# Mawer Balanced Fund MAW 104



## Belguy

In the February/March issue of MoneySense magazine, they list their top 2016 mutual fund picks. In the Canadian Balanced Fund section, they show 17 funds as included in their 'honour roll' but the Mawer Balanced Fund MAW 104 is nowhere to be seen despite the fact that has a five-star Morningstar rating.

Might this be because it is not classified as a Canadian Balanced Fund per se or can you think of another possible reason? Is it an underperformer?


----------



## james4beach

The Mawer Balanced Fund has about half Canadian exposure, half foreign exposure
http://www.mawer.com/our-funds/fund-profiles/balanced-fund/

That probably doesn't qualify as a Canadian Balanced Fund


----------



## Belguy

Thanks, James. 

Does anyone have any particular criticism of this fund, or of it's tax efficient version (MAW 105), for an retired older investor to hold in his non registered account? (MER 1.0)

Alternatively, how might one construct a couch potato portfolio of ETF's to potentially replicate the Mawer Balanced Fund for a rock bottom fee.

Which option do you prefer?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

MAW104 is classified as Global Neutral Balanced.

_Funds in the Global Neutral Balanced category must invest less than 70% of total assets in a combination of equity securities domiciled in Canada and Canadian dollar-denominated fixed income securities. In addition, they must invest greater than or equal to 40% but less than or equal to 60% of their total assets in equity securities._ http://www.cifsc.org/global-neutral-balanced/

You will see it benchmarked against Global Neutral Balanced at Morningstar: http://quote.morningstar.ca/quicktakes/fund/f_ca.aspx?t=F0CAN05MRR&region=CAN&culture=en-CA


----------



## james4beach

Benchmarking it sounds like a valuable exercise. The CAD has fallen a lot so perhaps much of the good performance just comes from foreign currency exposure? I think you can replicate Mawer Balanced Fund with just 4 major ETFs, all TSX listed, no currency hedging:

26% XEF - intl stocks
21% ZSP - US stocks
16% ZCN - CA stocks
37% XBB - CA bonds

Let's try a total return comparison. Unfortunately some of these funds don't have much life time, but I'll use the ETF provider web sites and focus on 2014 and 2015 total returns.

2014 Mawer Balanced Fund: 12.1%
2014 XEF, ZSP, ZCN, XBB: 10.4%

2015 Mawer Balanced Fund: 10.5%
2015 XEF, ZSP, ZCN, XBB: 9.4%

Well that's pretty impressive for MAW104. I virtually never see a mutual fund give higher performance than an ETF reconstruction! The next thing to try in these kinds of comparison is a negative year, in case the Mawer methodology provides a leverage kind of effect (e.g. from small caps) in bull markets.


----------



## MoreMiles

Belguy said:


> Thanks, James.
> 
> Does anyone have any particular criticism of this fund, or of it's tax efficient version (MAW 105), for an retired older investor to hold in his non registered account? (MER 1.0)
> 
> Alternatively, how might one construct a couch potato portfolio of ETF's to potentially replicate the Mawer Balanced Fund for a rock bottom fee.
> 
> Which option do you prefer?


Yes. This fund holds predominantly unhedged equities so in a great rally day like this you would expect it to go up. But no! It went down because of Cad$ rate today. So in the last 2 years they look like a hero but lots of their gain was from currency because you can gain 40% just from holding us$ cash. If you believe our cad$ has hit a bottom then you should hedge your investment and avoid these funds. 

I wanted to switch mine but did not want to pay capital gain taxes right away so I am stuck. 

That is my criticism about this fund. 

Look at ZSP vs. ZUE both track same index and you see the difference.


----------



## james4beach

That's what I suspect as well. So a useful comparison would be, using the unhedged ETF mix I posted above, test it on a period where the CAD strengthened.

If Mawer still outperforms the relevant unhedged benchmark, that's still a notable success.

