CIGRX Had a Mediocre Year until February



Calamos International Growth Fund’s performance

In this article, we’ll outline the performance of the Calamos International Growth Fund – Class A (CIGRX), which is one of the classes available for retail investors. The fund is invested in companies like Daimler (DDAIF), Delphi Automotive (DLPH), Schlumberger Limited (SLB), Intesa Sanpaolo (IITSF), and Nidec (NJ), among others.

From a purely NAV (net asset value) return standpoint, the CIGRX had a poor one-year period until February 29, 2016, but was an above-average performer for 2015 in the peer group chosen for this series. For return comparison, we have chosen two ETFs: the iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF (ACWX) and the Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF (VEU). For evaluating benchmark-related metrics, we’ve chosen ACWX as the benchmark for all funds in this review, as it tracks the MSCI All Country World ex-U.S. Index.

Article continues below advertisement

Other metrics

The CIGRX’s standard deviation, or the volatility of returns, in the one-year period until February 29 was 15.4%. This is equivalent to the ACWX’s 15.4% and a little lower than the peer group’s average of 15.7%.

The fund’s risk-adjusted returns, calculated via the Sharpe Ratio, were negative for the one-year period ended February 29. Evaluating a negative Sharpe Ratio may be misleading, so we’ll avoid that. The ratio stood at 0.41 for 2015, placing it third among its peers.

The information ratio, calculated with ACWX as the benchmark, was 1.13 for the one-year period ended February 29, placing it sixth among its peers. The information ratio shows the consistency of fund managers along with measuring their ability to generate excess returns over a benchmark. The higher the reading, the better the consistency. For 2015, the fund’s information ratio ranked it third.

A note to investors

The fund had a good run in 2015, which was evident not only in its consistency of returns but also in the alpha generated. Its alpha placed it third among 12 funds in 2015, but only ranked it sixth for the one-year period ended February 29. YTD 2016 has not been good for the fund. It seems that its growth strategy has been tested during the volatile times of 2016 so far. Investors should look at its longer-term performance to see how the fund has done in different business cycles before assessing its worthiness for their portfolio.


More From Market Realist