.75 |
0.75 |
| Partner Re |
1.2 |
1.36 |
1.52 |
1.6 |
1.72 |
1.84 |
| Fairfax |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
2.75 |
5 |
| IPC |
0.72 |
0.88 |
0.88 |
0.64 |
0.8 |
0.88 |
| Manitoba Tel |
0.94 |
1.8 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
| Pfizer |
0.6 |
0.68 |
0.76 |
1.01 |
1.19 |
1.28 |
| Merck |
1.46 |
1.5 |
1.52 |
1.52 |
1.52 |
1.52 |
| J&J |
0.93 |
1.09 |
1.27 |
1.46 |
1.62 |
1.84 |
| CI |
0.32 |
0.45 |
0.6 |
0.66 |
2.21 |
2.04 |
| Sceptre |
0.24 |
0.24 |
0.24 |
0.28 |
0.28 |
0.48 |
| Bristol Myers |
1.12 |
1.12 |
1.12 |
1.12 |
1.15 |
1.24 |
| Disney |
0.21 |
0.21 |
0.24 |
0.27 |
0.31 |
0.35 |
| Ingersoll Rand |
0.36 |
0.44 |
0.57 |
0.68 |
0.72 |
0.72 |
| Odyssey Re |
0.11 |
0.12 |
0.12 |
0.12 |
0.25 |
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seamark |
0.89 |
0.94 |
1.04 |
0.41 |
0.28 |
0.28 |
| Montpelier Re |
0.34 |
1.36 |
*6.66 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
*Special Dividend
You’ll note that only two companies in our portfolio (Seamark and Montpelier Re) have reduced their dividends. The increase in dividends of the other companies makes these reductions immaterial. It’s also apparent that when bond yields are low and stock yields are high and rising, it makes little sense to own bonds.
PERFORMANCE
| VERTEX MANAGED VALUE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE (Class A) |
| 3 Mos. |
1 Yr.* |
2 Yrs.* |
3 Yrs.* |
5 Yrs.* |
Since Inception* |
| -6.10% |
-18.50% |
-1.83% |
-1.52% |
4.08% |
6.97% |
| Rate of Return June 30, 2008: Net Asset Value $11.5899* |
*Annualized
Past performance is not indicative of future results
All data based on the Class A unit values
The holdings in the Vertex Managed Value Portfolio at June 30, 2008 include:
| Fairfax Financial Holdings |
IPC Holdings Ltd. |
Sceptre Investment Counsel |
| Montpelier Re Holdings |
Walt Disney Co. |
Merck & Co. |
| Mattel Inc. |
Johnson & Johnson |
QLT Inc. |
| BCE Inc. |
Pfizer Inc. |
Manitoba Tel |
| Partner Re Ltd. |
Odyssey Re Holdings |
Bristol Myers |
| Ingersoll-Rand Co. |
Seamark Asset Mgmt. |
|
ASSET MIX
Cash 0%
Fixed Income
Canadian 15.5%
Foreign 4.5%
Canadian Equities 23%
Foreign Equities 57%
Vertex One Asset Management

1st Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio- 2008
Redemptions or Redemption?
One down year in ten and redemptions have been swifter than the rise of home foreclosures in the USA. There is one universal law that seems as concrete as the Hoover Dam and that’s investors’ propensity to sell low and buy high. Whether its stocks, real estate, investment funds or commodities, “investors” just adore expensive assets and wouldn’t be caught dead with cheap ones. Commodities, once considered the most risky of assets (when they were inexpensive) are now considered a safe haven when at all time highs. In Vancouver, people line up to buy condos that couldn’t be given away in 1999 and line up as well for a chance to flip an entitlement to a condo not yet built…..and they say US real estate was a bubble! Things change, yes they do and when one bubble bursts another is inevitably inflating with a different banner. Some like to blame Greenspan for creating an environment very friendly to bubble propagation. Bubbles, however, are certainly not new and there have been more bubbles in commodities than all other bubbles combined. Greenspan is long gone but don’t be surprised if oil goes to $200. It’s interesting to observe oil market reaction to news - five stories negative for the price of oil and oil doesn’t budge - one story positive and oil goes up $3. People quite simply believe what they want to believe….your penman included. The difference is only that I believe oil should be trading closer to its average inflation adjusted price for most of the last 150 years.
Your fund owns inexpensive assets and I think it’s high time for redemption for your fund not redemptions from your fund. That said and having enunciated many of the same sentiments during the past three years, pessimism regarding the USA hasn’t been higher since the 1970s and euphoria surrounding commodities is unprecedented. Current trends will not persist forever and when the trend turns your fund will perform very well. We’ve had fits and starts since the summer with a 3% return in November and again with a 3% return in March only to be followed by the roar of commodities once again. Unfortunately every time commodities rise it sends our portfolio the other way. Money has to come from somewhere for investors to pour more money into commodities. I can say with a degree of confidence what I and other value managers have had to sell to meet redemptions is then being given to those managers with the best recent performance….those with a significant commodity bias. Supply and demand characteristics being what they are - what has to be sold (value stocks) have a hard time rising in price with the excess selling pressure despite the attractiveness of the underlying businesses. Conversely, the manager receiving proceeds from our sales places those funds in commodities leading to further upward pricing pressure. One only has to observe that the TSX index is now dominated by energy and materials to the extent these two sectors account for 50% of total. This market very much reminds me of 1999 and early 2000 stock markets, the only big difference is the banner of the asset bubble and which currency is rallying. Then it was tech stocks and $US - for the last seven years it’s been commodities and $CA….and every other currency.
