|
|
Get Four
|  | MAY 19, 2004
 FUND Q&A A Mortgage Fund on a Sound Footing Jeffrey Gundlach of TCW Galileo Total Return Bond explains how his award-winning fund earns top marks and beats its peers Although the mortgage-refinancing business has recently crashed due to higher interest rates, the $208 million TCW Galileo Total Return Bond Fund (TGLMX ), which invests exclusively in mortgage securities, has withstood the vicissitudes of refinancings and rising rates by focusing on moderate-duration exposure and minimum credit and prepayment risk. Under lead manager Jeffrey Gundlach, the fund has outperformed its peer group in the short and long term. For the three-year period through April, it returned an average annualized 7.4%, vs. a 5% rise for its peers. The portfolio has also handily beaten its peers for the 5- and 10-year periods. In addition, TCW Galileo Total Return carries a low expense ratio of just 0.44%, vs. 1.05% for the peer group. In March, the fund's fine long-term performance record earned Gundlach and his team a 2004 S&P/BusinessWeek Excellence in Fund Management Award. Palash R. Ghosh of S&P's Fund Advisor spoke recently with Gundlach about his strategy. Edited excerpts from their conversation follow: Q: What kind of securities do you invest in? A: Strictly in mortgage-backed securities of any maturity, which are guaranteed by the U.S. government, or in privately issued mortgage-backed securities rated at least AA by Standard & Poor's. We take no credit risk, nor do we invest in other kinds of fixed-income securities. We invest in relatively cheap securities that provide a yield similar to the overall mortgage sector but with a lower degree of prepayment risk. Q: How would you describe the portfolio currently? A: As of Mar. 31, the fund held 67 securities, had an average yield of 5.77%, and an average duration of four years. Our portfolio is constructed to have a weighted average duration of less than eight years. Q: What are the fund's objectives? A: We like to compare ourselves with the PIMCO Total Return Fund (PTTAX ) and the Vanguard GNMA Fund (VFIIX ) over rolling three-year periods. We seek to equal or outperform the PIMCO fund's returns, while providing less risk. And to outperform the Vanguard fund, while keeping a similar risk profile. Q: What happened to the mortgage-refinancing boom we experienced a year ago? And how has this affected your fund? A: The mortgage-refinancing boom was in place until July, 2003, coinciding with interest rates bottoming. Prior to this, the mortgage market was very short-term. It got down to a duration of about one year at one point, while other bond sectors had a duration of about four years. This difference resulted in much lower volatility and a much lower yield for mortgage-backed securities. When the refinancing picture changed, the mortgage market started to get longer-term. Because we have less risk relative to the variability of prepayments, when interest rates rose in 2003, we were in a position to buy more undervalued securities. After rates increased in the latter half of 2003, mortgage-backed securities declined in value. We bought securities trading at substantial discounts to par -- at, say, 87 cents on the dollar. These securities tended to be 10-year agency collateralized mortgage obligations [CMOs are mortgage-backed securities that separate mortgage pools into short, medium, and long-term portions] backed by 15-year mortgages. By buying cheap CMOs, we minimized exposure to prepayment risk and positioned ourselves well for the refinancing problems afflicting the mortgage sector. Relative to other fixed-income sectors, our fund benefited from having a low duration since yields rose a bit in 2003. Q: How have the components of your portfolio changed over the past year? A: At the beginning of 2003, everything in the mortgage-backed securities market was priced at a premium [above par] since rates were so low. In early 2003, we were invested heavily in adjustable-rate mortgage-backed securities knowing the rate environment would probably change. By the end of 2003, the fund had 31.8% of its assets invested in adjustable-rate mortgages, 29% in CMOs, and 27.3% in pass-throughs [mortgage-backed securities in which the principal and interest payments from homeowners are passed to investors from the banks, mortgage bankers, or savings and loans that originated the mortgages]. At the end of March, 2004, we had 32.2% in CMOs, 29.9% in adjustables, and 25.3% in pass-throughs. Q: How have mortgage-backed bonds performed recently? A: Bond returns, as a whole, were low in 2003 and will likely fall further this year. Through the end of April, the Lehman Aggregate Index, government bonds, and corporate bonds have all been essentially flat, while mortgage-backed securities were nominally up. What distinguishes mortgage-backed securities is that they have lower volatility. Q: What advantages does a mortgage-backed securities fund have over a more diversified bond fund? A: Mortgages have the highest risk-adjusted returns of any asset class. Mortgage-backed securities tend to outperform other bond sectors on a risk-adjusted basis -- regardless of the market environment -- because of their relationship between yield [return] and duration. Today, mortgage-backed securities yield about 5.5%, while the duration is 4, a ratio of about 1.3. By comparison, Treasuries have a yield of 3.5% and a duration of 5.4, a ratio much worse, below 0.7. Corporate bonds yield 4.5%, but their duration is 6. The ratio is again below 1. This relationship -- return to volatility -- is consistent over time, and is most attractive for mortgage-backed securities. Q: Why have you outperformed other mortgage-backed securities funds in the short and long term? A: It's because of our focus on less prepayment risk and less extension risk when rates go up. Our assumption is that investors who take on above-average prepayment risk are, on average, in a losing proposition. This is also why our fund has a far lower turnover rate than our peers. Q: What's your view on interest rates? A: It's clear that we're looking at a period of rising interest rates and rising inflation over the next few years. This presents bad news for all bond funds in the short term, but less so for my fund. Consider this: Rates bottomed on June 13, 2003. Since that time through Apr. 30, 2004, rates increased by 150 basis points. Over that period, the PIMCO Total Return Bond Fund was down 0.2%, the Vanguard Ginnie Mae Fund declined 0.2%, while our fund rose by 1.4%. Bonds will all drop in price when rates rise. But by how much? The answer is duration. Our fund typically has a lower duration than the PIMCO fund and similar duration to the Vanguard fund.  All of the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect the research analyst's personal views regarding any and all of the subject securities or issuers. No part of analyst compensation was, is or will be, directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this research report. Standard & Poor's Regulatory Disclosure Any advice, analysis, or recommendations contained in articles labeled "Insight from Standard & Poor's" reflect the views of Standard & Poor's, which operates separately from and independently of BusinessWeek Online. It is possible that BWOL may from time to time publish information that is not consistent with advice, analysis, or recommendations that are published by Standard & Poor's. Standard & Poor's and BusinessWeek Online are each units of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
BW MALL
SPONSORED LINKS
Get BusinessWeek directly on your desktop with our RSS feeds.
Buy a link now! Add BusinessWeek news to your Web site with our headline feed. Click to buy an e-print or reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story or video. To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please click here. Learn more, go to the BusinessWeekOnline home page  | | |
 Copyright 2004, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version
