The fee on Affiliated Fund Assets is stated as an annual percentage of the current value of the aggregate net assets of all the Portfolios determined in accordance with the following schedule, and that rate is applied to the Affiliated Fund Assets of each Portfolio.
The fee on Other Assets is stated as an annual percentage of the current value of the aggregate net assets of all the Portfolios determined in accordance with the following schedule, and that rate is applied to the Other Assets of each Portfolio.
The Portfolios are not responsible for the payment of sub-advisory fees.
MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited acts as Sub-adviser to the Lifecycle Portfolios.
The investment management fees incurred for the year ended August 31, 2008, were equivalent to an annual effective rate of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:
The Adviser has contractually agreed to reimburse for certain Portfolio level expenses for the period January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008 (excluding management fees, underlying fund expenses, Rule 12b-1 fees, transfer agency fees, service plan fees, blue sky fees, printing and postage fees, taxes, Portfolio brokerage commissions, interest, litigation and indemnification expenses, other expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolios’ business, and fees under any agreement or plans of the Portfolios dealing with services for shareholders and others with beneficial interests in shares of the Portfolio) that exceed 0.09% of the average annual net assets. Also, the Adviser has agreed to reimburse or to make a payment to a specific class of shares of the Portfolios in an amount equal to the amount by which the expenses attributable to such class of shares exceed the percentage of average annual net assets (on an annualized basis) attributable as follows: 0.50% for Class A, 1.20% for Class B, 1.20% for Class C, 1.05% for Class R, 0.80% for Class R1, 0.55% for Class R2, 0.70% for Class R3, 0.40% for Class R4 and 0.10% for Class R5, and 0.05% for Class 1 for the Lifecycle funds. These expense reimbursements shall continue in effect until December 31, 2008, and thereafter until terminated by the Adviser on notice to JHF II.
For the period September 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, the Adviser had agreed to reimburse or to make a payment to a specific class of shares of the Portfolios in an amount equal to the amount by which the expenses attributable to such class of shares exceed the percentage of average annual net assets (on an annualized basis) attributable as follows: 0.65% for Class A, 1.35% for Class B, 1.35% for Class C, 1.20% for Class R, 0.95% for Class R1, 0.70% for Class R2, 0.85% for Class R3, 0.55% for Class R4 and 0.25% for Class R5, for Lifecycle 2045, Lifecycle 2040, Lifecycle 2035, Lifecycle 2030, Lifecycle 2025, Lifecycle 2020, Lifecycle 2015 and Lifecycle 2010 and 0.69% for Class A, 1.39% for Class B, 1.39% for Class C, 1.24% for Class R, 0.99% for Class R1, 0.74% for Class R2, 0.89% for Class R3, 0.59% for Class R4, 0.29% for Class R5 for Lifecycle Retirement.
For the year ended August 31, 2008, the expense reductions amounted to the following and are reflected as a reduction of total expenses in the Statements of Operations:
Fund administration fees
Pursuant to the Advisory Agreement, the Portfolios reimburse the Adviser for all expenses associated with providing the administrative, financial, legal, accounting and recordkeeping services of the Portfolios, including the preparation of all tax returns, annual, semiannual and periodic reports to shareholders and the preparation of all regulatory reports. These expenses are allocated based on the relative share of net assets of each Portfolio at the time the expense was incurred.
The fund administration fees incurred for the year ended August 31, 2008, were equivalent to an annual effective rate of 0.01% of each Portfolio’s average daily net assets.
Distribution and service plans
The Trust has a Distribution Agreement with the Distributor. The Portfolios have adopted Distribution Plans with respect to Class A, Class B, Class C, Class R, Class R1, Class R2, Class R3, Class R4 and Class 1, pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, to reimburse the Distributor for the services it provides as distributor of shares of the Portfolios. Accordingly, the Portfolios make daily payments to the Distributor at an annual rate up to 0.30%, 1.00%, 1.00%, 0.75%, 0.50%, 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.25% and 0.05% of the average daily net assets of Class A, Class B, Class C, Class R, Class R1, Class R2, Class R3, Class R4 and Class 1, respectively. A maximum of 0.25% of average daily net assets may be service fees, as defined by the Conduct Rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (formerly, National Association of Securities Dealers). Under the Conduct Rules, curtailment of a portion of the Portfolio’s 12b-1 payments could occur under certain circumstances.
The Portfolios have also adopted a Service Plan with respect to Class R, Class R1, Class R2, Class R3, Class R4 and Class R5 shares (the “Service Plan”). Under the Service Plan, the Portfolios pay up to 0.25%, 0.25%, 0.25%, 0.15%, 0.10% and 0.05% of average daily net assets of Class R, Class R1, Class R2, Class R3, Class R4 and Class R5 shares.
Sales charges
Class A shares are assessed up-front sales charges of up to 5% of the net asset value of such shares. The following summarizes the net up-front sales charges received by the Distributor during the year ended August 31, 2008:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Lifecycle 2045 | | Lifecycle 2040 | | Lifecycle 2035 | | Lifecycle 2030 | | Lifecycle 2025 | | Lifecycle 2020 | | Lifecycle 2015 | | Lifecycle 2010 | | Lifecycle Retirement | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net sales charges | | $ | 18,555 | | $ | 17,244 | | $ | 22,278 | | $ | 33,914 | | $ | 66,083 | | $ | 71,324 | | $ | 49,329 | | $ | 26,693 | | $ | 186,434 | |
|
Retained for printing prospectuses, advertising and sales literature | | | 2,760 | | | 2,761 | | | 3,413 | | | 5,263 | | | 10,855 | | | 11,519 | | | 8,359 | | | 4,248 | | | 32,051 | |
|
Sales commission to unrelated broker-dealers | | | 15,408 | | | 14,483 | | | 18,567 | | | 28,607 | | | 53,231 | | | 59,704 | | | 40,970 | | | 22,399 | | | 152,801 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sales commission to affiliated sales personnel | | | 387 | | | — | | | 298 | | | 44 | | | 1,997 | | | 101 | | | — | | | 46 | | | 1,582 | |
Class B shares that are redeemed within six years of purchase are subject to a contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”) at declining rates, beginning at 5.00% of the lesser of the current market value at the time of redemption or the original purchase cost of the shares being redeemed. Class C shares that are redeemed within one year of purchase are subject to a CDSC at a rate of 1.00% of the lesser of the current market value at the time of redemption or the original purchase cost of the shares being redeemed. Proceeds from the CDSCs are paid to the Distributor and are used, in whole or in part, to defray its expenses for providing distribution-related services to the Portfolios in connection with the sale of Class B and Class C shares. During the year ended August 31, 2008, CDSCs received by the Distributor amounted to $32, $718, $1,643, $139, $1,287, $1,256, $479 and $53 for Lifecycle 2045, Lifecycle 2040, Lifecycle 2035, Lifecycle 2030, Lifecycle 2025, Lifecycle 2020, Lifecycle 2015 and Lifecycle Retirement, respectively, for Class B shares. There were no CDSCs received by the Distributor for Lifecycle 2010 and Lifecycle Retirement for Class B shares. CDSCs received by the Distributor amounted to $148, $372, $1,195, $246, $167, $525, $530 and $1,526 for Lifecycle 2040, Lifecycle 2035, Lifecycle 2030, Lifecycle 2025, Lifecycle 2020, Lifecycle 2015, Lifecycle 2010 and Lifecycle Retirement, respectively, for Class C shares. There were no CDSCs received by the Distributor for Lifecycle 2045 for Class C shares.