Unhedged international exposure is just fine. It's part of investing outside of Canada, and others have demonstrated that the cost of hedging is quite high and just isn't worth it, long term.


----------



## Belguy

The MER for MAW 104 is 0.96%. However, approximately 30% of the fund is invested in fixed income. 

I have a difficult time, especially in this day and age, of paying basically a full percentage point in fees for fixed income investments!!

Do I have a point?


----------



## GreatLaker

Belguy said:


> The MER for MAW 104 is 0.96%. However, approximately 30% of the fund is invested in fixed income.
> 
> I have a difficult time, especially in this day and age, of paying basically a full percentage point in fees for fixed income investments!!
> 
> Do I have a point?


Well yes and no... looking past the MER, its performance has been excellent. See my next post for some interesting critical analysis.


----------



## GreatLaker

I'll preface this by saying that I own some Mawer 105 Tax Effective Balanced in my non-reg account. Its performance has been excellent.

But in my 30+ years as an investor (and still learning a lot), I have seen a lot of star funds and their managers come and go. I would have to think very carefully before putting more than 5% of my retirement portfolio into any one stock or actively managed fund.

Point 1) Mawer Balanced holds 31% Mawer Canadian Bond, which trailed its benchmark for every period of annualized returns from 3 months to 10 years, and in every calendar year from 2006 to 2015. That shows how difficult it is for an actively managed bond fund to equal, never mind exceed its benchmark. So why not buy a mix of 70% Mawer International Equity plus 30% VAB or XQB for bond exposure. Best of both worlds - great equity manager and low cost FI exposure. You might ask why I did not do this myself... well I had not thought of it when I purchased MAW105, and I don't make portfolio revisions without due consideration. Need to ponder it before making any change.

Point 2) This blog post by Justin Bender Active Funds Exposed claims that Mawer Canadian's outperformance comes from it having a tilt towards value stocks. Might the same be true for other Mawer funds?

Having said all that I have no plans to sell my MAW105, and hope to generate some enlightened dialog on the issue! each:

Edit: oops, my bad. :stupid: Re point 1 I just realized that Mawer International Equity only holds ex-North America equities. For a fair comparison you would have to use Mawer Global Equity, or a mix of Mawer Canadian+US+International equity funds. Suddenly the wisdom of a balanced fund becomes evident.


----------



## zylon

If one is certain that CAD has bottomed, there may be better investments to own than Mawer Balanced Fund.
However, in the 5-year period that CAD was strong, MAW104 didn't do too badly, until it went over the 2008 waterfall.

From Jan 2003 thru Oct 2007 CAD gained 70%
Eyeballing MAW104 for the same period (between two vertical red markers) it gained about 65%

I'm not at all certain that CAD has bottomed, so I'm quite happy to hold Mawer Balanced Fund through whatever may come.




upload img


----------



## el oro

MAW104 is a fund of funds and so it's easy to see where the outperformance comes from. They outperform in canadian and international equities, and small caps. They underperform on US equities and bonds. 

You could try and get cute with fees and go into low cost etfs where Mawer underperforms but I wouldn't recommend it. Savings would be marginal and you take away ability of the managers to adjust the bond/equity allocations when it makes sense to do so. That's what I'd tell most folks anyway.

I may swap to Mawer myself one day and my current preferred setup is global small cap + global equity + a bit of a bond etf. No rush for now what with all the individual opportunities on the tsx showing solid eps growth and single digit P/Es.


----------



## MoreMiles

Not again?! All major market indexes went up big, and all Mawer balanced funds are flat today? Did they change their manager this year? They made mistake and now poor peformance. If they cannot beat the index at least ride with them!


----------



## AltaRed

MoreMiles said:


> Not again?! All major market indexes went up big, and all Mawer balanced funds are flat today? Did they change their manager this year? They made mistake and now poor peformance. If they cannot beat the index at least ride with them!


