To continue using FE Trustnet please choose an edition:

This site uses cookies. Some of the cookies are essential for parts of the site to operate and have already been set. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but if you do, parts of the site may not work. To find out more about cookies on the website and how to delete cookies, see our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

I accept the FE Trustnet cookie policy

For more information Click here

Login

Login

Register

It's look like you're leaving us

What would you like us to do with the funds you've selected

Show me all my options Forget them Save them
Customise this table

Martin: Don’t miss out on a golden decade for equities

The manager of the five crown-rated Neptune UK Mid Cap fund says the last time valuations were this low was in the 1970s, when stock market returns were at their highest.

Thomas McMahon

By Thomas McMahon, Reporter, FE Trustnet
Thursday March 07, 2013

Valuations suggest the UK market is set for a decade of annual returns of up to 10 per cent, according to FE Alpha Manager Mark Martin.

ALT_TAG Negative news about the UK economy has made investors seek refuge in bonds or defensive equity income funds in recent years, or alternatively look abroad to emerging markets.

However, Martin (pictured), who heads up the five crown-rated Neptune UK Mid Cap fund, says that an analysis of the historical link between valuations and stock market returns shows that this is one of the best times to invest since the 1970s – the last period to seem so gloomy economically.

"Over the last 20 to 30 years, when the market has been trading on 12-times P/E [price to earnings], it has been followed by 8 to 9 per cent real total returns for the next 10 years," he said.

"For example from 1974 to 1979 the market was on six- to seven-times P/E and although it didn’t feel like a good time to invest, real returns were over 15 per cent."

"The market was at similar levels to that period in 2009, and now isn’t as good a time to invest as then, but it is infinitely better than in 1997 or 1999 when the market was much more expensive and you ended up with negative annual returns."

"In the short-term you can have markets driven by sentimental indicators and short-term events, but over the long-term, valuations act as a sort of gravity field."

Neptune UK Mid Cap currently has the best three-year returns of any fund in the IMA UK All Companies sector.

It has returned 94.42 per cent over this time, while its FTSE 250 (ex IT) index benchmark has made 59.25 per cent, according to data from FE Analytics.

The fund underperformed its benchmark in the first two and a half years of its life, but has managed to beat it overall.

Performance of fund vs index since launch

ALT_TAG

Source: FE Analytics

Martin says past underperformance came as a result of his rigorous valuations-based approach, which meant he did not fully participate in the QE-fuelled rally in cyclicals.

"For a few years from 2008 and 2009 to the end of 2010, people really thought that QE was going to be the answer to our problems," he said.


"Mid caps performed very strongly and it was cyclical companies and those with the riskiest balance sheets that performed the best, and in general we do not tend to invest in companies which are financially leveraged."

"That type of company over the short-term outperformed because everybody wanted to buy risky companies."

"From 2011 onwards, people started to think that QE wasn’t the solution to all our problems and there were structural issues within the economy, and that started to change."

"We take the longer-term view. I prefer to invest in companies that are pretty high quality for the most part, with strong fundamentals. As the economic cycle has turned, so our relative performance has improved."

The manager says that a valuations-based approach also reduces the volatility in his fund.

"I target valuations and I think that doing this gives me a way to take advantage of volatility."

"Because we focus on valuations and we aren’t going to be caught up by fear and panic, we can turn it to our advantage when everybody is caught up in concerns about the eurozone crisis, for example."

"The mid cap index is pretty cyclical and a lot of the other funds are pretty volatile, but we think this strategy provides balance and offers something different from what other mid cap funds out there do."

Data from FE Analytics shows that Neptune Mid Cap has recorded an annualised volatility of 13.94 per cent over the past three years, significantly less than the 18.43 per cent of the FTSE 250 (ex IT) index.

It made 40.85 per cent in 2012, more than all but two funds in the IMA UK All Companies sector. The FTSE 250 rose 28.71 per cent in this time.

Mid caps have not always outperformed larger companies, as data from FE Analytics shows.

Between January 1990 and December 1999, the FTSE 100 grew 283.5 per cent while the FTSE 250 grew 205.06 per cent.

Performance of indices from 1990 to 1999

ALT_TAG

Source: FE Analytics

Martin says that valuations suggest mid caps' good run can continue.

"If you look at the 'FTSE 80', as I like to call it (the smallest 80 companies on the FTSE 100), it is trading on a forward P/E ratio of 13-times."


