HEAD-TO-HEAD: BNPP IP vs Schroders

123456

All fund NAVs and benchmark performance have been converted to US dollars.

The chart shows the three-year performance of the Parvest and Schroder funds and their benchmark, ending 11 May, according to FE data.

The Schroder fund consistently outperformed both the benchmark and the Parvest fund over the three-year period, while the Parvest fund underperformed the index the last two years.

According to Brunt, the largest detractors in the Parvest fund have been positions in some telco and energy names, as well as in financials, particularly banks.

The fund also underperforms the MSCI EMU Growth Index during the three- and five-year periods, Brunt added, noting that he made the comparison given the fund’s growth tilt.

Brunt attributes the Schroder fund’s outperformance to its strong stock selection, which has been consistent over the years.

“The Schoders guys have shown that they are able to add more value more consistently through strong stock selection over the years,” he said, adding that the fund manager has also been consistent in his strategy over the last 10 years.

Adding more value stocks also helped it outperform.

In terms of volatility, the Schroder fund is less volatile than the Parvest fund and the benchmark. The three-year cumulative volatility of the Schroder fund is 13.69, versus Parvest’s 14.36 and the benchmark’s 14.77.

“In our opinion, ultimately, you are getting better risk-adjusted returns from the Schroder fund than you are in the Parvest fund. They are more effective with their use of risk than Parvest,” Brunt said.

123456