Matthews China Small Companies Investor (MCSMX) is currently a smart choice for mutual funds?
MFund researchers should consider taking a look at Matthews China Small Companies Investor (MCSMX). MCSMX has a Zacks mutual fund rank of 1 (strong buy), which is based on nine forecasting factors such as size, cost, and past performance.
Fund History / Manager
Matthews Asia is based in San Francisco, California, and is the director of MCSMX. Since Matthews China Small Companies Investor debuted in May 2011, MCSMX has garnered over $ 347.76 million in assets. The fund is currently managed by Winnie Chwang and Andrew Mattock.
Investors naturally look for high performance funds. This particular fund has generated an annualized total return of 25% over 5 years and is in the top third of its category peers. If you’re interested in shorter time frames, don’t overlook the fund’s 3-year total annualized return of 34.26%, which puts it in the top third over that time frame.
When examining the performance of a fund, it is also important to note the standard deviation of returns. The lower the standard deviation, the less volatility the fund experiences. Over the past three years, the standard deviation of MCSMX has stood at 19.05%, compared to the category average of 18.33%. The fund’s standard deviation over the past 5 years is 19.65% compared to the category average of 15.69%. This makes the fund more volatile than its peers over the past five years.
With a 5-year beta of 0.53, the fund should be less volatile than the market average. Since alpha represents the performance of a portfolio on a risk-adjusted basis relative to a benchmark, which is the S&P 500 in this case, it is worth paying attention to this metric as well. The fund has produced a positive alpha of 15.41 over the past 5 years, showing that the managers of this portfolio are adept at selecting stocks that generate higher returns than the benchmark.
For investors, it is essential to take a closer look at the parameters related to costs, as costs are increasingly important for investments in mutual funds. Competition is intensifying in this space, and a lower-cost product is likely to outperform its otherwise identical counterpart, all other things being equal. In terms of fees, MCSMX is a no-load fund. It has an expense ratio of 1.41% compared to the category average of 1.40%. Thus, MCSMX is actually more expensive than its peers from a cost point of view.
This fund requires a minimum initial investment of $ 2,500, and each subsequent investment should be at least $ 100.
Overall, Matthews China Small Companies Investor (MCSMX) ranks high for the Zacks mutual fund, and in conjunction with its comparatively strong performance, medium downside risk, and higher fees, this fund appears to be a good potential choice for investors at the moment.
Want even more information about MCSMX? Then head over to Zacks.com and check out our Mutual Fund Comparison Tool and all the other great features we have to help you with your mutual fund analysis for additional information. If you’re more of an equity investor, be sure to also check out our Zacks Rankings and our full suite of tools that we make available to both novice and professional investors.
Boom in infrastructure stocks will sweep America
A massive push to rebuild crumbling American infrastructure will soon be underway. It is bipartisan, urgent and inevitable. Billions will be spent. Fortunes will be made.
The only question is, “Are you going to jump into good stocks early when they have the greatest potential for growth?” “
Zacks published a special report to help you do just that, and today it’s free. Discover 5 special companies looking to make the most of the construction and repair of roads, bridges and buildings, as well as transporting goods and transforming energy on an almost unimaginable scale.
Download FREE: How to Profit from Billions of Dollars in Infrastructure Spending >>
Click to get this free report
Get Your Free (MCSMX): Fund Analysis Report
To read this article on Zacks.com, click here.
Zacks investment research
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.