Hopefully this comment is tongue-in-cheek, bit if not, it is ignorant. Balanced funds consist of equities and bonds, and depending on the fund, perhaps global equities as well, and not necessarily bonds or equities based on an index. Actively managed funds stock pick and bond pick based on the manager's perception of sectors (stocks) and duration (bonds) that the manager thinks there is the most opportunity. What did bonds do today? If bond yields went up (and thus prices down), changes in bond prices could have easily offset stock gains. That is the whole point of balanced funds. Diversification and reduced volatility.


----------



## MoreMiles

AltaRed said:


> Hopefully this comment is tongue-in-cheek, bit if not, it is ignorant. Balanced funds consist of equities and bonds, and depending on the fund, perhaps global equities as well, and not necessarily bonds or equities based on an index. Actively managed funds stock pick and bond pick based on the manager's perception of sectors (stocks) and duration (bonds) that the manager thinks there is the most opportunity. What did bonds do today? If bond yields went up (and thus prices down), changes in bond prices could have easily offset stock gains. That is the whole point of balanced funds. Diversification and reduced volatility.


I understand. In comparison, CIBC Balanced Index Fund went up 0.48% today. TD Balanced Index Fund went up 0.52%

So Mawer messed up big time paying off capital gain when there should be none a couple of weeks ago. And now they are missing big market rallies in the last couple of days when other balanced funds are doing well.

I think they are just about to prove that active funds can be quite useless.... all that extra work for nothing so to speak.


----------



## james4beach

They can be forced to register a capital gain due to fund inflows/outflows, too. It's not just when they decide to sell stock holdings.


----------



## GreatLaker

MoreMiles said:


> I understand. In comparison, CIBC Balanced Index Fund went up 0.48% today. TD Balanced Index Fund went up 0.52%
> 
> So Mawer messed up big time paying off capital gain when there should be none a couple of weeks ago. And now they are missing big market rallies in the last couple of days when other balanced funds are doing well.
> 
> I think they are just about to prove that active funds can be quite useless.... all that extra work for nothing so to speak.


CIBC Balanced Index Fund's benchmark includes 35% Canadian stocks, 15% US stocks and 7% global stocks.
TD Balanced Index equity component is even more tilted to Canada with 32% Canadian, 9% US and 9% global
Mawer Balanced Fund's benchmark has a more global mix, including 22.5% Canadian stocks, 15% US stocks and 22.5% global stocks

On Feb 4 the TSX increased 1.44%, compared to the S&P500 increased 0.15%, and some key global markets including Germany, France and Japan dropped. Plus the C$ increased against the US$. These factors combined with the CIBC and TD fund's higher weighting on Canadian stocks explains why the two funds with a Canadian focus in their equities outperformed the Mawer fund that has a more global focus in its equity component.

Not all balanced funds are created equally, and investors need to understand what they hold and compare to relevant indices when benchmarking. Last year the Mawer fund's global focus had a big payoff relative to Canadian focused balanced funds.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

MoreMiles said:


> I understand. In comparison, CIBC Balanced Index Fund went up 0.48% today. TD Balanced Index Fund went up 0.52%
> So Mawer messed up big time paying off capital gain when there should be none a couple of weeks ago. And now they are missing big market rallies in the last couple of days when other balanced funds are doing well.
> I think they are just about to prove that active funds can be quite useless.... all that extra work for nothing so to speak.


I'd suggest that if you are basing your investing decisions on daily market moves, you need to be a day trader and not a mutual fund or etf owner - and good luck with that. 
Beyond 1 or 2 days, compare the noted funds out 1mo, 3mo, 1yr, 5yrs, and 10yrs - which would you have preferred to own?

View attachment 8346


----------



## zylon

After taking a wee break (+3% in 2016) _Mawer Balanced_ is powering higher once again.
As of March 31/17 : 15-year return is +7.6%

2-year daily chart with 50-day moving average.










