Is Vanguard Balanced Index Investor (VBINX) a Strong Mutual Fund Pick Right Now?
Any investors who are searching for Allocation Balanced funds should take a look at Vanguard Balanced Index Investor (VBINX). The fund does not have a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank, though we have been able to explore other metrics like performance, volatility, and cost.
VBINX is classified in the Allocation Balanced segment by Zacks, which is an area full of possibilities. Here, investors are able to get a good head start with diversified mutual funds, and play around with core holding options for a portfolio of funds. Allocation Balanced funds look to invest across a balance of asset types, like stocks, bonds, and cash, though including precious metals or commodities is not unusual; these funds are mostly categorized by their respective asset allocation.
History of Fund/Manager
VBINX is a part of the Vanguard Group family of funds, a company based out of Malvern, PA. Vanguard Balanced Index Investor debuted in November of 1992. Since then, VBINX has accumulated assets of about $394.03 million, according to the most recently available information. A team of investment professionals is the fund's current manager.
Of course, investors look for strong performance in funds. VBINX has a 5-year annualized total return of 7.75% and it sits in the top third among its category peers. But if you are looking for a shorter time frame, it is also worth looking at its 3-year annualized total return of 8.62%, 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 8.61%, the standard deviation of VBINX over the past three years is 7.43%. The fund's standard deviation over the past 5 years is 7.32% compared to the category average of 8.84%. This makes the fund less volatile than its peers over the past half-decade.
Investors cannot discount the risks to this segment though, as it is always important to remember the downside for any potential investment. In the most recent bear market, VBINX lost 32.58% and outperformed its peer group by 4%. These results could imply that the fund is a better choice than its peers during a sliding market environment.
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. Alpha is an additional metric to take into consideration, since it represents a portfolio's performance on a risk-adjusted basis relative to a benchmark, which in this case, is the S&P 500. The fund has produced a positive alpha over the past 5 years of 0.5, which shows 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, VBINX is a no load fund. It has an expense ratio of 0.18% compared to the category average of 0.89%. From a cost perspective, VBINX is actually cheaper than its peers.
Investors need to be aware that with this product, the minimum initial investment is $3,000; each subsequent investment needs to be at least $1.
For additional information on the Allocation Balanced area of the mutual fund world, make sure to check out www.zacks.com/funds/mutual-funds. There, you can see more about the ranking process, and dive even deeper into VBINX too for additional information. Zacks provides a full suite of tools to help you analyze your portfolio - both funds and stocks - in the most efficient way possible.
Click to get this free report
Get Your Free (VBINX): Fund Analysis Report
To read this article on Zacks.com click here.
Zacks Investment Research
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.