Transfer agent fees
The Portfolios have a Transfer Agency Agreement with John Hancock Signature Services, Inc. (“Signature Services”), an indirect subsidiary of MFC. For Class A, Class B, Class C, Class R, Class R1, Class R2, Class R3, Class R4 and Class R5 shares, the Portfolio pays a monthly transfer agent fee at an annual rate of 0.05% of each class’s average daily net assets, plus a fee based on the number of shareholder accounts and reimbursement for certain out-of-pocket expenses. Expenses not directly attributable to a particular class of shares are aggregated and allocated to each class on the basis of its relative net asset value. Lifecycle Portfolios pay a monthly fee which is based on an annual rate of $15.00 for each Class A shareholder account, $17.50 for each class B shareholder account, $16.50 for each Class C shareholder account and $15.00 for each Class R, Class R1, Class R2, Class R3, Class R4 and Class R5 shareholder account.
| |
60 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
Signature Services has contractually agreed to limit the transfer agent fees so that such fees do not exceed 0.20% annually of Class A, Class B, Class C, Class R, Class R1, Class R2, Class R3, Class R4 and Class R5 shares average daily net assets. This agreement is effective until December 31, 2008.
In addition, Signature Services has voluntarily agreed to further limit transfer agent fees for Class R, Class R1, Class R2, Class R3, Class R4 and Class R5 shares so that such fees do not exceed 0.05% annually of each class’s average daily net assets. This voluntary agreement was terminated on June 1, 2008. For period ended June 30, 2008, the transfer agent voluntary fee reductions amounted to the following and are reflected as a reductions of total expenses in the Statement of Operations:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Transfer agent fee reduction by class | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Portfolio | | Class R | | Class R1 | | Class R2 | | Class R3 | | Class R4 | | Class R5 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Lifecycle 2045 | | $ 91 | | $ 98 | | $ 106 | | $ 95 | | $ 23 | | $ 51 | |
Lifecycle 2040 | | 108 | | 92 | | 91 | | 130 | | 31 | | 65 | |
Lifecycle 2035 | | 83 | | 108 | | 113 | | 90 | | 25 | | 63 | |
Lifecycle 2030 | | 132 | | 106 | | 84 | | 121 | | 22 | | 50 | |
Lifecycle 2025 | | 97 | | 102 | | 104 | | 91 | | 31 | | 68 | |
Lifecycle 2020 | | 117 | | 107 | | 97 | | 134 | | 25 | | 71 | |
Lifecycle 2015 | | 94 | | 114 | | 104 | | 101 | | 34 | | 73 | |
Lifecycle 2010 | | 55 | | 70 | | 56 | | 136 | | 30 | | 44 | |
Lifecycle Retirement | | 34 | | 55 | | 65 | | 58 | | 31 | | 35 | |
Signature Services reserves the right to terminate this limitation at any time.
In August 2007, the Fund began receiving earnings credits from its transfer agent as a result of uninvested cash balances. These credits are used to reduce a portion of the Fund’s transfer agent fees and out of pocket expenses. During the year ended August 31, 2008, the Fund’s transfer agent fees and out of pocket expenses were reduced by the following amount for transfer agent credits earned.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Lifecycle 2045 | | Lifecycle 2040 | | Lifecycle 2035 | | Lifecycle 2030 | | Lifecycle 2025 | | Lifecycle 2020 | | Lifecycle 2015 | | Lifecycle 2010 | | Lifecycle Retirement | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Transfer agent earning credit | | $ | 52 | | $ | 53 | | $ | 58 | | $ | 76 | | $ | 69 | | $ | 92 | | $ | 67 | | $ | 41 | | $ | 109 | |
Class level expenses for the year ended August 31, 2008, were as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Portfolio | | Share class | | Distribution and service fees | | Transfer agent fees | | Blue sky fees | | Printing and postage fees | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Lifecycle 2045 | | Class A | | $ | 4,784 | | $ | 3,213 | | $ | 13,727 | | $ | 906 | |
| | Class B | | | 2,254 | | | 460 | | | 13,587 | | | 194 | |
| | Class C | | | 1,861 | | | 379 | | | 13,587 | | | 108 | |
| | Class R | | | 1,092 | | | 182 | | | 16,116 | | | 147 | |
| | Class R1 | | | 696 | | | 192 | | | 16,116 | | | 103 | |
| | Class R2 | | | 465 | | | 232 | | | 16,116 | | | 155 | |
| | Class R3 | | | 838 | | | 203 | | | 16,116 | | | 92 | |
| | Class R4 | | | 297 | | | 87 | | | 16,116 | | | 86 | |
| | Class R5 | | | — | | | 130 | | | 16,116 | | | 95 | |
| | Class 1 | | | 28,888 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| | Total | | $ | 41,175 | | $ | 5,078 | | $ | 137,597 | | $ | 1,886 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Lifecycle 2040 | | Class A | | $ | 2,894 | | | 1,949 | | $ | 13,727 | | $ | 563 | |
| | Class B | | | 2,262 | | | 463 | | | 13,727 | | | 187 | |
| | Class C | | | 1,857 | | | 378 | | | 13,828 | | | 109 | |
| | Class R | | | 952 | | | 195 | | | 16,116 | | | 131 | |
| | Class R1 | | | 934 | | | 201 | | | 16,116 | | | 147 | |
| | Class R2 | | | 881 | | | 291 | | | 16,116 | | | 346 | |
| | Class R3 | | | 1,745 | | | 387 | | | 16,116 | | | 185 | |
| | Class R4 | | | 363 | | | 111 | | | 16,116 | | | 111 | |
| | Class R5 | | | — | | | 204 | | | 16,116 | | | 148 | |
| | Class 1 | | | 33,751 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| | Total | | $ | 45,639 | | $ | 4,179 | | $ | 137,978 | | $ | 1,927 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 61 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Portfolio | | Share class | | Distribution and service fees | | Transfer agent fees | | Blue sky fees | | Printing and postage fees | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Lifecycle 2035 | | Class A | | $ | 3,759 | | $ | 2,529 | | $ | 13,749 | | $ | 687 | |