I like what this fund holds;
a set and forget
don't bother me yet
portfolio.



source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/funds-and-etfs/funds/summary/?id=17966


----------



## Mortgage u/w

I'm looking to park some cash in a conservative investment. Its not cash that I will be needing in the near future but wouldn't want to be too aggressive either - just trying to balance out my portfolio with an investment that has low volatility. What I have a hard time accepting is the MER (any MER for that matter) since all my investments are in equities.

I hear a lot of good things about this fund but wondering if there are better alternatives.


----------



## james4beach

Mawer Balanced, both MAW104 and MAW105, appear to be heading for another strong year. YTD performance is slightly higher than VBAL, even though the Mawer funds have a higher MER.

I also reviewed both the audited 2019 financial statements and 2020 mid year financial statements. Both look fine to me (no surprise) as the holdings are what I would expect. The credit quality of the bonds are very good as well. Plus, a nice liquidity cushion with a healthy 5% in t-bills.

I really like the structure of their Balanced portfolios. They continue to look rock solid.


----------



## newfoundlander61

With these funds you don't need to do any trading really just hang on them for good solid long term growth. Fees are higher but no a whole lot and for some investors this sleep easy approach is a good way to go.


----------



## cainvest

Yes, Mawer continues to give solid returns and has a long history of doing so.


----------



## Retiredguy

I do not own any ETF's only individual equities, so just asking this to clarify. I just looked at MAW104 and it says .91 MER and describes what it invests in, securities ... and other Mawer funds. It then says it has 7 holdings, which are all Mawer funds, (plus cash). So my question is, is the .91 the total MER or are the other funds also claiming their MER.


----------



## cainvest

Retiredguy said:


> So my question is, is the .91 the total MER or are the other funds also claiming their MER.


It's only the .91 MER of that fund (plus a very small amount of TER).


----------



## AltaRed

Correct. There is no double dipping of MER.


----------



## Retired Peasant

I've never understood how this is accomplished. Isn't the MER buit into the NAV of a fund? Does MAW104 pay a different price/unit than an investor for each holding?


----------



## AltaRed

MER is built into the NAV of every fund BUT the NAV is different for every class of the same fund that has a different MER.

For MAW104, they use Class O versions of the funds which have 0%* management fees rather than the Class A funds with management fees that are sold to the public. So the NAV for each Class O fund is actually higher than the NAV for the equivalent Class A fund.

Example: Mawer US Equity Fund Class A closed yesterday at $67.06 NAV. The Class O version (MAW208) closed at $67.5084.

* MER is actually 0.01% due to TER (Trading Expense Ratio) rather than the 0.91% of Class A)


----------



## Ponderling

In our RESP MAW104 took the 50k I put in for each of 2 kids and the 7.2k the cseg kicked in, and turned it into 190k by the time the first kid turned 18. Yes I put in more than 2.5k each year to get the matching grant, and made lump sum contributions to max to 50k after 7.2k was qualified for. Only in the last 5 years have ratcheted back the maw and bought a gic ladder so if all went in the toilet I would have a few years to try to recover on the equity front. Other than that MAW104 was a no worries kind of fund for a lowish risk equity holding .


----------



## Yasehtor

Retiredguy said:


> I do not own any ETF's only individual equities, so just asking this to clarify. I just looked at MAW104 and it says .91 MER and describes what it invests in, securities ... and other Mawer funds. It then says it has 7 holdings, which are all Mawer funds, (plus cash). So my question is, is the .91 the total MER or are the other funds also claiming their MER.



If you look at the weighting of each fund held by the Balanced fund you can calculate a rough MER that shows how the 0.91% makes sense. I did a quick mock up of the funds holdings and after allocating the MER of each fund, based on the weighting of the fund, I came up with a MER of just over 1.0%. Close enough to illustrate the rationale for how a balanced fund's MER is determined.


----------



## agent99

I usually stay away from ETFs, but just wondering how MAW104/104 are expected to perform over coming year, given market at highs and interest rates rock bottom? 

