Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards

Portfolio > Economy & Markets > Stocks

Tim Stevenson of Evergreen Special Equity Fund (ma

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Quick Take: Tim Stevenson of Evergreen Special Equity (ESEAX) has found that price momentum has been the best and most consistent predictor of stock price. Unlike many small-cap growth managers, however, Stevenson and his team of four do not meet with management. A stock selection model, which emphasizes price momentum, is used to cull and to rank the stocks that go into the $300-million portfolio.

For the three-year period ended in May, Evergreen Special Equity returned 1.8%, versus 2.5% for its small-cap growth fund peers. However, Special Equity has been less volatile on the downside, as evidenced by its relatively lower standard deviation and beta. For the one-year period ended in May, the fund fell 9.4%, versus a loss of 15.1% for its peers. But Stevenson sees light at the end of the tunnel now, believing that small-cap growth will soon outperform as an asset class. The current pessimism toward small-cap growth and the wide embrace of value are signs to Stevenson that the pendulum is about to swing the other way.

The Full Interview:

S&P: What is distinctive about the portfolio?

STEVENSON: It comes down to the investment style. We are a little more quantitative and have a smaller team rather than a bigger team that does only fundamental coverage. We still dig through 10ks and 10Qs, but company contacts aren’t as important to us.

Price momentum is a large driver of our process. I’m not sure that other investments look as closely at price momentum. It makes up 60% of our quantitative model.

S&P: How do you decide your industry weightings once stocks are selected?

STEVENSON: The industry weightings are a natural fallout of the investment process and the stocks we find. Everything has to be integrated, from the original research to the construction of the portfolio to the trading.

We have the ability, subjectively, to change the risk composition in the portfolio. There are many ways to assume risk — market cap, valuation, momentum — and with some of the risk models like Barra’s risk model, for instance, we can try to decide where risk might bulge out in the portfolio.

S&P: What about the stock selection process. Is that constant?

STEVENSON: Yes. Getting to our group of potential buys and ranking stocks is a systematic, disciplined approach. We don’t change it, except when we find better factors at work. It is unemotional. We don’t fall in love with stocks, and we don’t hate them. It is 60%-70% quantitative. That gets us to the list we work with each week. Technical analysis also plays a big role. We can’t tell you much about a company without looking at its chart as well.

S&P: So for a stock to be a candidate in your fund it must first satisfy your quant model?

STEVENSON: Yes, first and foremost.

Price momentum makes up the majority of the underlying stock selection model (60%). We try to identify the key drivers of small stock prices, specifically small growth stocks. We found that price momentum was the best and most predictable or most consistent predictor of stock prices. This is longer term price momentum that is adjusted for volatility. We are thinking of yearly changes, not chasing this week’s winners.

We also look at forecasts for earnings surprises. Not earnings surprises themselves, but a forecast of which companies may disappoint on earnings.

There is a valuation component, too. What role should valuation play for small growth stock investors? We are already buying stocks of companies that have high expectations and that are high multiple stocks. (Nevertheless) we don’t want to stay at the party too long. If they disappoint, they disappoint in a big way, and can be down 40%-50% in a day.

S&P: The turnover on the fund is around 150%. Has it been higher as the market has become much more volatile?

STEVENSON: As the market has shifted we have sort of followed the trend, to some degree. The turnover has gone up a little bit. We want to fight against that because it is a drag on performance. We spend a lot of time wrestling with this. If it were possible, we would love to identify growth stocks that would keep us in a range of 25% turnover.

S&P: About how many positions does the fund have?

STEVENSON: Anywhere from 125 to 150. We are broadly diversified. Though our benchmark, the Russell 2000, is cap weighted, we don’t have issues such as General Electric (GE), where we must sort of snug up to the benchmark.

S&P: When do you sell?

STEVENSON: We sell when a stock loses relative attractiveness in our universe. We assess expected returns and excess returns versus our benchmark. If it drops down to a negative range it is an automatic sell.

We can also employ kind of a “pairs” trading strategy, knowing that there are always alternatives. We may own a semiconductor company, but there may be a buy for one that we don’t own. We then try to decide which is a better opportunity for us. We will look at them fundamentally with subjectivity. As long as they are of relatively equal attractiveness, purely on a quantitative basis, we can make a subjective decision on news, corporate events, or accounting issues that we discover, and then swap.

S&P: Do you visit management?

STEVENSON: We do not. The team is too small with four individuals, and with the push on (SEC) Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure), we don’t know how valuable that is. People are very successful meeting with management, I am assuming still, but everyone is complaining about Reg. FD with the approach. (Regulation FD restricts “selective disclosure” of material, nonpublic information about a company.)

S&P: There is a school of thought that it makes sense to meet with management of smaller companies, which aren’t as widely followed, while mid- and large-cap stock managers may be less inclined to visit management.

STEVENSON: When they are smaller it makes a lot of sense, since they don’t have the coverage from the Street. What we found after Reg. FD, in many cases, is that the managers just clamed up completely. They did not have the big compliance departments or PR departments that sort of govern what they could and could not say.

S&P: As a result of Reg. FD have you taken further measures or precautions with the portfolio?

STEVENSON: No. But we question earnings surprises as a factor in driving a stock’s price down, as well as momentum from earnings estimates. Some of these things used to work very well from a quantitative perspective. We question how effective they are going to be going forward.

S&P: How is the portfolio positioned now? Are you lighter in technology than you have been historically?

STEVENSON: Actually, the opposite is true. The catch phrases that we now use in small-growth land are “out-of-favor” and “unloved” — labels that were applied to value investing.

Up until about the third quarter we were very defensive, cheating towards the core box in small-cap asset class. In the October-November time frame, we started becoming much more aggressive. We saw more and more technology companies in our screen. Information technology is now closer to the 30% level in the fund. Biotech was an addition here in the last couple of months, too.

S&P: Is it fair to say your are contrarian at the moment?

STEVENSON: I think we are taking more of a contrarian approach. Stepping up to tech and biotech here makes us feel more comfortable. We think there is going to be a huge move up in small-cap growth stocks, if, for no other reason, because everyone is in love with small-cap value right now.

Things go to extremes. How long did it take for small-cap value to come back? People thought that growth would go on forever.

S&P: Why do you think small-cap growth will come back?

STEVENSON: Pessimism. We have tried to develop models to identify when the shift will occur. Over the last several years, people were calling for small stocks to do well for a long time. It took a while for it to happen. It is hard to predict.

We see lots of money flowing to small-cap value managers now. The cash levels are building, and they are having to cheat up to the mid-cap range. The large-cap guys are cheating down a little bit. One group that no one really wants right now is small-cap growth. Whenever you start to question any asset class you are getting to the point where it is going to do very well.

S&P: Have you noticed any macro trends that have come through your analysis?

STEVENSON: One of the themes that seems to come through in all our work has been the consumer spending and leisure time entertainment. Everything from Hollywood entertainment to video sort of things, to stocks of boating companies, to autos. The consumer has had the confidence to stay pretty high in all this.

S&P: Is that something you would expect to continue going forward?

STEVENSON: I don’t see any reason for it to be shaken up if unemployment doesn’t get out of whack. We are pretty positive on the economy. We have got a relatively positive market outlook — a high single-digit positive return. From these levels that’s pretty good. Twenty percent-plus return years are a thing of the past.


© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.