| | Class B | | | 4,864 | | | 984 | | | 13,609 | | | 455 | |
| | Class C | | | 3,047 | | | 619 | | | 13,749 | | | 172 | |
| | Class R | | | 854 | | | 150 | | | 16,139 | | | 119 | |
| | Class R1 | | | 844 | | | 213 | | | 16,139 | | | 133 | |
| | Class R2 | | | 866 | | | 341 | | | 16,139 | | | 273 | |
| | Class R3 | | | 885 | | | 203 | | | 16,138 | | | 100 | |
| | Class R4 | | | 385 | | | 108 | | | 16,138 | | | 118 | |
| | Class R5 | | | — | | | 148 | | | 16,138 | | | 112 | |
| | Class 1 | | | 50,241 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| | Total | | $ | 65,745 | | $ | 5,295 | | $ | 137,938 | | $ | 2,169 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Lifecycle 2030 | | Class A | | $ | 6,494 | | $ | 4,360 | | $ | 13,727 | | $ | 1,414 | |
| | Class B | | | 3,910 | | | 798 | | | 13,588 | | | 322 | |
| | Class C | | | 5,435 | | | 1,101 | | | 13,882 | | | 419 | |
| | Class R | | | 1,342 | | | 236 | | | 16,116 | | | 192 | |
| | Class R1 | | | 1,063 | | | 259 | | | 16,116 | | | 165 | |
| | Class R2 | | | 803 | | | 318 | | | 16,116 | | | 235 | |
| | Class R3 | | | 2,330 | | | 381 | | | 16,116 | | | 314 | |
| | Class R4 | | | 282 | | | 85 | | | 16,116 | | | 82 | |
| | Class R5 | | | — | | | 224 | | | 16,116 | | | 158 | |
| | Class 1 | | | 66,271 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| | Total | | $ | 87,930 | | $ | 7,762 | | $ | 137,893 | | $ | 3,301 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Lifecycle 2025 | | Class A | | $ | 5,331 | | $ | 3,583 | | $ | 14,388 | | $ | 984 | |
| | Class B | | | 4,559 | | | 925 | | | 13,587 | | | 375 | |
| | Class C | | | 4,310 | | | 874 | | | 13,727 | | | 233 | |
| | Class R | | | 971 | | | 184 | | | 16,116 | | | 130 | |
| | Class R1 | | | 1,065 | | | 248 | | | 16,116 | | | 168 | |
| | Class R2 | | | 793 | | | 410 | | | 16,116 | | | 229 | |
| | Class R3 | | | 1,756 | | | 328 | | | 16,116 | | | 239 | |
| | Class R4 | | | 359 | | | 131 | | | 16,116 | | | 107 | |
| | Class R5 | | | — | | | 215 | | | 16,116 | | | 165 | |
| | Class 1 | | | 87,259 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| | Total | | $ | 106,403 | | $ | 6,898 | | $ | 138,398 | | $ | 2,630 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Lifecycle 2020 | | Class A | | $ | 9,011 | | $ | 6,043 | | $ | 14,240 | | $ | 1,860 | |
| | Class B | | | 10,449 | | | 2,112 | | | 13,699 | | | 952 | |
| | Class C | | | 9,018 | | | 1,823 | | | 13,907 | | | 657 | |
| | Class R | | | 1,345 | | | 238 | | | 16,189 | | | 195 | |
| | Class R1 | | | 911 | | | 234 | | | 16,189 | | | 138 | |
| | Class R2 | | | 1,289 | | | 510 | | | 16,189 | | | 442 | |
| | Class R3 | | | 2,543 | | | 499 | | | 16,189 | | | 341 | |
| | Class R4 | | | 303 | | | 105 | | | 16,189 | | | 90 | |
| | Class R5 | | | — | | | 288 | | | 16,189 | | | 63 | |
| | Class 1 | | | 85,432 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| | Total | | $ | 120,301 | | $ | 11,852 | | $ | 138,980 | | $ | 4,738 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Lifecycle 2015 | | Class A | | $ | 5,502 | | $ | 3,703 | | $ | 13,659 | | $ | 1,150 | |
| | Class B | | | 6,662 | | | 1,345 | | | 13,659 | | | 557 | |
| | Class C | | | 4,347 | | | 875 | | | 13,658 | | | 258 | |
| | Class R | | | 1,022 | | | 183 | | | 16,116 | | | 139 | |
| | Class R1 | | | 1,005 | | | 245 | | | 16,116 | | | 165 | |
| | Class R2 | | | 848 | | | 390 | | | 16,116 | | | 282 | |
| | Class R3 | | | 1,496 | | | 347 | | | 16,116 | | | 176 | |
| | Class R4 | | | 333 | | | 124 | | | 16,116 | | | 101 | |
| | Class R5 | | | — | | | 305 | | | 16,116 | | | 272 | |
| | Class 1 | | | 70,133 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| | Total | | $ | 91,348 | | $ | 7,517 | | $ | 137,672 | | $ | 3,100 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
62 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Portfolio | | Share class | | Distribution and service fees | | Transfer agent fees | | Blue sky fees | | Printing and postage fees | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Lifecycle 2010 | | Class A | | $ | 4,611 | | $ | 3,090 | | $ | 13,758 | | $ | 832 | |
| | Class B | | | 2,045 | | | 413 | | | 13,658 | | | 168 | |
| | Class C | | | 7,845 | | | 1,578 | | | 13,958 | | | 532 | |
| | Class R | | | 793 | | | 121 | | | 16,116 | | | 112 | |
| | Class R1 | | | 573 | | | 147 | | | 16,116 | | | 79 | |
| | Class R2 | | | 1,363 | | | 530 | | | 16,116 | | | 346 | |
| | Class R3 | | | 2,580 | | | 510 | | | 16,116 | | | 346 | |
| | Class R4 | | | 342 | | | 129 | | | 16,116 | | | 101 | |
| | Class R5 | | | — | | | 188 | | | 16,258 | | | 98 | |
| | Class 1 | | | 38,738 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| | Total | | $ | 58,890 | | $ | 6,706 | | $ | 138,212 | | $ | 2,614 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Lifecycle Retirement | | Class A | | $ | 24,114 | | $ | 11,373 | | $ | 14,107 | | $ | 5,348 | |
| | Class B | | | 4,483 | | | 905 | | | 13,648 | | | 362 | |
| | Class C | | | 45,036 | | | 7,261 | | | 13,768 | | | 703 | |
| | Class R | | | 851 | | | 97 | | | 16,128 | | | 118 | |
| | Class R1 | | | 529 | | | 117 | | | 16,128 | | | 74 | |
| | Class R2 | | | 367 | | | 151 | | | 16,127 | | | 123 | |
| | Class R3 | | | 813 | | | 150 | | | 16,127 | | | 101 | |
| | Class R4 | | | 265 | | | 89 | | | 16,127 | | | 82 | |
| | Class R5 | | | — | | | 95 | | | 16,127 | | | 77 | |
| | Class 1 | | | 77,232 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| | Total | | $ | 153,690 | | $ | 20,238 | | $ | 138,287 | | $ | 6,988 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
5. Trustees’ fees
The Trust compensates each Trustee who is not an employee of the Adviser or its affiliates. Total Trustees’ expenses are allocated to each Portfolio based on its average daily net asset value.
