Performance displayed represents past performance which is no guarantee of future results. Investment returns and principal value will fluctuate so that when shares are redeemed, they may be worth more or less than original cost. Total returns reflect the reinvestment of all dividends. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. For up-to-date fund performance, including performance current to the most recent month-end, click here.
The WealthManagement.com Executive Forum and Industry Awards recognize the companies and organizations that support financial advisor success. The Asset Managers: Fixed Income subcategory winner is selected based on a new initiative or program, or an enhancement to an existing platform, that improves advisors’ understanding, usage and portfolio management of fixed income. Initiatives can include areas such as research tools, practice management programs, wholesaler support, service improvements, technology enhancements, etc. Criteria include quantitative measures—such as specific feature set, usage, adoption, scope, scale, advisor survey scores, etc.—along with qualitative measures such as innovation, creativity, new methods of deployment, etc. For the 2017 awards, WealthManagement.com received 470 submissions from firms across 72 awards categories. For the 2018 awards, WealthManagement.com received 600 submissions from firms across 67 categories. A panel of judges from the financial services industry selected the finalists and award winners. For more details, visit events.wealthmanagement.com.
Thomson Reuters Lipper Awards: Lipper awards are granted annually to the fund in each Lipper classification that achieves the highest score for Consistent Return, a measure of its historical risk-adjusted returns, relative to peers. The Best Alternative Credit Focus Fund 3 and 5 year awards are granted to the fund in the Alternative Credit Focus category with the highest Lipper Leader score for Consistent Return as of 11.30 of the prior year, among 111 funds for the 5-year period in 2018, among 155 funds for the 3-year period and 114 funds for the 5-year period in 2017, among 129 funds for the 3-year period in 2016, and among 114 funds for the 3-year period in 2015. ©2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. Used by permission and protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States. The printing, copying, redistribution, or retransmission of this Content without express written permission is prohibited.
Winners of the HFM U.S. Hedge Fund Performance Awards were selected by a panel of judges and announced on October 19, 2017. The judges, who are investors and investment consultants, reviewed both quantitative and qualitative factors, including the pedigree of the managers, structural criteria and reputation with investors, and the last 12 months of returns and risk-adjusted performance ending June 2017. 7 finalists were chosen out of many entries for the Best 40 Act Fund-Other category. Seven finalists were chosen out of 12 entries for the Best 40 Act Fund-Other category. The Guggenheim Macro Opportunities ranked 1.
¹3 years for GIYIX. Overall Morningstar Ratings are based on risk-adjusted returns and Morningstar Rankings are based on average annual total return. The Institutional class for each fund was rated, based on its risk-adjusted returns, 5 stars for the overall, 3-year, and 5-year periods among 876, 876, and 767 Intermediate-Term Bond funds (Investment Grade Bond Fund and Total Return Bond Fund); 5 stars for the overall, 3-year, and 5-year periods among 472, 472, and 405 Short-Term Bond funds (Limited Duration Fund); 5 stars for overall, 4 stars for 3-years, 5 stars for 5-years, and 5 stars for 10-years among 604, 604, 507, and 329 High Yield funds (High Yield Fund); 5 stars Overall, 5 stars for 3-years, and 5 stars for 5-years among 274, 274, and 177 Nontraditional Bond funds (Macro Opportunities Fund); 4 stars Overall, 3 stars for 3-years, and 5 stars for 5-years among 213, 213, and 196 Bank Loan funds (Floating Rate Strategies Fund); and 4 stars Overall and 4 stars for 3-years among 145 and 145 Ultrashort Bond funds (Ultra Short Bond Fund). The Institutional Class for the 1-year period was ranked 83 out of 241 (41st percentile) Bank Loan funds (Floating Rate Strategies Fund), 306 out of 695 (60th percentile) High Yield Bond funds (High Yield Fund), 51 out of 1,019 (6th percentile) Intermediate-Term Bond funds (Investment Grade Bond Fund), 34 out of 530 (10th percentile) Short-Term Bond funds (Limited Duration Fund), 77 out of 310 (31st percentile) Nontraditional Bond funds (Macro Opportunities Fund), 62 out of 1,019 (8th percentile) Intermediate-Term Bond funds (Total Return Bond Fund), and 53 out of 186 (30th percentile) Ultrashort Bond funds (Ultra Short Duration Fund). The Institutional Class for the 3-year period was ranked 126 out of 213 (52nd percentile) Bank Loan funds (Floating Rate Strategies Fund), 86 out of 604 (19th percentile) High Yield Bond funds (High Yield Fund), 16 out of 876 (2nd percentile) Intermediate-Term Bond funds (Investment Grade Bond Fund), 22 out of 472 (6th percentile) Short-Term Bond funds (Limited Duration Fund), 22 out of 274 (11th percentile) Nontraditional Bond funds (Macro Opportunities Fund), and 14 out of 876 (2nd percentile) Intermediate-Term Bond funds (Total Return Bond Fund).
Morningstar absolute and percentile ranks are based on average annual total return relative to all funds in the same Morningstar category, which includes both mutual funds and ETFs, and do not include the effect of sales charges. Absolute ranks are assigned in descending order for each fund in the category, with 1 being the top performing fund. Funds with the same performance figure are assigned the same absolute rank. Percentile ranks range from 1 (top 1%) to 100 (least favorable), with no minimum number of funds per category. For example, for a category containing three funds, the ranks would be 1, 50, and 100.
Morningstar Rankings do not include the effect of a fund's sales load, if applicable. Other share classes may have different performance characteristics. Morningstar rankings are based on a fund's average annual total return relative to all funds in the same Morningstar category, which includes both mutual funds and ETFs. Fund performance used within the rankings, reflects certain fee waivers, without which, returns and Morningstar rankings would have been lower. The highest (or most favorable) percentile rank is 1 and the lowest (or least favorable) percentile rank is 100. The top-performing fund in a category will always receive a rank of 1. Multiple share classes of a fund have a common portfolio but impose different expense structures.
©2018 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein: (1) is proprietary of Morningstar and /or its content providers; (2) may not be copied or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar, nor its content providers, are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of its information.
The Funds may not be suitable for all investors. Investments in fixed-income securities are subject to the possibility that interest rates could rise, causing the value of the Funds’ securities and share price to decline. Fixed-income securities with longer durations are subject to more volatility than those with shorter durations. High yield, below investment grade, and unrated debt securities are subject to greater volatility and risk of default than investment grade bonds and may be less liquid. Some asset-backed securities, including mortgage-backed securities and CLOs, may have structures that make their reaction to interest rates and other factors difficult to predict, causing their prices to be volatile; and they are subject to interest rate, credit, liquidity, and valuation risks. Loan investments are often below investment grade or unrated and subject to special types of risks, including credit, interest rate, counterparty, and prepayment risk. The Funds’ use of leverage, through borrowings or instruments such as derivatives, may cause the Funds to be more volatile and riskier than if they had not been leveraged. Please see the Funds’ prospectus for more information on these and other risks.