Currency has been our nemesis. In hindsight every last dime of our US stock portfolio should have been hedged. Currency has subtracted approximately 30% from your return since the commencement of the $US's decline. Currency hedging always becomes a topic of discussion after a big move in one direction that went against you. Few cared about hedging when the $US was rising against our dollar. There are costs to currency hedging though. It’s a form of insurance and insurance comes at a premium. Currencies fluctuate over time but one thing is for sure - they don’t rise or fall forever as there are equilibrium mechanisms in place that check one way movements. This is why many call it a zero sum game. It’s basic economics. Long term investors know this and also that insurance is very costly whether it’s 1% or so annualized to hedge stock market holdings or another 1% annualized to hedge currency, it will eat into long term investment returns. Think about it this way - what does 1% more on your mortgage cost over its term? It’s a lot and that’s why we all negotiate hard for the lowest rate. In addition to the cost of hedging currency at this point in time, my bias is very much towards the $US. Currencies have to be viewed relative to others and it’s interesting to note Euro-land when compared to the USA on just about every front - debt per capita - productivity - debt to GDP - unemployment……are equal to or worse off than America. Couple this with a doubling of the Euro against $US resulting in Euro-land being even less competitive than it already was and it paints a bleak picture going forward. In Canada, our economy has been gutted outside of the energy and material complex. We are just barely GDP positive at a time when 50% of our exports are energy and materials and these items are at all time highs as previously noted. What this says about the rest of our economy is that it is terminally ill. Thus my thesis is simple - when commodities turn down (and that’s when, not if) our dollar will be slaughtered. There plainly won’t be much of an economy left.
All this being said there have been no material changes in the portfolio since year end. Our companies are doing very well economically and have continued to buy back stock, pay down debt and raise dividends. It’s reassuring to note that even with the massive headwinds thrown at your fund for five years, our annualized return for this period was just under 9%. With a little tail wind (this is a forward looking statement) or as I have mentioned in previous letters, a cessation of hostile headwinds, it will be very refreshing….let’s just leave it at that.
Yours Sincerely,
Matt Wood
PERFORMANCE
| VERTEX MANAGED VALUE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE (Class A) |
| 3 Mos. |
1 Yr.* |
2 Yrs.* |
3 Yrs.* |
5 Yrs.* |
Since Inception* |
| -.58% |
-15.03% |
-1.15% |
-1.55% |
8.83% |
7.83% |
| Rate of Return March 31, 2008: Net Asset Value $12.3417* |
*Annualized
Past performance is not indicative of future results
All data based on the Class A unit values
The holdings in the Vertex Managed Value Portfolio at March 31, 2008 include:
Fairfax Financial Holdings Ingersoll-Rand Co. Odyssey Re Holdings
Montpelier Re Holdings IPC Holdings Ltd. Seamark Asset Mgmt.
Mattel Inc. Walt Disney Co. Sceptre Investment Counsel
BCE Inc. Johnson & Johnson Merck & Co.
Partner Re Ltd. Pfizer Inc. QLT Inc.
ASSET MIX
Cash 0%
Fixed Income
Canadian 20%
Foreign 4%
Canadian Equities 23%
Foreign Equities 53%
Vertex One Asset Management
4th Quarter Report to the Managed Value Portfolio- 2007
One has to go back to 1990 to find lower valuations for Disney (P/E 13.8X), Ingersoll Rand (P/E 11X) and Mattel (P/E 11.5X). One has to go back to 1987 to find lower valuations for Pfizer (P/E 11X) and J&J (P/E 16.5X). One has to go back a decade to find a time when valuations of Property and Casualty Insurance Companies have been this attractive. Our companies have no “sub-prime” exposure, virtually no debt and trade at or below book value with PE ratios of 6X to 9X. These are our major holdings. Unfortunately the data on my Bloomberg doesn’t go back far enough to find when we have last seen such high valuations for Canadian banks (price to book 2.5X to 3X) and commodity firms. It is sufficient to say that it predates my career in the investment business. One has to go back half a millennium to find a time when the US dollar was as low as it is today with respect to Canadian dollars. One has to go back……to the dawn of the age of oil to find higher oil prices - 1869 is the earliest date I could find and yes, that is inflation adjusted. Material commodities reflect the same exuberance as oil. It is with this backdrop that we conclude 2007 (a most rotten year for your fund) and begin 2008, a hopeful year for your fund.