6. Custody overdraft
Pursuant to the custodian agreement, the Custodian may, in its discretion, advance funds to the Fund to make properly authorized payments. When such payments result in an overdraft, the Fund is obligated to repay the Custodian for any overdraft, including any costs or expenses associated with the overdraft. The Custodian has a lien and security interest in any Fund property to the extent of any overdraft.
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 63 |
7. Portfolio share transactions
Share activities for the Portfolios for the periods ended August 31, 2008, and August 31, 2007, were as follows:
Lifecycle 2045 Portfolio
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Shares | | Year ended 8-31-08 Amount | | Shares | | Period ended 8-31-07 Amount | 1 |
|
Class A shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Sold | | | 98,037 | | $ | 1,018,036 | | | 124,259 | | $ | 1,386,752 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 2,858 | | | 30,538 | | | 235 | | | 2,410 | |
Repurchased | | | (27,860 | ) | | (285,948 | ) | | (1,362 | ) | | (15,519 | ) |
Net increase | | | 73,035 | | $ | 762,626 | | | 123,132 | | $ | 1,373,643 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 28,315 | | $ | 293,920 | | | 13,076 | | $ | 134,159 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 316 | | | 3,363 | | | 223 | | | 2,290 | |
Repurchased | | | (12,813 | ) | | (127,822 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 15,818 | | $ | 169,461 | | | 13,299 | | $ | 136,449 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class C shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 6,278 | | $ | 66,271 | | | 13,755 | | $ | 139,477 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 292 | | | 3,103 | | | 224 | | | 2,290 | |
Repurchased | | | (560 | ) | | (5,554 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (20 | ) |
Net increase | | | 6,010 | | $ | 63,820 | | | 13,977 | | $ | 141,747 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 7,021 | | $ | 71,102 | | | 10,833 | | $ | 109,197 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 232 | | | 2,465 | | | 222 | | | 2,282 | |
Repurchased | | | (11 | ) | | (109 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase (decrease) | | | 7,242 | | $ | 73,458 | | | 11,053 | | $ | 111,458 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 8,488 | | $ | 85,788 | | | 10,116 | | $ | 101,285 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 214 | | | 2,286 | | | 227 | | | 2,325 | |
Repurchased | | | (65 | ) | | (633 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (20 | ) |
Net increase | | | 8,637 | | $ | 87,441 | | | 10,341 | | $ | 103,590 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R2 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 43,295 | | $ | 431,933 | | | 10,429 | | $ | 104,746 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 314 | | | 3,359 | | | 231 | | | 2,368 | |
Repurchased | | | (11,469 | ) | | (114,671 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 32,140 | | $ | 320,621 | | | 10,658 | | $ | 107,092 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R3 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 21,803 | | $ | 217,375 | | | 10,529 | | $ | 105,905 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 295 | | | 3,144 | | | 229 | | | 2,342 | |
Repurchased | | | (3,120 | ) | | (31,851 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 18,978 | | $ | 188,668 | | | 10,756 | | $ | 108,225 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R4 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 5,216 | | $ | 52,001 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 216 | | | 2,312 | | | 233 | | | 2,393 | |
Repurchased | | | (872 | ) | | (8,736 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 4,560 | | $ | 45,577 | | | 10,233 | | $ | 102,393 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R5 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 6,695 | | $ | 68,210 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 225 | | | 2,408 | | | 238 | | | 2,444 | |
Repurchased | | | (391 | ) | | (3,782 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 6,529 | | $ | 66,836 | | | 10,238 | | $ | 102,444 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class 1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 7,983,512 | | $ | 82,402,161 | | | 2,141,873 | | $ | 23,604,482 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 78,533 | | | 841,091 | | | 1,110 | | | 11,381 | |
Repurchased | | | (11,424 | ) | | (126,806 | ) | | (29,626 | ) | | (325,498 | ) |
Net increase | | | 8,050,621 | | $ | 83,116,446 | | | 2,113,357 | | $ | 23,290,365 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net increase | | | 8,223,570 | | $ | 84,894,954 | | | 2,327,044 | | $ | 25,577,406 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1 Period from 10-30-06 (commencement of operations) to 8-31-07.
