As part of the awards process, Institutional Investor’s editorial and research teams analyze investment strategies based on factors such as 1-, 3- and 5-year performance, Sharpe ratio, information ratio, standard deviation, and upside market capture. Each category is analyzed based on the factors used by institutional investors in their own searches. From this review, the magazine surveyed 1,000 institutions and used the results of that survey to tabulate the winners. The award is based on returns and risk characteristics for Guggenheim Investments’ Multi Credit Fixed Income strategy.
eVestment Alliance Rankings
Rankings as of 03/31/2018. Opportunistic Credit ranking is as of 02/28/2018.
Opportunistic Credit ranking based on gross returns for Guggenheim’s Opportunistic Credit Composite versus 18 competitors in the eVestment Alliance Credit–Corporate Universe. For the last 1-, 3-, 5- and 7-year periods, Opportunistic Credit ranked in the top 34%, 17%, 4% and 1%, respectively, versus 81, 66, 53 and 40 competitors, respectively. Data taken from eVestment Alliance on 04/16/2018.
Multi Credit ranking based on gross returns for Guggenheim’s Multi Credit Composite versus 41 competitors in the eVestment Alliance Custom Multi Credit universe. For the last 1-, 3-, 5- and 7-year periods, Multi Credit ranked in the top 33%, 7%, 8% and 6%, respectively, versus 99, 98, 80 and 67 competitors, respectively. Data taken from eVestment Alliance on 04/19/2018.
Core Fixed Income ranking based on gross returns for Guggenheim’s Core Fixed Income Master Composite versus 134 competitors in the eVestment Alliance US Core Fixed Income universe. For the last 1-, 3-, 5-, 7- and 10-year periods, Core Fixed Income ranked in the top 1%, 1%, 1%, 1% and 1%, respectively, versus 228, 223, 218, 213 and 199 competitors, respectively. Prior to August 2014, the Core Fixed Income Master Composite was known as the Core Fixed Income Composite. Data taken from eVestment Alliance on 04/19/2018.
US Bank Loans ranking based on gross returns for Guggenheim’s US Bank Loans Composite versus 15 competitors in the eVestment Alliance US Floating-Rate Bank Loan Fixed Income universe. For the last 1-, 3-, 5-, 7- and 10-year periods, US Bank Loans ranked in the top 48%, 29%,14%, 8% and 7%, respectively, versus 86, 86, 73, 62 and 44 competitors, respectively. Data taken from eVestment Alliance on 04/19/2018.
High Yield ranking based on gross returns for Guggenheim’s High Yield Traditional Composite versus 140 competitors in the eVestment Alliance US High Yield Fixed Income universe. For the last 1-, 3-, 5- and 7-year periods, High Yield ranked in the top 64%, 29%, 28%, and 26%, respectively, versus 219, 213, 187 and 165 competitors, respectively. Data taken from eVestment Alliance on 04/19/2018.
Guggenheim Investments composite peer rankings represent percentile rankings which are based on monthly gross of fee returns and reflect where those returns fall within the indicated eVestment Alliance (EA) universe. EA provides third party databases, including the institutional investment database from which the presented information was extracted. The EA institutional investment database consists of over 1,500 active institutional managers, investment consultants, plan sponsors, and other similar financial institutions actively reporting on over 10,000 products. Only information regarding full year performance and rankings is presented as Guggenheim Investments believes performance for a full year period is an important factor. Additional information regarding EA rankings for year to date and since inception performance of the composites is available on EA’s website
Creditflux: The Creditflux “CLO” awards are performance-based awards presented to a CLO selected from the CLO universe, which includes US and European CLOs, and where possible differentiates between vintages. In 2011, 293 CLOs were submitted by approximately 50 CLO managers, and in 2012, 300 CLOs were submitted by 66 managers. In 2013, 394 US and 193 European arbitrage CLO transactions were reviewed in the study. Performance is evaluated across the lifetime of a deal up to the end of the year preceding the award year. Through the use of its proprietary ParPlus formula in 2011 and its liquidation IRR in 2012, Creditflux judges the best performing deals to be those that have safeguarded debt investors’ principal and interest, while generating excellent returns for equity investors. The awards are calculated using data supplied directly by managers, but all finalists are checked against the performance data in CLO Master. For validation purposes, only CLOs in CLO Master will be eligible for an award.
The Creditflux ”Best U.S. CLO Redeemed in 2015" methodology is final internal rate of return (“IRR”), which is equity IRR based on notional size of the CLO equity and taking into account all payments received by December 31, 2015.
The Creditflux “Manager of the Year” award measures performance across a manager as a whole. The universe of managers is divided into European and US managers and again into those firms with more than $2bn of CLOs under management and those with $2bn or less under management. Managers must submit all of their deals or be penalized. A US CLO is a par-based cash securitization of at least $100 million of assets of which at least 60% are US corporate credit instruments and a European CLO is a par-based cash securitization of at least $100 million of assets of which at least 60% are European corporate credit instruments.
The “Best US CLO 2.0” is a category that measures the best CLO with a closing date between 2009 and 2011, based on liquidation IRR. Liquidation IRR is the internal rate of return equity investors would receive if a CLO had been liquidated on 31 December 2012, all its assets sold at market value and all proceeds and remaining cash distributed to investors in accordance with the cash flow waterfall. To achieve a positive liquidation IRR, CLOs must be able to repay all debt liabilities. Market values are based on an average of all managers’ marks for that asset. Creditflux applies a haircut for assets that are held by only one manager.
