HEAD-TO-HEAD: Henderson vs Janus

Performance

For the one-year period ending December 2015, the Henderson product traded flat (-0.06% in US dollar terms) while the Janus fund fell 4.68% over the same period. 

In line with their investment strategies, both Henderson and Janus managers generated alpha via stock selection most of the time, and geographical allocation effects are relatively minimal. 

Over the past few years, Henderson typically did well in stock selection in Europe, whereas Janus tended to add more value via selection in the US, Ng said.

He added that the Janus fund tends to perform better throughout a market uptrend (from 2012 to 2014) and the Henderson product tends to perform better as the market corrects (2011, 2015 and so far in 2016).

Performance against each other for the three years ended 31 December 2015

 Source: FE

Manager review

Guy Barnard and Tim Gibson are also co-heads of the Henderson global property equities team. Barnard, who is based in London, started managing the fund in 2009 and his main focus is the European market.

Gibson, on the other hand, took over manager responsibility from Patrick Sumner in 2014 as the latter retired after 17 years with the firm. Tim Gibson is based in Singapore and mainly responsible for the Asia-Pacific market.

As mentioned earlier, Henderson last year brought North American investing responsibility back in house, hiring Bob Thomas to lead the US property equities team.

The Janus fund has been managed by Patrick Brophy since 2007. He joined the firm in 2005 and has 26 years of financial industry experience, with a strong background in the real estate segment.

Fees

Henderson (A2 Acc) has slightly lower numbers for fees and ongoing charges than the Janus (A Inc) product. Henderson charges 1.20% vs 1.25% for the Janus fund. Ongoing charges are 1.97% for Henderson versus 2.25% for Janus.

Ng said the fees are not a decisive factor for fund selection because they do not deviate much from the market average.

Conclusion

Henderson brought the outsourced US equity sleeve back in-house at the end of last year. More time is needed to conclude how the new team will deliver, Ng said. 

“It could be a good move, as overall portfolio strategy could be executed better within one team, and in the past the US equity sleeve of the fund did not do particularly well. More alpha was actually generated via selection in Europe and Asia.”

For Janus, the fund shows stronger selection in the US and that’s probably helped by stronger local knowledge as the manager is based in the US, he added.

“In face of the recent market volatility in 2016, Henderson could be better off in the shorter term due to less bias towards smaller cap and minimal emerging market exposure in the fund, and hence providing better downside protection.”

The Janus fund would be a product to consider for investors who believe global growth will accelerate more than expected, as the fund tends to outperform when markets rise.