Based on past performance, these funds could perhaps suit our TFSAs which we don't ever touch. But given that I am presently uncomfortable with individual equities as well as individual FI, wondering why a fund like this would be different? Horizon is 10 years. Alternative is preferreds yielding in 5% range.


----------



## Eder

Why put preferreds into TSFA? Rate resets have had a stellar run already. Better to just stick the common stock in there in the long run imo.

I like that Mawer operators pick stocks rather than settle for index returns. It seems they can continuously overcome their higher MER's and still outperform their benchmark.


----------



## agent99

Just because preferreds pay dividends there is no reason not to hold them in a registered account like a TFSA. If you invest $1000 and yield is 5%, unlike holding them in a taxable account or even a RRSP/RRIF, you get to keep all of the $50 in a TFSA. If they are _carefully chosen _rate resets, they should maintain value if and when rates increase.

You could more safely hold a GIC yielding 1.2% at present! Or cherry picked common stocks that could be more susceptible to volatile equity markets.

MAW104 has no doubt performed well in past. I was asking what CFMers thought about how it will do going forward, give present markets and interest rates.


----------



## dubmac

[QUOTE="agent99, post: 2116867, member: 164561"
MAW104 has no doubt performed well in past. I was asking what CFMers thought about how it will do going forward, give present markets and interest rates.
[/QUOTE]

The nice thing about MAW104 is less that it outperforms some indices, but rather it rarely underperforms them. 
It has been a reliable fund - it has a good contribution from the US, Global, some EM, and of course bond. 
My approach has been to hold a large portion of MAW104 in 3 RRSP accounts, and then "spice" each one with increased contributions from Mawer equity funds - for example, one RRSP is dominated by Global products (very little Cdn equity), a different account is dominated by US equity, and a third has a sizeable Cdn component. Each year - at least one does well! (diversification has it's advantages this way - I guess)

You have been a member here for a while, and likely know that no one can speculate on future performance. If they profess that they can, I am skeptical.

I have heard that EM funds and ETF's are expected to "do well" in 2021. I have no proof that they will - only that some analysts that I follow are weighting their client accounts heavier in these markets.

Mawer has an office in Singapore. Not sure if they any others in other countries. They keep their overhead low.
I have been a buyer of MAW104 and MAW160 (their EM fund). Disclosure - the EM fund has a highish MER. 
JMO


----------



## Eder

agent99 said:


> Just because preferreds pay dividends there is no reason not to hold them in a registered account like a TFSA.


This is true but giving up the dividend tax credit is a huge drag in the long run.


----------



## agent99

Eder said:


> This is true but giving up the dividend tax credit is a huge drag in the long run.


There is no "drag" really. Consider that $1000 investment. In a TFSA, you can invest in a GIC (interest 1.2%, $12pa), a bank stock (dividend at 4%, $40pa), a REIT with 5.5% distr mix of other inc., CGs, Foreign inc & ROC, $55) and a min reset preferred with 5.5% dividend yield, $55. No taxes on any option.

You can choose the $55 on the pfd or just accept $12 on GIC because you don't want to have a dividend tax drag??

Main problem with pfds and especially resets is that pickings of ones with high min reset or high spreads is limited.

Which leads me back to our topic! MAW104.

I just had a look at it. Seems that at present, MAW104 is approximately 62% equities (21% US), 29% fixed income, 9% cash & other. It has an impressive performance, however it has underperformed the S&P 500 by a large margin. I realize that it is much more diversified, but the comparison shows the drag that the fixed income, foreign and Canadian markets have had on the S&Ps performance. Going forward perhaps hard to say what happens with S&P and effect of that on MAW104??

The following is a comparison of MAW104 with the C$ hedged S&P 500 ETF XSP.

BTW, would either attract withholding tax in a TFSA?


----------



## Eclectic12

If the ex-Canada investments pay income where the source country charges a non-resident withholding tax (ex. the US) then yes - there will be WHT taken.
In a TFSA, it is lost whereas in a non-registered account - the foreign tax credit would help out with it.


