# Mawer Canadian Equity



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

OK, all of you 'Couch Potato' investors, explain to me why your choice of Canadian Equity ETF(s) is superior to putting your money in the Mawer Canadian Equity Fund which seems to consistently outperform the Canadian equity index.

http://www.mawer.com/mutual-funds/fund-profiles/mawer-canadian-equity-fund/

Just wondering.

Oh, and while we're at it, explain to us how your international ETF(s) are a better choice than the Mawer International Equity Fund which also consistently outperforms the related index.

http://www.mawer.com/mutual-funds/fund-profiles/mawer-international-equity-fund/

V-e-r-r-r-r-y interesting!!!


----------



## nakedput (Jan 2, 2013)

I looked at the website and the MER is a lot higher. When your dealing with a lot of capital, those expense fees make a huge difference.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

belguy, this could go on all day ..
you want me to pick a fund that beat the tsx and ask why we didn't buy it too ?
something always beats the index

the mawer fund you reference is noticeably light on materials and commodities which dragged down xiu for example


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

nakedput said:


> I looked at the website and the MER is a lot higher. When your dealing with a lot of capital, those expense fees make a huge difference.


I don't see where fees matter one heck of a lot when the performance AFTER FEES is superior.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

I'm a big fan of Mawer funds - good passive funds, relatively low MER's. I have purhased Mawer Balanced RSP MAW 104(?) and Mawer Equity in my RSP's. They have done very well, and suit me given that I accept some $ will go to managers in the MER. They often win top scores with Morningstar who evaluate annual fund performance. Perhaps, some investors can do better, some will do worse, but I consider these funds to be about as good as it gets among MF's.

PS: Rob Carrick recoemmended Mawer Int Equity as a good fund to gain International exposure in one's pf


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Note to fatcat: 

Well, you have to have a great deal of patience because these two funds outperformed the indexes over one, three, five, and ten year periods.

What more do you want? Perhaps a twenty year comparison????

If I can find relatively low fee funds with that kind of consistency, I sit up and take notice.

Perhaps this is an argument in favour of a mix of low fee managed funds plus some ETF's for emerging markets, specialty and sector investing rather than a rigid dogma against ANY and ALL managed funds.

My entire point is to keep an open mind when it comes to selecting funds for your portfolio.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Belguy said:


> Note to fatcat:
> 
> Well, you have to have a great deal of patience because these two funds outperformed the indexes over one, three, five, and ten year periods.
> 
> What more do you want? Perhaps a twenty year comparison????


Past performance is not indicative of future returns.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

More than just looking at various periods ending today, it's probably better to compare in each calendar year how the fund performed. It's possible for a fund to have outperformed over 1, 3, 5 and 10 years based entirely on a lucky guess last month, and if you exclude that month, 1,3,5,10 years would be below the index.

I personally don't have a huge problem with Mawer. Their fees are moderate and they actually deliver some results. But you're gambling that they can continue to generate a lot more alpha than they eat up in fees. It's possible, but not necessarily likely.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

none said:


> Past performance is not indicative of future returns.


But I would argue that superior performance, over a ten year period, at a relatively low fee, is worthy of some consideration.

And, to andrewf, those year by year comparisons should be easy enough to come by.

Also, can't one have a form of 'Easy Chair' Portfolio that includes one or two low fee, top performing managed funds or is that an oxymoron?

There are a handful of such low fee family of managed funds out there whose performance results might be worthy of consideration.

Just sayin'.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Mawer is a class act. Their stellar performance is not a fluke. They are a low-fee, low-turnover, value shop.


----------



## MRT (Apr 8, 2013)

MERs for Mawer's funds are significantly higher than those of Vanguard's ETFs.

personally, and this is just for me, I'll take the certain savings in fees over the uncertain difference in future returns. 

I think there is a 5k min. investment with each of Mawer's funds, which may or may not make a difference for someone.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

andrewf said:


> More than just looking at various periods ending today, it's probably better to compare in each calendar year how the fund performed. It's possible for a fund to have outperformed over 1, 3, 5 and 10 years based entirely on a lucky guess last month, and if you exclude that month, 1,3,5,10 years would be below the index.


They've been very consistent for a long time, across all asset classes. They do exceptionally well in down years.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

And while I am acting as a salesman for Mawer, here is another of their funds to consider--the Mawer Global Small Cap Fund:

http://www.mawer.com/mutual-funds/fund-profiles/mawer-global-small-cap-fund/

It has consistently outperformed the related index over a five year period.

And, for your fixed income allocation, how about the Steadyhand Income fund?

http://www.steadyhand.com/funds/income/

Do you have a fixed income investment that you like better?


