Is Janus Henderson Balanced T (JABAX) a Strong Mutual Fund Pick Right Now?
Having trouble finding an Allocation Balanced fund? Janus Henderson Balanced T (JABAX) is a potential starting point. JABAX carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank of 1 (Strong Buy), which is based on nine forecasting factors like size, cost, and past performance.
The world of Zacks' Allocation Balanced funds is an area filled with options, such as JABAX. These funds like to invest in a variety of asset types, finding a balance between stocks, bonds, cash, and sometimes even precious metals and commodities; they are mostly categorized by their respective asset allocation. For investors, Allocation Balanced funds can provide an entry point into diversified mutual funds, and present core holding options for a portfolio of funds.
History of Fund/Manager
JABAX finds itself in the Janus Fund family, based out of Boston, MA. Since Janus Henderson Balanced T made its debut in November of 1992, JABAX has garnered more than $6.94 billion in assets. The fund's current manager is a team of investment professionals.
Of course, investors look for strong performance in funds. This fund has delivered a 5-year annualized total return of 12.24%, and is in the top third among its category peers. If you're interested in shorter time frames, do not dismiss looking at the fund's 3-year annualized total return of 12.39%, which places it in the top third during this time-frame.
When looking at a fund's performance, it is also important to note the standard deviation of the returns. The lower the standard deviation, the less volatility the fund experiences. Compared to the category average of 14.63%, the standard deviation of JABAX over the past three years is 11.21%. Looking at the past 5 years, the fund's standard deviation is 9.22% compared to the category average of 12.28%. This makes the fund less volatile than its peers over the past half-decade.
Investors should note that the fund has a 5-year beta of 0.6, so it is likely going to be less volatile than the market at large. Another factor to consider is alpha, as it reflects a portfolio's performance on a risk-adjusted basis relative to a benchmark-in this case, the S&P 500. JABAX has generated a positive alpha over the past five years of 1.77, demonstrating that managers in this portfolio are skilled in picking securities that generate better-than-benchmark returns.
Costs are increasingly important for mutual fund investing, and particularly as competition heats up in this market. And all things being equal, a lower cost product will outperform its otherwise identical counterpart, so taking a closer look at these metrics is key for investors. In terms of fees, JABAX is a no load fund. It has an expense ratio of 0.82% compared to the category average of 0.89%. JABAX is actually cheaper than its peers when you consider factors like cost.
While the minimum initial investment for the product is $2,500, investors should also note that there is no minimum for each subsequent investment.
Overall, Janus Henderson Balanced T ( JABAX ) has a high Zacks Mutual Fund rank, and in conjunction with its comparatively strong performance, average downside risk, and lower fees, Janus Henderson Balanced T ( JABAX ) looks like a good potential choice for investors right now.
Your research on the Allocation Balanced segment doesn't have to stop here. You can check out all the great mutual fund tools we have to offer by going to www.zacks.com/funds/mutual-funds to see the additional features we offer as well for additional information. And don't forget, Zacks has all of your needs covered on the equity side too! Make sure to check out Zacks.com for more information on our screening capabilities, Rank, and all our articles as well.
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report
Get Your Free (JABAX): Fund Analysis Report
To read this article on Zacks.com click here.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.