The Creditflux’s “Best Called” deal of 2013 is based on a deal’s actual achieved final equity IRR. Creditflux’s annual CLO awards are based on the liquidation IRR methodology. Liquidation IRR is the internal rate of return equity investors would receive if each competing CLO had been liquidated on 12/31/13 and all assets sold at market value. To calculate the return, all equity distributions up to 12/31/13 were used and a final distribution based on the difference between the market value of the portfolio (inc any cash accounts) and the outstanding liabilities on the liquidation date. To simplify calculations it was assumed that no fees were paid and that all excess cash on liquidation was paid to the equity investors. As part of the process, managers provided their list of marks as of 31st December 2013. Then the average (median) was determined and compared with independent pricing sources to calculate the liquidation value of the portfolio, including any cash accounts. More info about these awards can be reviewed on Creditflux’s website.
Creditflux 2015: With the exception of two awards voted for by investor attendees at the symposium (the investors’ choice awards), all the Creditflux Manager Awards are given according to rigorous, quantifiable and relevant measures of performance. The credit hedge fund awards are based on a methodology that rewards performance weighted by volatility relative to a fund’s redemption profile. Funds that promise liquidity need to deliver stable returns; those that lock up investors’ capital need to achieve greater absolute performance. CLO performance is measured in terms of liquidation IRR which is the total return equity investors would have received if their CLO had been liquidated on 31 December 2014. This takes account of equity distributions and the net asset value of the portfolio, and rewards managers that have delivered the best returns to equity while giving a cushion to debt investors. Data for the awards calculations is submitted by managers and supported by figures from CLO-i. Manager of the year award is based on average ranking for each manager across all award categories where present. Funds not submitted for the relevant category are assumed to have fourth-quartile performance. Managers must be present in four or more award categories.
Although the rankings and award information presented herein has been obtained from and is based upon sources Guggenheim Investments believes to be reliable, no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the accuracy or completeness of that information. Past performance should not be construed as a guarantee of and may not be indicative of future performance.
None of Guggenheim’s investment products discussed in this presentation are sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by the Ranking Firms: eVestment Alliance, Creditflux, and Institutional Investor. None of the Ranking Firms make any representation, condition, warranty, express or implied, to prospective or existing investors of any of Guggenheim’s investment product discussed in this presentation or any member of the general public regarding the advisability of investing in securities generally or in any Guggenheim investment product particularly. None of the Ranking Firms are responsible for and none has participated in the determination of the prices of interests in any Guggenheim investment product or the timing of the issuance or sale of the interests of any Guggenheim investment product. In addition, none of the Ranking Firms have any obligation or liability in connection with the administration, marketing, or trading of the interests of any Guggenheim investment product.
The rankings and attributions discussed herein were based on information obtained by each of the Ranking Firms from sources believed by each to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all rankings and attributions contained herein are provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. Under no circumstances shall any of the Ranking Firms have any liability to any person or entity for (a) any loss or damage in whole or in part caused by, resulting from, or relating to, any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of any of the Ranking Firms or any of their directors, officers, employees or agents in connection with the procurement, collection, compilation, analysis, interpretation, communication, publication or delivery of any such information, or (b) any direct, indirect, special, consequential, compensatory or incidental damages whatsoever (including without limitation, lost profits), even if a Ranking Firm is advised in advance of the possibility of such damages, resulting from the use of or inability to use, any such information. The ratings, financial reporting analysis, projections, and other observations, if any, constituting part of the information contained herein are, and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold any securities. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY ANY OF THE RANKING FIRMS IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Each rating or other opinion must be weighed solely as one factor in any investment decision made by or on behalf of any user of the information contained herein, and each such user must accordingly make its own study and evaluation of each security and of each issuer and guarantor of, and each provider of credit support for, each security that it may consider purchasing, holding, or selling.
High-yield debt securities have greater credit and liquidity risk than investment grade obligations. High-yield debt securities are generally unsecured and may be subordinated to certain other obligations of the issuer thereof. The lower rating of high-yield debt securities and below investment grade loans reflects a greater possibility that adverse changes in the financial condition of an issuer or in general economic conditions or both may impair the ability of the issuer thereof to make payments of principal or interest. Risks of high-yield debt securities may include (among others): (i) limited liquidity and secondary market support, (ii) substantial market place volatility resulting from changes in prevailing interest rates, (iii) the possibility that earnings of the high-yield debt security issuer may be insufficient to meet its debt service, and (iv) the declining creditworthiness and potential for insolvency of the issuer of such high-yield debt securities during periods of rising interest rates and/or economic downturn. An economic downturn or an increase in interest rates could severely disrupt the market for high-yield debt securities and adversely affect the value of outstanding high-yield debt securities and the ability of the issuers thereof to repay principal and interest. Issuers of high-yield debt securities may be highly leveraged and may not have available to them more traditional methods of financing.
The use of derivatives and synthetic instruments generally requires a small investment relative to the amount of investment exposure assumed. As a result, such investments may give rise to losses that exceed the amount invested in those instruments. The use of such instruments may expose an investment product to potentially dramatic losses or gains in the value of its portfolio. The cost of investing in such instruments generally increases as interest rates increase, which will lower the investment product’s return. The investment products referenced herein may incur, directly or indirectly, leverage through indebtedness for borrowed money and investments in derivatives, repurchase agreements, and other similar instruments, in significant amounts. The cumulative effect of the use of leverage with respect to any investments in a market that moves adversely to such investments could result in a substantial loss which would be greater than if the investments were not leveraged.