Gibbs vs Woodford

Published in Investing on 7 September 2010

A tale of two fund managers.

Every long-serving fund manager sees the best of times and the worst of times, and this certainly applies to my two favourite unit trust managers, Neil Woodford and Philip Gibbs.

Last year was the season of light for Philip Gibbs, manager of Jupiter Financial Opportunities, who didn't just see the credit crunch coming, but actually did something about it, ducking out of equities and into US treasuries. Astonishingly, his fund actually rose during the banking crisis, and throughout 2009.

But it was the season of darkness for Neil Woodford, who was in for unaccustomed stick after his Invesco Perpetual Income and High Income funds seriously underperformed both the FTSE All-Share and UK equity income & growth sector.

Now the roles are reversed. Woodford is entering the spring of hope, Gibbs is in the winter of despair. Charles Dickens would have understood, because this really is A Tale of Two Fund Managers.

So how does it end?

Old favourites

This time last year, I wrote that Philip Gibbs was My Favourite Fund Manager. I still love him to bits, but our relationship has been through a sticky patch. 

Over the past 12 months, his fund has fallen 4%, while his benchmark specialist sector has risen 18%, according to Trustnet.com. I can forgive this minor transgression, but I have to say I'm surprised.

A major factor was the euro zone sovereign debt crisis, which did financials no favour, and he has struggled to regain lost ground since. 

In April, he hit the headlines after moving 52% of his portfolio into cash, over concerns that the market wasn't fully pricing in Club Med risks, and the threat of higher bond yields in the UK, US and Japan.

Blonaway

It was a bold move, maybe too bold, but this is a man who likes to make big calls. In June, Gibbs and co-fund manager Guy de Blonay halved their US exposure from 26% to around 13% of their £1 billion portfolio, clearing out the likes of JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America, and replacing them with Chinese banking stocks.

In July, Gibbs dumped cash and ditched gold. He is currently making another big call, by ploughing his portfolio into banks, placing nearly 5% of his fund in Lloyds Banking Group (LSE: LLOY).

Now that's what I call an active fund manager. Trouble is, it hasn't worked, Jupiter Financial Opportunities is trailing over the last one, three and six months.

Is Gibbs trying to be too clever in timing the market?

Here's your  chance to guarantee your place on the next enrolment to Champion Shares PRO! For 2 weeks in September we will be opening our  doors to new subscribers to join our remarkable, one-of-a-kind investing service. In order to keep our exclusivity, only a  select number of our one million plus readership will be able to join us. This is your chance to guarantee your place! Click  here to join the priority waiting list

Neil rises

I wrote about Neil Woodford's difficulties back in February, in my article Everybody Loves Neil Woodford

At the time, the great man found himself in the awkward position of being a fourth-quartile manager, and although he won't have liked that, I doubt he will have been overly worried either.

Woodford trusts his own ability, instincts and strategy, and unlike, er, me, he doesn't panic when his investment tactics backfire. This is the man who spurned the dot.com boom and (like Gibbs) foresaw the credit crunch, so he is right to trust his own judgement. 

The good news is that if you stuck by him, it looks like you were right as well.

Defensive merits

I certainly stood by him, pointing out that Woodford had been rudely trampled in last year's dash for trash. During that frenzied period, the mob had little time for defensive sectors such as pharmaceuticals, tobacco, utilities, telecoms and defence, and Woodford cut a lonely figure by loyally sticking it out.

But this year, when everybody calmed down and remembered the virtues of dividend-generating blue-chips, Woodford was already there.

Invesco Perpetual Income fund is up 15.6% over one year (against 14.5% for the UK Equity Income benchmark). That's a solid, if unspectacular, performance, which is exactly what you want and expect from his fund.

The big man is back.

They be giants

So is Woodford going directly to heaven and Gibbs going the other way, to misquote Dickens again? 

Not in my book. Over five years, Woodford has returned 40% against 14% for his benchmark, and Gibbs has returned 57% against his specialist benchmark of 41%.

Both fund managers have seen moments of light and darkness, hope and despair, but I'm confident of this: in the long run, you will do a far, far better thing investing in them, than you will ever do with the vast majority of fund managers.

More from Harvey Jones:

> For two weeks in September we will be opening the doors of our Champion Shares PRO newsletter service. In order to keep our exclusivity, only a select number of our readership will be able to join us. This is your chance to guarantee your place! Click here to join the priority waiting list.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

MunroMan 07 Sep 2010 , 8:19pm

Interesting that these two opt to avoid humdrum benchmarks like an index we can all recognise. And the IMA even created a new one just for Woodie because he broke the rules on the old one.

jaizan 07 Sep 2010 , 9:44pm

Who cares about performance over such a short period of time?

Measure the great fund managers over 10 years plus.

Luniversal 08 Sep 2010 , 1:14pm

Me, I don't care about relative performance at all. Let the chattering jaybirds of the 'industry' and their media handicappers get all hot and bothered about who's in or out, up or down, over some trivial timespan.

I hold Woodford's funds for income that stands a reasonable chance of marching with inflation-- without taking too many risks. Capital values matter very little to me, and they shouldn't to him either.

'Total return' is a meaningless statistical artefact.

Courant 08 Sep 2010 , 4:18pm

My goodness, ignore the index, whatever next!

Woodford has comprehensively beaten the FTSE All Share, the IMA sector, the S&P 500. It's not a problem that he has 10% in the US, the bulk of which is in tobacco companies with very similar exposures to, say BAT. By all means compare him to a custom index comprising 10% S&P500, 90% FTSE but it doesn't change his outstanding long-term track record. Actually, this outperformance is precisely because his funds don't look like index trackers - he takes large active positions based on fundamental valuations with a long term perspective and ignores short term noise. This is exactly how people should be investing.

TMFFlaneur 09 Sep 2010 , 10:05am

@LordEssex - I seem to recall you've also complained about fund managers comparing to an index when they deviate from it (for instance a UK manager buying Microsoft and benchmarking against the FTSE).

While I take your general point about the risks of comparison, it seems you want to have your cake, having already eaten it! ;)

maldonian 09 Sep 2010 , 2:01pm

The whole point of an "active" fund manager,as opposed to a "passive" (or tracker) fund manager,is to deviate from the benchmark index.Otherwise buy a tracker fund !
Also care should be taken to analyse the methods by which the manager out or under performs the benchmark.
Detailed analysis will examine the volatility of returns;the standard deviation of returns;which will result eventually in the "information ratio" or "alpha" of the fund manager's investment process.
It strikes me that Gibbs is taking too many massive bets on a regular basis.His "risk" ratio must be sky high.
Give me Woodie any time.

MunroMan 10 Sep 2010 , 8:21am

Interesting split of opinions.

The Woodie can do no wrong view is obviously in the majority, whatever the data say.

Courant 10 Sep 2010 , 8:36am

What do the data say?

142% return over 10yrs from a very conservative portfolio, and the reason for this outperformance is his buying of the cheap companies that were out of fashion in the City. Sounds good to me!

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.