I’m sure if you’ve read our past letters and see how your fund is positioned from the paragraph above, it’s clear that I expect a trading of places at some point. This point though, eludes me. Once the price of an asset de-links from its fundamentals, whether it is price to value with regard to stocks (tech stocks last decade) or in the case of commodities, supply/demand balances, then all bets are off as to where prices are headed. In the case of oil at $100 and gold close to $900, there is really no telling just how high they can go. I’m resigned commodities could triple from here as commodity prices de-linked from supply/demand curves years ago. The new, new, new reason (after China, after India, after “Peak Oil”) for commodities rising has nothing to do with supply/ demand imbalances between producers and users. The newest of new reasons - “investment demand” - is driving prices higher and higher as a hedge against inflation and a weak USD. The most comedic part of this is…….the “worried about inflation” is largely a result of…….rising commodity prices. The higher they go the more inflation, the more commodities are bought leading to higher inflation leading to more buying to hedge more inflation. Wow! Did the chicken or the egg come first? By the time it’s all over, there will be a new chapter for Charles MacKay’s “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”. Remember “investment demand” for tulips?
Our investment style has never been to pick trading points. Our process involves finding value then looking out five years to assess how our companies will perform over that interval. Over short periods there are massive distortions in price per share vs. value per share. A classic case in point is Mattel which is down 22% in a year and is flat over a five year period, despite a return on invested capital over 20%, a return on equity over 20%, a dividend growth rate of 71%, share buy backs of $1.5 billion dollars and an additional $500 million announced. When we first purchased Mattel shares, the company had $1.4 billion in debt now there is $900 million. The company has a dividend yield of 4.25%, roughly the equivalent of government bond yields. Let’s contrast this with CNQ, a Canadian energy company. CNQ is an excellent company – there’s no argument. Last year the stock was up 17%. Over five years it’s up 600%. Shares outstanding are the same so net net share buybacks and issues have been equal. Debt has gone from $4 billion to $10.6 billion, thus debt burden has significantly increased. Return on equity and return on invested capital are about equal to Mattel’s with the slightly better number being Mattel’s. Dividend growth rate is 22% with a yield of .47% which is roughly 1/9th that of Mattel’s. Mattel’s results are despite the trouble they’ve had with Barbie and various other issues. CNQ’s numbers include the best underlying conditions for its business ever. If Mattel simply changed its name to Mattel Oil, it’s stock trajectory would look vastly different.
One only needs to observe a comparison of IPSCO and Nortel over the last 10 years to know how values change with time. IPSCO Inc., a steel company, fell from $40 to $11 in the late nineties while Nortel went from $20 to $123 - a six fold increase. In the short run IPSCO shareholders looked pretty dumb. Subsequently IPSCO was taken over for $160 and today Nortel trades at $1.20 factoring for consolidation. This is how markets work in the long run. As it is often said, investing is a marathon not a sprint. This trading of places was repeated countless times in the last ten years.
Commodities and our related currency and energy/material companies have had a tremendous run these last seven years. With a crystal ball, all our investments would have been in technology until 2000 then quickly moved to commodities and then…….well, it’s hard to predict the next bubble. When the bubble bursts however, a trading of places will occur. The when is only in question. Although last year proved to be our worst ever, I remain confident we have the right investments, not for the last five years (everyone’s loaded to the hilt with those already) but for the next five years which, if history teaches us anything, will be very different from our most recent experience.
PERFORMANCE
| VERTEX MANAGED VALUE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE (Class A) |
| 3 Mos. |
1 Yr.* |
2 Yrs.* |
3 Yrs.* |
5 Yrs.* |
Since Inception* |
| -2.28% |
-14.24% |
0.60% |
2.11% |
7.35% |
8.10% |
| Rate of Return December 31, 2007: Net Asset Value $12.4138** |
*Annualized
**Post Distribution
Past performance is not indicative of future results
All data based on the Class A unit values
The holdings in the Vertex Managed Value Portfolio at December 31, 2007 include:
Fairfax Financial Holdings IPC Holdings Ltd. Odyssey Re
Montpelier Re Ingersoll-Rand Co. Seamark Asset Mgmt.
Partner Re Walt Disney Co. Sceptre Asset Mgmt.
BCE Inc. Mattel Inc. QLT Inc.
Pfizer Inc. Merck & Co.
Johnson & Johnson Manitoba Telecom
ASSET MIX
Cash 0%
Fixed Income
Canadian 17%
Foreign 8%
Canadian Equities 29%
Foreign Equities 46%
Vertex One Asset Management
Disclaimer:
This site is intended to provide you with information about Vertex One, the Vertex Fund and the Vertex Managed Value Portfolio. Important information about the Funds is contained in the Offering Memorandum which should be read carefully before investing. You can obtain an offering memorandum from Vertex One Asset Management Inc. The Offering Memorandum for Vertex One Asset Management Inc.’s Investment Funds does not constitute an offer or solicitation to anyone in any jurisdiction in which such an offer or solicitation is not authorized or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer or solicitation.
The indicated rates of return are the historical annual compounded total returns for the period indicated, including changes in security value and the reinvestment of all distributions and do not take into account income taxes payable that would have reduced returns. The funds are not guaranteed; their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated.
All performance data contained on this site represents past performance. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.