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

The Mawer New Canada Fund is another excellent fund from Mawer but, unfortunately, it is capped to new investors.

http://www.mawer.com/mutual-funds/fund-profiles/mawer-new-canada-fund/

Is anyone aware of whether this fund is ever opened up to new investors for limited time periods?

Dang, I should have got in on it while the gettin' was good!!:upset::frown::frown-new::grumpy:

Maybe they could let me in in consideration of the promotion that I am doing on their fund family.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Belguy said:


> The Mawer New Canada Fund is another excellent fund from Mawer but, unfortunately, it is capped to new investors.
> Maybe they could let me in in consideration of the promotion that I am doing on their fund family.


https://www.google.ca/finance?q=MUTF_CA:MAW104&ei=y_SHUfi0C6eQiQKWSg

Look up Mawer Cdn Balanced fund - it's top 10 holdings are Mawer funds, including New canada (albeit, quite a small %)

Look at the returns - they are reasonable - 
MER is 0.78% (but check to see that you do not pay a trailer fee of any kind to your broker)
The fund is 10% cash right now - 
This fund is 33% in the US & Int Equity markets right now.

This is a good "all-in-one" fund IMO, yes you pay a fee, but that fee is reasonable given peformance IMO


----------



## Squash500 (May 16, 2009)

dubmac said:


> https://www.google.ca/finance?q=MUTF_CA:MAW104&ei=y_SHUfi0C6eQiQKWSg
> 
> Look up Mawer Cdn Balanced fund - it's top 10 holdings are Mawer funds, including New canada (albeit, quite a small %)
> 
> ...


 That 10% cash is the exact reason why I won't invest in any mutual funds. I like the fact that ETFS are fully invested and transparent at all times.

The XTR (for example) holds no cash in its ETF whatsoever.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Here is a cautionary tale and a point that some of you are making:

http://www.thestar.com/business/per...t_funds_10_years_later_bad_bad_and_worse.html

Buyer beware.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Squash500 said:


> That 10% cash is the exact reason why I won't invest in any mutual funds. I like the fact that ETFS are fully invested and transparent at all times.
> 
> The XTR (for example) holds no cash in its ETF whatsoever.


So, don't you have any allocation to 'cash' in your portfolio? Most advice that I've read suggests that you should have some. Ten per cent is often mentioned. I have a 10 per cent allocation in a HISA.

--Is anyone considering investing in any of the Mawer funds linked to above as opposed to an ETF that tracks the related indexes?


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Belguy said:


> --Is anyone considering investing in any of the Mawer funds linked to above as opposed to an ETF that tracks the related indexes?


Yes. Their balanced fund trounced my couch potato portfolio on 5 and 10 year basis (after fees). If and when I get tired of DIY investing, I may consider dumping the entire portfolio in two funds:

Registered accounts: Mawer Balanced
Taxable accounts: Mawer Tax-Advantaged Balanced

I would not consider mixing and matching their individual funds on my own.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

belguy, i agree that we should all keep open minds and not get locked into any one view
but as others have said "past performance is no indication etc etc ...."
diy investors have a well known bias to gravitate to funds and equities that have had really good past returns

as far as i can tell their canadian equity that you reference has all the usual suspects in it but a lot less in materials which makes it less sensitive to commodity ups and downs which is probably a very good idea

based on what others have said, i will give these guys a look, they sound like a good shop


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

What I think is interesting about these debates is it's extremely difficult to separate knowledge with luck. Sure you can point to the 10 year period and say 'it's not just luck" as obviously the managers do have a high level of skill. However, do they have enough skill to beat the market going forward or is it skill and a dash of luck that has kept them ahead? It's difficult to tell.

What I think is useful is to look at the theoretic underpinnings of stock market prediction. I think we can all agree that predicting the market is extremely difficult to do consistently over the long term - hence, the theory of the couch potato indicated following that strategy is likely the best method to achieve the greatest gains over a long period of time.

20 % of Managed funds however, have shown to only beat the index each year (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2012/08/20/index-fund-portfolios-reign-superior/2/) and a few funds will beat the index consistently over 10 years. Luck or skill? It's your call but a lot of people would suggest that it takes skill to match the index and luck to beat it.

anyway, interesting forbes read anyway.


----------



## Squash500 (May 16, 2009)

Belguy said:


> So, don't you have any allocation to 'cash' in your portfolio? Most advice that I've read suggests that you should have some. Ten per cent is often mentioned. I have a 10 per cent allocation in a HISA.
> 
> --Is anyone considering investing in any of the Mawer funds linked to above as opposed to an ETF that tracks the related indexes?


 I have about a 10-15% cash allocation in my portfolio in the form of HISA and a GIC. I think it's a waste of money to pay a fund manager to hold cash in his/her mutual fund.