Cheers


----------



## Eder

agent99 said:


> You can choose the $55 on the pfd or just accept $12 on GIC because you don't want to have a dividend tax drag??
> 
> Main problem with pfds and especially resets is that pickings of ones with high min reset or high spreads is limited.


Sorry I didn't mean the only other option was a GIC. I have cherry picked 2 REIT's to use in my RRSP in lieu of maturing fixed.
I still think negating the largest advantage preferred shares offer retirees would be a mistake.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> Which leads me back to our topic! MAW104.
> 
> I just had a look at it. Seems that at present, MAW104 is approximately 62% equities (21% US), 29% fixed income, 9% cash & other. It has an impressive performance, however it has underperformed the S&P 500 by a large margin. I realize that it is much more diversified, but the comparison shows the drag that the fixed income, foreign and Canadian markets have had on the S&Ps performance. Going forward perhaps hard to say what happens with S&P and effect of that on MAW104??


Not sure why you would compare performance of a balanced 60/40 fund with 100% equity. MAW104 serves a different purpose and is bought for those other qualities, e.g. reduced volatility for periodic withdrawals. Investing is not always about only return.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Not sure why you would compare performance of a balanced 60/40 fund with 100% equity. MAW104 serves a different purpose and is bought for those other qualities, e.g. reduced volatility for periodic withdrawals. Investing is not always about only return.


I wasn't _comparing_ performance. I thought I had made it clear that MAW104 was much more diversified.

What I was looking at, was what was cause of the difference in performance. 29% of MAW has likely had a 10yr total return of 12.71% or more if it outperformed the S&P500. The other 71% just over 8% resulting in a 10yr Total Return of 9.5%. This is very good, but it seems to me it makes sense to examine the make up of that performance if we want to look at the future. Better at least than using hindsight.

Volatility in a buy and hold isn't important to me, but perhaps is to some. Total return is very important provided risk is considered. With MAW104 (62% equity), there is considerable risk. I would imagine currency risk is another factor. You have to have faith that international/domestic markets and the fund managers will continue to perform.


----------



## agent99

Eclectic12 said:


> If the ex-Canada investments pay income where the source country charges a non-resident withholding tax (ex. the US) then yes - there will be WHT taken.
> In a TFSA, it is lost whereas in a non-registered account - the foreign tax credit would help out with it.
> Cheers


According to Mawer, it seems the withholding tax is accounted for within the fund so just reduces the distribution. Holder would not have to pay additional tax. XSP likely has a similar hidden foreign withholding tax.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> According to Mawer, it seems the withholding tax is accounted for within the fund so just reduces the distribution. Holder would not have to pay additional tax. XSP likely has a similar hidden foreign withholding tax.


Ex-Canada withholding tax is not accounted for within the fund. It is accounted for via subtraction from the gross income distribution each year before said net distribution is paid to unitholders either in cash or through re-invested distributions. In taxable accounts, portions of the distribution still are taxable as presented in the T3.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Ex-Canada withholding tax is not accounted for within the fund. It is accounted for via subtraction from the gross income distribution each year before said net distribution is paid to unitholders either in cash or through re-invested distributions. In taxable accounts, portions of the distribution still are taxable as presented in the T3.


I must have mis-understood the Mawer site.




> FAQ: What are the foreign withholding tax implications from holding Mawer Funds?





> Any non-Canadian dividend received by the mutual funds will be subject to foreign withholding tax. These withholding taxes are within the fund, and are deducted before the unitholders receive any distributions.


----------



## AltaRed

The net result is the same thing either way but the reality is they are paid by you from your distribution before you receive the net distribution. 

Hint: Foreign non-business income taxes are shown in Box 34 on the T3 tax slip and are used as a FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) on one's Canadian income tax return. If they were paid from within the fund like the MER, then they wouldn't be shown to you for use as a tax credit.