| |
64 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
Lifecycle 2040 Portfolio
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Shares | | Year ended 8-31-08 Amount | | Shares | | Period ended 8-31-07 Amount | 1 |
| | | | | | | | | |
Class A shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 118,633 | | $ | 1,239,743 | | | 53,068 | | $ | 571,474 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 1,861 | | | 19,890 | | | 218 | | | 2,240 | |
Repurchased | | | (42,305 | ) | | (422,298 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 78,189 | | $ | 837,335 | | | 53,286 | | $ | 573,714 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 23,684 | | $ | 251,706 | | | 14,639 | | $ | 150,579 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 439 | | | 4,680 | | | 206 | | | 2,121 | |
Repurchased | | | (12,894 | ) | | (129,491 | ) | | (468 | ) | | (4,938 | ) |
Net increase | | | 11,229 | | $ | 126,895 | | | 14,377 | | $ | 147,762 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class C shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 25,422 | | $ | 260,996 | | | 11,420 | | $ | 115,887 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 323 | | | 3,444 | | | 206 | | | 2,121 | |
Repurchased | | | (12,536 | ) | | (125,786 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 13,209 | | $ | 138,654 | | | 11,624 | | $ | 117,987 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 4,253 | | $ | 43,142 | | | 10,337 | | $ | 103,722 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 222 | | | 2,371 | | | 206 | | | 2,112 | |
Repurchased | | | (79 | ) | | (750 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase (decrease) | | | 4,396 | | $ | 44,763 | | | 10,541 | | $ | 105,813 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 20,931 | | $ | 215,989 | | | 10,032 | | $ | 100,352 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 294 | | | 3,141 | | | 210 | | | 2,155 | |
Repurchased | | | (10,475 | ) | | (99,534 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 10,750 | | $ | 119,596 | | | 10,240 | | $ | 102,486 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R2 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 62,292 | | $ | 616,164 | | | 24,799 | | $ | 261,681 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 582 | | | 6,223 | | | 214 | | | 2,198 | |
Repurchased | | | (13,108 | ) | | (131,647 | ) | | (5 | ) | | (53 | ) |
Net increase | | | 49,766 | | $ | 490,740 | | | 25,008 | | $ | 263,826 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R3 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 128,579 | | $ | 1,248,512 | | | 12,679 | | $ | 130,104 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 489 | | | 5,218 | | | 211 | | | 2,172 | |
Repurchased | | | (18,094 | ) | | (178,830 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 110,974 | | $ | 1,074,900 | | | 12,888 | | $ | 132,254 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R4 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 11,713 | | $ | 118,813 | | | 10,002 | | $ | 100,020 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 224 | | | 2,393 | | | 216 | | | 2,223 | |
Repurchased | | | (4,073 | ) | | (42,234 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 7,864 | | $ | 78,972 | | | 10,216 | | $ | 102,221 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R5 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 85,659 | | $ | 842,514 | | | 10,269 | | $ | 102,858 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 239 | | | 2,561 | | | 221 | | | 2,275 | |
Repurchased | | | (30,558 | ) | | (297,549 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 55,340 | | $ | 547,526 | | | 10,488 | | $ | 105,111 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class 1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 9,191,245 | | $ | 95,022,350 | | | 2,375,526 | | $ | 26,086,277 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 93,889 | | | 1,006,487 | | | 1,157 | | | 11,882 | |
Repurchased | | | (20,936 | ) | | (234,174 | ) | | (15,090 | ) | | (158,719 | ) |
Net increase | | | 9,264,198 | | $ | 95,794,663 | | | 2,361,593 | | $ | 25,939,440 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net increase | | | 9,605,915 | | $ | 99,254,044 | | | 2,520,261 | | $ | 27,590,614 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1 Period from 10-30-06 (commencement of operations) to 8-31-07.
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 65 |
Lifecycle 2035 Portfolio
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Shares | | Year ended 8-31-08 Amount | | Shares | | Period ended 8-31-07 Amount | 1 |
| | | | | | | | | |
Class A shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 196,006 | | $ | 2,041,324 | | | 61,634 | | $ | 679,752 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 1,672 | | | 17,849 | | | 156 | | | 1,608 | |
Repurchased | | | (31,220 | ) | | (324,132 | ) | | (6,467 | ) | | (69,755 | ) |
Net increase | | | 166,458 | | $ | 1,735,041 | | | 55,323 | | $ | 611,605 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 40,058 | | $ | 425,469 | | | 35,972 | | $ | 385,605 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 874 | | | 9,356 | | | 144 | | | 1,488 | |
Repurchased | | | (18,788 | ) | | (199,268 | ) | | (63 | ) | | (665 | ) |
Net increase | | | 22,144 | | $ | 235,557 | | | 36,053 | | $ | 386,428 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class C shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 25,658 | | $ | 279,939 | | | 22,044 | | $ | 230,444 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 536 | | | 5,740 | | | 144 | | | 1,488 | |
Repurchased | | | (13,968 | ) | | (150,848 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 12,226 | | $ | 134,831 | | | 22,186 | | $ | 231,911 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 19,880 | | $ | 201,125 | | | 10,258 | | $ | 102,858 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 229 | | | 2,452 | | | 143 | | | 1,480 | |
Repurchased | | | (22,220 | ) | | (227,053 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase (decrease) | | | (2,111 | ) | $ | (23,476 | ) | | 10,399 | | $ | 104,317 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 18,677 | | $ | 191,534 | | | 10,056 | | $ | 100,617 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 217 | | | 2,332 | | | 147 | | | 1,522 | |
Repurchased | | | (10,610 | ) | | (101,427 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 8,284 | | $ | 92,439 | | | 10,201 | | $ | 102,118 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R2 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 142,396 | | $ | 1,398,517 | | | 13,697 | | $ | 141,109 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 306 | | | 3,297 | | | 152 | | | 1,565 | |
Repurchased | | | (12,781 | ) | | (129,019 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 129,921 | | $ | 1,272,795 | | | 13,847 | | $ | 142,652 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R3 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 29,045 | | $ | 298,140 | | | 10,002 | | $ | 100,021 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 285 | | | 3,058 | | | 149 | | | 1,539 | |
Repurchased | | | (10,473 | ) | | (100,269 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 18,857 | | $ | 200,929 | | | 10,149 | | $ | 101,538 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R4 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 18,345 | | $ | 182,548 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 224 | | | 2,407 | | | 154 | | | 1,591 | |
Repurchased | | | (5,947 | ) | | (56,797 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 12,622 | | $ | 128,158 | | | 10,154 | | $ | 101,591 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R5 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 15,402 | | $ | 159,749 | | | 10,622 | | $ | 106,656 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 250 | | | 2,698 | | | 159 | | | 1,642 | |
Repurchased | | | (10,996 | ) | | (110,754 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 4,656 | | $ | 51,693 | | | 10,779 | | $ | 108,276 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class 1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 13,037,246 | | $ | 136,162,654 | | | 3,619,334 | | $ | 39,775,763 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 144,091 | | | 1,554,738 | | | 2,233 | | | 23,067 | |
Repurchased | | | (104,135 | ) | | (1,123,302 | ) | | (32,200 | ) | | (353,406 | ) |
Net increase | | | 13,077,202 | | $ | 136,594,090 | | | 3,589,367 | | $ | 39,445,424 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net increase | | | 13,450,259 | | $ | 140,422,057 | | | 3,768,458 | | $ | 41,335,860 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1 Period from 10-30-06 (commencement of operations) to 8-31-07.