Another problem is that TDW charges an extra fee to hold funds in your discount brokerage account that don't pay them a trailer.... such as Mawer and Steadyhand etc.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Squash500 said:


> Another problem is that TDW charges an extra fee to hold funds in your discount brokerage account that don't pay them a trailer.


No they don't. They charge a fee to sell them. $45 the last time I checked.


----------



## Squash500 (May 16, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> No they don't. They charge a fee to sell them. $45 the last time I checked.


 Just called TDW. For example....MAW 104....Mawer Balanced class A. Minimum $5000 investment with a mandatory 90 day hold or else you pay a 2% early redemption fee. You also have to pay a $45 fee when you sell the fund. All I can say is thank goodness I don't invest in mutual funds anymore--LOL. At least with ETFS...you can buy and sell the same day if you want too....with none of this 30 and 90 day mandatory holding nonsense etc.


----------



## PharmD (Dec 21, 2011)

Belguy,

I hold the Steadyhand Income Fund and it has been stellar, but I would caution against measuring it against straight fixed income investments as it also holds some REIT's and dividend equities. I have also seen it compared to balanced funds, but it's clearly not that either, but something in between. Along with Mawer I can say with confidence that Steadyhand is a class act and I couldn't be happier with my experience dealing with them.


----------



## Squash500 (May 16, 2009)

PharmD said:


> Belguy,
> 
> I hold the Steadyhand Income Fund and it has been stellar, but I would caution against measuring it against straight fixed income investments as it also holds some REIT's and dividend equities. I have also seen it compared to balanced funds, but it's clearly not that either, but something in between. Along with Mawer I can say with confidence that Steadyhand is a class act and I couldn't be happier with my experience dealing with them.


 If you want to hold Steadyhand mutual funds at TDW it's a minimum $10000 initial investment per fund. I agree with you that Steadyhand is an excellent company but as you said...there's no appropriate benchmark to measure it against.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Squash500 said:


> At least with ETFS...you can buy and sell the same day if you want too....with none of this 30 and 90 day mandatory holding nonsense etc.


And don't forget, you'll pay for that too!


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Mutual funds still have their place in the portfolio IMO. ETFs are not a clear winner, there can be drawbacks and there is some gray areas which still need to be better defined, well, for me at least.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Squash500 said:


> Minimum $5000 investment with a mandatory 90 day hold or else you pay a 2% early redemption fee.


Perfect! 90 day minimum hold protects the interests of the long term investors. The hacks who buy and sell on a whim can take their business elsewhere.


----------



## Squash500 (May 16, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> Perfect! 90 day minimum hold protects the interests of the long term investors. The hacks who buy and sell on a whim can take their business elsewhere.


 It's not that TDW cares about the MF investors at all. They just want to make sure that they get their trailer fees for doing absolutely nothing---LOL. ETFS are for long term investors as well...it's just that we don't have to be burdened by those dumb mutual fund minimum holding rules.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Squash500 said:


> It's not that TDW cares about the MF investors at all. They just want to make sure that they get their trailer fees


Mawer doesn't pay trailer fees.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

All MF's will get yer money when they charge their fees - that's a given. The fact that they carry 10% in cash, IMO, suggests that they will ready for a drop in the market, and able to buy low. The fact they have cash is not a negative - many individual investors have cash on hand for the same reason. MAW104 (cdn balanced) has a about 33% in bonds, 30% on Int and US equity, 28% in Cdn equity, and 10% cash - a diversification that is quite common given couch potato methods and advice. I have few accounts that I actively manage, but my RRSP is one that want to earn as much interest and bond income as I can, while getting some boost from foreign sources )US and Int) - I'm OK with Mawer finding good foreign sources and hopefully adding some boost to the fund in my RRSP.

That said - I'm not big on MF's - I hate the fact that Cdn MF's charge so much more in fees that others (in US). 

I am looking to invest through a Vanguard ETF (VIX, or VXUS) or Mawer Int Equity. I am leaning to buying these in my TFSA and investment account(s). They do well, and they charge very little.


----------



## Squash500 (May 16, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> Mawer doesn't pay trailer fees.


 Fair enough. However that mandatory 90 day hold and $5000 minimum investment is IMHO an onerous burden to have to deal with. If the fund tanks you have to pay a minimum $100 to get out before the 90 days (2% of $5000) as well as that extra $45 fee to sell the fund. Therefore TDW could earn $145 for giving absolutely no advice whatsoever.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

The main reason why I do not invest in balanced funds is that we pay that fee for BOTH the equity portion (which is OK by me) AND for the bond portion which, given current yields, is far too onerous for my liking.

I would prefer to buy my equity and fixed income investments separately and thereby pay a more reasonable fee for the fixed income portion. This then would mean that I would stay away from something like the Steadyhand Income Fund and/or the Mawer Balanced Fund.

Does this make sense?