----------



## agent99

I have no foreign holdings in taxable accounts, so no worries about Box 34 on T3s  

In TFSA, if I were to buy MAW104 (decided not to), the withholding would already be removed. But the distribution is so low anyway, so again no worries


----------



## james4beach

Interesting that MAW104 is actually falling a bit worse (than balanced fund indices) during this current market decline.

Morningstar shows the Mawer Balanced fund is down -9.68% YTD and -1.50% over 1 year, as of Friday March 11.

It's very short term performance I realize, so it doesn't really matter too much, but this is actually worse than XBAL and VBAL. I suspect this is because MAW104 has been running a bit more aggressively with a 70/30 allocation, instead of 60/40

So if stocks rebound strongly, Mawer should again see the benefits of that. But currently I think it's suffering due to their high stock allocation.


----------



## AltaRed

Looking at Morngingstar's performance history on MAW104, there is the odd year when MAW104 under performs. That is to be expected with actively managed funds where none can be 'top quartile' 100% of the time relative to its index. The challenge at times like this is to decide whether the managers have lost their touch, or whether it is/was a 'one time' aberration. I hold it in an RESP and will give it the rest of 2022 to show itself after which I would move to XBAL or VBAL and no longer have to contemplate that issue.


----------



## cainvest

james4beach said:


> It's very short term performance I realize, so it doesn't really matter too much, but this is actually worse than XBAL and VBAL. I suspect this is because MAW104 has been running a bit more aggressively with a 70/30 allocation, instead of 60/40
> 
> So if stocks rebound strongly, Mawer should again see the benefits of that. But currently I think it's suffering due to their high stock allocation.


Difficult to say the reason but I doubt it is related to a pure asset allocation shift (60/40 vs 70/30). Could have been bad luck on timing for a rebalance either by a fixed date or an actively managed choice. Could also be related to Int. equity holdings ... who knows. In any case I'm riding this down tread before buying this year.


----------



## Ponderling

Not as focused on it now, but the 14 years of active asset growing in the RESP really benefited from being mostly spent in MAW104.

That was after I got the self directed RESP set up and away from the in house fund recommendations of the Nice Lady at the Bank


----------



## Gator13

We sold all of our Maw 104 earlier this year.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> The challenge at times like this is to decide whether the managers have lost their touch, or whether it is/was a 'one time' aberration. I hold it in an RESP and will give it the rest of 2022 to show itself after which I would move to XBAL or VBAL and no longer have to contemplate that issue.


Yes it's always a question about the managers, but I still don't have any concerns about the Mawer funds. I agree completely that one should wait out the full year and see what happens. Even then, it may not be worth making any decisions as anyone can have an "off" year. I think figures like 3 year CAGR may be more helpful in that respect.


----------



## Sam Sun

Keep in mind that MAW104 has low allocation to Energy (2.3% as of Dec31).
VBAL is Energy 7.3% as of Jan 31.
That alone will result in underperforming most benchmarks.


----------



## Monty3500

Has any one talked to Mawer lately.The fund has sure tanked lately.


----------



## AltaRed

Monty3500 said:


> Has any one talked to Mawer lately.The fund has sure tanked lately.


It is off~8.5% YTD versus its category which is off just over 5%. It is one of the risks of active management. There are going to be misses from time to time and that goes with the territory. Is this a trend? Or just an aberration on stellar historical performance? No one knows.





Mawer Balanced A, Fund, performance | Morningstar


Morningstar Financial Research conducts Analysis on Markets, Mutual Fund, Stocks and ETFs through Investment Data and News.




www.morningstar.ca


----------



## james4beach

I don't see anything out of the ordinary with Mawer's Balanced Fund. Looks very normal to me.

The only way to evaluate these things is long-term performance. We saw many years of Mawer doing better than the category. It shouldn't surprise anyone to see them occasionally doing worse than the category.


----------