"However, the FTSE 250 (ex IT) is on just 12.2-times, so it is cheaper. On the other hand, it is true that the 'FTSE 20' does look cheap, on valuations of 10.4-times forward P/E."

Martin adds that another reason for optimism is the sort of companies in the FTSE 250.

"They tend to be companies focused on niche areas of growth."

"The 250 is overweight industrial engineering and things the UK is good at. There are a lot of firms using cutting-edge scientific knowledge."

Neptune UK Mid Cap is available with a minimum initial investment of £1,000 and has a total expense ratio of 1.67 per cent.

Editors’ Picks

Add your Comments

Step 1: Tell us what you think...

Step 2: Prove you're not a robot...

You don't have to do this every time you submit a comment.
Login or register free and you won't see it again.

Step 3: Submit your comment...

Submit

 
stephen compton Mar 08th, 2013 at 09:42 AM

TER is more like 1.9% according to HL

Reply
Thomas McMahon Mar 08th, 2013 at 10:04 AM

@ Stephen Compton

The 1.67 per cent figure comes from the latest KIID. The charges have recently come down, so maybe some old figures are still out there. I can't answer for HL, though.

Reply
Theo Mar 08th, 2013 at 02:05 PM

In their latest Wealth 150 Report (March 2013) HL show "annual charge" 1.5%. The TER is only revealed to those who go to the trouble of searching their website.

Note they do not call it by its proper name annual management charge, leaving the door open for customers to think it is the total charge for the year. It also makes their miserly rebate of 0.2% (they call it bonus) shown next to it, appear bigger as a proportion. In my view, the marketing ethics of an oriental bazaar.

Reply
TJL Mar 08th, 2013 at 06:25 PM

But is that not the secret of their success?
Marketing, marketing, marketing.
I have been investing since 1997, but have only recently realised that their (free!) Investment Times magazine isn't an educational guide to investing, it's a sales catalogue - very cleverly done I think (or I'm a dope, or a bit of both).
Still, I've paid a lot of commission (don't know how much because they keep it secret), but I'm also quite happy with the profits I've made over the years.

Reply
Ilmarinen Mar 07th, 2013 at 11:57 PM

In other words I agree with TJL.

Reply
Ilmarinen Mar 07th, 2013 at 11:47 PM

It was meant to say in the middle 'Investment managers have to have a view but they do not have to write an essay providing all the opposing views ...'. (Written on a tiny keyboard on a mobile phone.)

Reply
Ilmarinen Mar 07th, 2013 at 11:39 PM

I think some comments here on iambic's comment are unwontedly negative. Regular readers of this site's articles should be used by now to the way most articles proceed, ie by asking the opinion of a fund manager and including within the piece some statistical information about his or her fund. Over time the reader can decide whose line seems most convincing. Investment managers have to have a view but they do not have write essays going over all the opposing view, as some comments seem to expect for some reason. And all iambic was saying (I hope I am not misrepresenting him) was that the article's positive prognosis for the market acts as a counterbalance to the less sanguine voices. (Good handle 'iambic' by the way - and more apt for English than 'trochaic'!)

Reply
TJL Mar 07th, 2013 at 07:22 PM

Normal situation.
An expert (I guess he deserves the title) says one thing, but look around and you'll find another saying the opposite.
And, there are plenty of highly paid 'experts' failing to perform.
Basically, you've got to filter all this information and make your own mind up, or pay an 'expert' to do it for you.

Reply
valiant Mar 07th, 2013 at 04:13 PM

This article should carry an X certificate.

Reply
iambic Mar 07th, 2013 at 04:22 PM

Why? For giving what is only an opinion that you happen to disagree with. Plenty of people are looking for reasons
to stay invested when there are so many doomsters about. This article gives some balance and is helpful to investors like me.

Reply
Truegrid Mar 07th, 2013 at 04:53 PM

It's hardly balanced when the writer suggests no alternatives to his own fund.

Reply
Theo Mar 07th, 2013 at 09:41 PM

Be realistic Truegrid, this is a fund advertising platform, industry does not offer free lunches.

Reply
 

Back to top of page

Videos

Video Archive

 

Funds mentioned in this article

Groups mentioned in this article

Managers mentioned in this article

Poll

 

Question: Following their poor performance this year, are you going to increase your exposure to small cap funds in 2015?

Yes

No

Vote