| |
66 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
Lifecycle 2030 Portfolio
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Shares | | Year ended 8-31-08 Amount | | Shares | | Period ended 8-31-07 Amount | 1 |
| | | | | | | | | |
Class A shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 289,702 | | $ | 3,012,936 | | | 104,649 | | $ | 1,154,412 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 2,865 | | | 30,623 | | | 209 | | | 2,144 | |
Repurchased | | | (47,030 | ) | | (492,880 | ) | | (766 | ) | | (8,094 | ) |
Net increase | | | 245,537 | | $ | 2,550,679 | | | 104,092 | | $ | 1,148,462 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 47,041 | | $ | 478,082 | | | 27,333 | | $ | 287,630 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 396 | | | 4,233 | | | 197 | | | 2,024 | |
Repurchased | | | (19,905 | ) | | (208,883 | ) | | (39 | ) | | (437 | ) |
Net increase | | | 27,532 | | $ | 273,432 | | | 27,491 | | $ | 289,217 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class C shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 31,099 | | $ | 324,051 | | | 50,632 | | $ | 529,920 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 578 | | | 6,169 | | | 197 | | | 2,024 | |
Repurchased | | | (31,005 | ) | | (323,375 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 672 | | $ | 6,845 | | | 50,829 | | $ | 531,944 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 12,120 | | $ | 122,761 | | | 11,832 | | $ | 120,346 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 221 | | | 2,357 | | | 196 | | | 2,016 | |
Repurchased | | | (274 | ) | | (2,721 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase (decrease) | | | 12,067 | | $ | 122,397 | | | 12,026 | | $ | 122,341 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 34,528 | | $ | 347,211 | | | 10,080 | | $ | 100,887 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 208 | | | 2,217 | | | 201 | | | 2,059 | |
Repurchased | | | (11,401 | ) | | (112,864 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 23,335 | | $ | 236,564 | | | 10,279 | | $ | 102,925 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R2 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 144,745 | | $ | 1,413,285 | | | 12,892 | | $ | 131,544 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 331 | | | 3,534 | | | 205 | | | 2,102 | |
Repurchased | | | (18,261 | ) | | (179,343 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 126,815 | | $ | 1,237,476 | | | 13,095 | | $ | 133,624 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R3 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 78,378 | | $ | 829,159 | | | 10,079 | | $ | 100,857 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 932 | | | 9,945 | | | 202 | | | 2,076 | |
Repurchased | | | (18,674 | ) | | (198,780 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 60,636 | | $ | 640,324 | | | 10,279 | | $ | 102,911 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R4 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 2,214 | | $ | 22,031 | | | 10,002 | | $ | 100,020 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 210 | | | 2,244 | | | 207 | | | 2,127 | |
Repurchased | | | (629 | ) | | (6,325 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 1,795 | | $ | 17,950 | | | 10,207 | | $ | 102,125 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R5 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 149,048 | | $ | 1,451,436 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 241 | | | 2,567 | | | 212 | | | 2,178 | |
Repurchased | | | (54,791 | ) | | (530,702 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 94,498 | | $ | 923,301 | | | 10,212 | | $ | 102,178 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class 1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 18,232,119 | | $ | 187,652,703 | | | 4,625,239 | | $ | 50,428,286 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 187,107 | | | 1,996,434 | | | 3,380 | | | 34,640 | |
Repurchased | | | (49,768 | ) | | (528,520 | ) | | (46,270 | ) | | (488,058 | ) |
Net increase | | | 18,369,458 | | $ | 189,120,617 | | | 4,582,349 | | $ | 49,974,868 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net increase | | | 18,962,345 | | $ | 195,129,585 | | | 4,830,859 | | $ | 52,610,595 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1 Period from 10-30-06 (commencement of operations) to 8-31-07.
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 67 |
Lifecycle 2025 Portfolio
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Shares | | Year ended 8-31-08 Amount | | Shares | | Period ended 8-31-07 Amount | 1 |
| | | | | | | | | |
Class A shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 361,450 | | $ | 3,703,251 | | | 60,756 | | $ | 647,664 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 1,640 | | | 17,449 | | | 191 | | | 1,958 | |
Repurchased | | | (47,605 | ) | | (488,900 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 315,485 | | $ | 3,231,800 | | | 60,947 | | $ | 649,622 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 60,998 | | $ | 632,404 | | | 23,983 | | $ | 250,457 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 322 | | | 3,416 | | | 179 | | | 1,838 | |
Repurchased | | | (15,122 | ) | | (157,598 | ) | | (370 | ) | | (3,914 | ) |
Net increase | | | 46,198 | | $ | 478,222 | | | 23,792 | | $ | 248,381 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class C shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 63,029 | | $ | 658,808 | | | 21,270 | | $ | 220,502 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 344 | | | 3,655 | | | 179 | | | 1,838 | |
Repurchased | | | (12,783 | ) | | (133,371 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 50,590 | | $ | 529,092 | | | 21,447 | | $ | 222,319 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 4,088 | | $ | 41,973 | | | 10,312 | | $ | 103,398 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 185 | | | 1,963 | | | 178 | | | 1,830 | |
Repurchased | | | (7 | ) | | (66 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase (decrease) | | | 4,266 | | $ | 43,870 | | | 10,490 | | $ | 105,228 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 32,763 | | $ | 329,022 | | | 10,040 | | $ | 100,442 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 232 | | | 2,456 | | | 183 | | | 1,873 | |
Repurchased | | | (13,265 | ) | | (126,697 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 19,730 | | $ | 204,781 | | | 10,221 | | $ | 102,294 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R2 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 178,139 | | $ | 1,738,279 | | | 10,622 | | $ | 106,772 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 391 | | | 4,146 | | | 187 | | | 1,915 | |
Repurchased | | | (10,732 | ) | | (113,356 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 167,798 | | $ | 1,629,069 | | | 10,807 | | $ | 108,665 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R3 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 54,594 | | $ | 577,342 | | | 16,965 | | $ | 178,186 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 855 | | | 9,067 | | | 184 | | | 1,890 | |
Repurchased | | | (24,749 | ) | | (248,136 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 30,700 | | $ | 338,273 | | | 17,147 | | $ | 180,054 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R4 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 11,846 | | $ | 119,032 | | | 10,002 | | $ | 100,021 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 220 | | | 2,339 | | | 189 | | | 1,941 | |
Repurchased | | | (594 | ) | | (6,004 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 11,472 | | $ | 115,367 | | | 10,189 | | $ | 101,940 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R5 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 30,069 | | $ | 309,143 | | | 10,190 | | $ | 102,021 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 254 | | | 2,694 | | | 194 | | | 1,993 | |
Repurchased | | | (10,901 | ) | | (108,814 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 19,422 | | $ | 203,023 | | | 10,382 | | $ | 103,992 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class 1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 22,895,610 | | $ | 235,338,535 | | | 6,225,701 | | $ | 67,419,547 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 269,249 | | | 2,856,733 | | | 4,892 | | | 50,143 | |
Repurchased | | | (45,102 | ) | | (470,040 | ) | | (57,570 | ) | | (609,992 | ) |
Net increase | | | 23,119,757 | | $ | 237,725,228 | | | 6,173,023 | | $ | 66,859,698 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net increase | | | 23,785,418 | | $ | 244,498,725 | | | 6,348,445 | | $ | 68,682,193 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1 Period from 10-30-06 (commencement of operations) to 8-31-07.