Also, I don't know whether this amounts to chasing after performance, but I am thinking of splitting my international equity investments between VEA, which I hold now, and adding in some of the Mawer International Equity Fund and maybe adding in a smaller allocation to the Mawer Global Small Cap.

Does this sound reasonable?


----------



## Squash500 (May 16, 2009)

Belguy said:


> The main reason why I do not invest in balanced funds is that I pay that fee for both the equity portion (which is OK by me) and for the bond portion which, given current yields, is far too onerous for my liking.
> 
> I would prefer to buy my equity and fixed income investments separately and thereby pay a more reasonable fee for the fixed income portion. This then would mean that I would stay away from something like the Steadyhand Income Fund.
> 
> ...


 You make sense Belguy. I own a decent sized position in the XTR. I only paid a $9.99 commission to buy and the XTR only has an MER of 0.57% and it is very well diversified and fully invested. Meaning the XTR has no cash in the fund at all which IMHO is a good thing.

I guess what I'm trying to say...is that the XTR is a decent alternative to the MAW 104.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

XTR pays unsustainable distributions. This was explained to you gazillion times, by a few different members.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

The negatives of XTR explained:

http://www.berkes.ca/archive/XTR_analysis.pdf


----------



## Squash500 (May 16, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> XTR pays unsustainable distributions. This was explained to you gazillion times, by a few different members.


 However the XTR has paid the same .06 per unit monthly distribution for over two years now and the price of the fund has actually increased as well to an almost 52 week high.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

The equity portion of XTR has to return 10%+ each and every year to sustain the distributions. The bull market of the last two years won't last forever. Watch out for a distribution cut when bull turns to bear.


----------



## Squash500 (May 16, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> The equity portion of XTR has to return 10%+ each and every year to sustain the distributions. The bull market of the last two years won't last forever. Watch out for a distribution cut when bull turns to bear.


 I agree with you that a distribution cut could happen at any time. However IMHO the XTR is a much better alternative then buying a 1 year GIC and only earning 1.48%. I also check the ishares website everyday to see what ETF's (including exact percentages) are in the XTR. The ishares website is very transparent unlike the Mawer website (for example) where you don't even know exactly what's in the Mawer balanced fund etc. You usually only get the top 10 holdings of these MF's which is totally unacceptable IMHO.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Squash500 said:


> the XTR is a much better alternative then buying a 1 year GIC


Apples and oranges. No, scratch that. Apples and cauliflower. XTR and GIC are two different asset classes.



Squash500 said:


> The ishares website is very transparent


The web site may be transparent, but XTR distribution policy is anything but. It's borderline dishonest.


----------



## OntFA (May 19, 2009)

Folks, somebody mentioned the Easy Chair portfolio, which I first read about by that name in articles and a book written by former Toronto Star columnists. I thought they had created a mutual fund version so I googled Easy Chair Mutual Fund Portfolio and founds some links on the first page that will interest some of you here. It won't however change anybody's mind or settle any debate.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

GoldStone said:


> The web site may be transparent, but XTR distribution policy is anything but. It's borderline dishonest.


Agree with you there, I'm disappointed with the information iShares is giving about XTR. It's a mix of junk bonds and various other things, fine, but they don't even post the portfolio yield on their web site. They're being tricky and misleading with that product.


----------



## Squash500 (May 16, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Agree with you there, I'm disappointed with the information iShares is giving about XTR. It's a mix of junk bonds and various other things, fine, but they don't even post the portfolio yield on their web site. They're being tricky and misleading with that product.


 James I totally agree with you that ishares is being somewhat tricky and misleading with the portfolio yield of the XTR. With that being said.....mutual funds are IMHO 100 times worse. You can buy $50000 worth of a mutual fund and not even know what your investing in. The mutual fund data is usually 6 months out of date etc. All you get is the top 10 holdings of the MF if your lucky--LOL

How can so many canadians invest in mutual funds and not even know what securities are in the fund on an updated daily basis? Therefore they don't even know what their investing in. Utter madness IMHO.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

Anyone here able to access www.mawer.com ?

I haven't been able to gain access since they upgraded their website a few days ago.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

They have a big flash screen now on opening. If you're flash is out of date or you're looking on mobile that will likely screw it up.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

^^

okay, thanks.
My flash was updated on Tuesday; may have to update again.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

I was expecting institutions to be buying into the energy sector.
But Mawer has not, at least not in their balanced funds.

Both funds reduced energy exposure by 1% sometime during the quarter.

As of June 30/15:
Mawer Balanced Fund: Energy is 6% of the equity portion.
Mawer Global Balanced: Energy is 3% of the equity portion.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Reductions would come simply as a result of decreasing energy stock prices. If anything, they would have been buying...if the only decrease is 1%.


----------