| |
68 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
Lifecycle 2020 Portfolio
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Shares | | Year ended 8-31-08 Amount | | Shares | | Period ended 8-31-07 Amount | 1 |
| | | | | | | | | |
Class A shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 346,873 | | $ | 3,614,886 | | | 142,559 | | $ | 1,542,872 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 4,411 | | | 46,760 | | | 173 | | | 1,775 | |
Repurchased | | | (45,096 | ) | | (464,080 | ) | | (4,755 | ) | | (51,607 | ) |
Net increase | | | 306,188 | | $ | 3,197,566 | | | 137,977 | | $ | 1,493,040 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 101,666 | | $ | 1,062,506 | | | 57,441 | | $ | 611,012 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 1,050 | | | 11,135 | | | 161 | | | 1,655 | |
Repurchased | | | (26,115 | ) | | (267,174 | ) | | (1,092 | ) | | (11,726 | ) |
Net increase | | | 76,601 | | $ | 806,467 | | | 56,510 | | $ | 600,941 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class C shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 79,442 | | $ | 833,142 | | | 56,913 | | $ | 602,495 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 837 | | | 8,877 | | | 161 | | | 1,655 | |
Repurchased | | | (19,431 | ) | | (201,977 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 60,848 | | $ | 640,042 | | | 57,072 | | $ | 604,129 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 20,925 | | $ | 221,867 | | | 10,928 | | $ | 110,016 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 383 | | | 4,053 | | | 161 | | | 1,647 | |
Repurchased | | | (10,349 | ) | | (103,704 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase (decrease) | | | 10,959 | | $ | 122,216 | | | 11,087 | | $ | 111,642 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 30,910 | | $ | 311,811 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 205 | | | 2,165 | | | 165 | | | 1,690 | |
Repurchased | | | (15,236 | ) | | (146,814 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 15,879 | | $ | 167,162 | | | 10,165 | | $ | 101,690 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R2 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 156,560 | | $ | 1,552,843 | | | 19,640 | | $ | 202,008 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 418 | | | 4,418 | | | 169 | | | 1,732 | |
Repurchased | | | (18,955 | ) | | (192,751 | ) | | (3 | ) | | (37 | ) |
Net increase | | | 138,023 | | $ | 1,364,510 | | | 19,806 | | $ | 203,703 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R3 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 102,114 | | $ | 1,086,512 | | | 11,529 | | $ | 116,807 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 1,002 | | | 10,614 | | | 167 | | | 1,707 | |
Repurchased | | | (28,981 | ) | | (303,910 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 74,135 | | $ | 793,216 | | | 11,694 | | $ | 118,492 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R4 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 4,387 | | $ | 44,331 | | | 10,002 | | $ | 100,021 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 230 | | | 2,435 | | | 172 | | | 1,758 | |
Repurchased | | | (439 | ) | | (4,410 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 4,178 | | $ | 42,356 | | | 10,172 | | $ | 101,757 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R5 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 64,772 | | $ | 632,997 | | | 24,951 | | $ | 257,900 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 378 | | | 4,002 | | | 177 | | | 1,809 | |
Repurchased | | | (11,818 | ) | | (123,740 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 53,332 | | $ | 513,259 | | | 25,128 | | $ | 259,709 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class 1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 22,479,297 | | $ | 232,024,606 | | | 6,122,505 | | $ | 66,015,343 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 268,281 | | | 2,841,099 | | | 4,746 | | | 48,643 | |
Repurchased | | | (164,608 | ) | | (1,816,093 | ) | | (131,757 | ) | | (1,382,850 | ) |
Net increase | | | 22,582,970 | | $ | 233,049,612 | | | 5,995,494 | | $ | 64,681,136 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net increase | | | 23,323,113 | | $ | 240,696,406 | | | 6,335,105 | | $ | 68,276,239 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
1 | Period from 10-30-06 (commencement of operations) to 8-31-07. |
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 69 |
Lifecycle 2015 Portfolio
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Shares | | Year ended 8-31-08 Amount | | Shares | | Period ended 8-31-07 Amount | 1 |
| | | | | | | | | |
Class A shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 256,050 | | $ | 2,615,937 | | | 78,279 | | $ | 826,395 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 2,745 | | | 28,683 | | | 176 | | | 1,794 | |
Repurchased | | | (49,748 | ) | | (505,001 | ) | | (11 | ) | | (114 | ) |
Net increase | | | 209,047 | | $ | 2,139,619 | | | 78,444 | | $ | 828,075 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 69,878 | | $ | 711,535 | | | 43,663 | | $ | 461,767 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 783 | | | 8,177 | | | 164 | | | 1,674 | |
Repurchased | | | (19,999 | ) | | (206,216 | ) | | (589 | ) | | (6,260 | ) |
Net increase | | | 50,662 | | $ | 513,496 | | | 43,238 | | $ | 457,181 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class C shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 72,676 | | $ | 739,069 | | | 24,475 | | $ | 255,866 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 452 | | | 4,728 | | | 164 | | | 1,674 | |
Repurchased | | | (18,472 | ) | | (192,134 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 54,656 | | $ | 551,663 | | | 24,637 | | $ | 257,518 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 7,380 | | $ | 75,071 | | | 10,245 | | $ | 102,635 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 222 | | | 2,314 | | | 163 | | | 1,666 | |
Repurchased | | | (383 | ) | | (3,724 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase (decrease) | | | 7,219 | | $ | 73,661 | | | 10,408 | | $ | 104,301 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 21,618 | | $ | 223,188 | | | 10,006 | | $ | 100,060 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 391 | | | 4,081 | | | 167 | | | 1,708 | |
Repurchased | | | (10,670 | ) | | (102,139 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 11,339 | | $ | 125,130 | | | 10,173 | | $ | 101,768 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R2 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 121,562 | | $ | 1,195,474 | | | 15,897 | | $ | 162,466 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 510 | | | 5,315 | | | 171 | | | 1,751 | |
Repurchased | | | (12,505 | ) | | (124,199 | ) | | (909 | ) | | (9,417 | ) |
Net increase | | | 109,567 | | $ | 1,076,590 | | | 15,159 | | $ | 154,800 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R3 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 71,912 | | $ | 731,743 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 321 | | | 3,353 | | | 169 | | | 1,725 | |
Repurchased | | | (10,414 | ) | | (99,769 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 61,819 | | $ | 635,327 | | | 10,169 | | $ | 101,725 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R4 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 8,080 | | $ | 80,771 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 261 | | | 2,726 | | | 174 | | | 1,777 | |
Repurchased | | | (706 | ) | | (7,076 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 7,635 | | $ | 76,421 | | | 10,174 | | $ | 101,777 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R5 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 61,469 | | $ | 625,889 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 288 | | | 3,004 | | | 179 | | | 1,828 | |
Repurchased | | | (23,994 | ) | | (240,340 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 37,763 | | $ | 388,553 | | | 10,179 | | $ | 101,828 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class 1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 17,158,243 | | $ | 176,378,050 | | | 5,361,809 | | $ | 57,250,879 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 254,558 | | | 2,660,134 | | | 2,570 | | | 26,262 | |
Repurchased | | | (251,331 | ) | | (2,535,009 | ) | | (146,622 | ) | | (1,540,356 | ) |
Net increase | | | 17,161,470 | | $ | 176,503,175 | | | 5,217,757 | | $ | 55,736,785 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net increase | | | 17,711,177 | | $ | 182,083,635 | | | 5,430,338 | | $ | 57,945,758 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
1 | Period from 10-30-06 (commencement of operations) to 8-31-07. |
| |
70 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
Lifecycle 2010 Portfolio
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Shares | | Year ended 8-31-08 Amount | | Shares | | Period ended 8-31-07 Amount | 1 |
| | | | | | | | | |
Class A shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 206,150 | | $ | 2,112,391 | | | 92,090 | | $ | 965,714 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 2,495 | | | 25,819 | | | 151 | | | 1,540 | |
Repurchased | | | (60,209 | ) | | (603,338 | ) | | (29,153 | ) | | (309,869 | ) |
Net increase | | | 148,436 | | $ | 1,534,872 | | | 63,088 | | $ | 657,385 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 23,018 | | $ | 235,563 | | | 12,327 | | $ | 124,735 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 280 | | | 2,904 | | | 139 | | | 1,421 | |
Repurchased | | | (12,596 | ) | | (126,151 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 10,702 | | $ | 112,316 | | | 12,464 | | $ | 126,135 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class C shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 100,254 | | $ | 1,040,588 | | | 39,409 | | $ | 405,423 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 1,147 | | | 11,884 | | | 139 | | | 1,421 | |
Repurchased | | | (38,965 | ) | | (403,306 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (22 | ) |
Net increase | | | 62,436 | | $ | 649,166 | | | 39,546 | | $ | 406,822 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 174 | | $ | 1,776 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 211 | | | 2,182 | | | 139 | | | 1,413 | |
Repurchased | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
Net increase (decrease) | | | 385 | | $ | 3,958 | | | 10,139 | | $ | 101,413 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 2,725 | | $ | 27,217 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 238 | | | 2,456 | | | 143 | | | 1,455 | |
Repurchased | | | (25 | ) | | (258 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 2,938 | | $ | 29,415 | | | 10,143 | | $ | 101,455 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R2 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 311,738 | | $ | 3,064,593 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 264 | | | 2,730 | | | 147 | | | 1,498 | |
Repurchased | | | (87,280 | ) | | (881,776 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 224,722 | | $ | 2,185,547 | | | 10,147 | | $ | 101,498 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R3 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 97,370 | | $ | 1,016,704 | | | 10,027 | | $ | 100,273 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 1,055 | | | 10,914 | | | 144 | | | 1,473 | |
Repurchased | | | (26,359 | ) | | (266,281 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 72,066 | | $ | 761,337 | | | 10,171 | | $ | 101,746 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R4 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 16,708 | | $ | 166,308 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 264 | | | 2,730 | | | 149 | | | 1,523 | |
Repurchased | | | (5,964 | ) | | (57,706 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 11,008 | | $ | 111,332 | | | 10,149 | | $ | 101,523 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R5 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 57,081 | | $ | 557,654 | | | 10,000 | | $ | 100,000 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 290 | | | 3,005 | | | 154 | | | 1,574 | |
Repurchased | | | (16,191 | ) | | (158,353 | ) | | — | | | — | |
Net increase | | | 41,180 | | $ | 402,306 | | | 10,154 | | $ | 101,574 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class 1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 10,300,472 | | $ | 105,648,006 | | | 2,520,127 | | $ | 26,611,731 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 147,202 | | | 1,523,542 | | | 965 | | | 9,843 | |
Repurchased | | | (368,067 | ) | | (3,737,100 | ) | | (115,877 | ) | | (1,235,555 | ) |
Net increase | | | 10,079,607 | | $ | 103,434,448 | | | 2,405,215 | | $ | 25,386,019 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net increase | | | 10,653,480 | | $ | 109,224,697 | | | 2,581,216 | | $ | 27,185,570 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
1 | Period from 10-30-06 (commencement of operations) to 8-31-07. |
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 71 |
Lifecycle Retirement Portfolio
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Shares | | Year ended 8-31-08 Amount | | Shares | | Period ended 8-31-07 Amount | 1 |
| | | | | | | | | |
Class A shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 823,146 | | $ | 8,271,824 | | | 426,231 | | $ | 4,425,214 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 26,078 | | | 261,289 | | | 1,672 | | | 17,355 | |
Repurchased | | | (141,454 | ) | | (1,376,430 | ) | | (14,393 | ) | | (150,201 | ) |
Net increase | | | 707,770 | | $ | 7,156,683 | | | 413,510 | | $ | 4,292,368 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 27,292 | | $ | 280,517 | | | 38,650 | | $ | 399,558 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 1,270 | | | 12,810 | | | 313 | | | 3,206 | |
Repurchased | | | (20,551 | ) | | (201,914 | ) | | (1,449 | ) | | (15,078 | ) |
Net increase | | | 8,011 | | $ | 91,413 | | | 37,514 | | $ | 387,686 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class C shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 665,373 | | $ | 6,704,880 | | | 133,397 | | $ | 1,381,684 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 11,420 | | | 114,105 | | | 456 | | | 4,700 | |
Repurchased | | | (135,683 | ) | | (1,322,073 | ) | | (2,165 | ) | | (22,143 | ) |
Net increase | | | 541,110 | | $ | 5,496,912 | | | 131,688 | | $ | 1,364,241 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 4,734 | | $ | 45,493 | | | 10,002 | | $ | 100,020 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 394 | | | 3,963 | | | 238 | | | 2,426 | |
Repurchased | | | (4,741 | ) | | (45,064 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (20 | ) |
Net increase (decrease) | | | 387 | | $ | 4,392 | | | 10,238 | | $ | 102,426 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 115 | | $ | 1,135 | | | 10,002 | | $ | 100,020 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 404 | | | 4,064 | | | 255 | | | 2,601 | |
Repurchased | | | — | | | — | | | (2 | ) | | (20 | ) |
Net increase | | | 519 | | $ | 5,199 | | | 10,255 | | $ | 102,601 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R2 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 10,844 | | $ | 108,356 | | | 10,360 | | $ | 103,687 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 531 | | | 5,321 | | | 272 | | | 2,777 | |
Repurchased | | | (5,468 | ) | | (52,471 | ) | | (1 | ) | | (14 | ) |
Net increase | | | 5,907 | | $ | 61,206 | | | 10,631 | | $ | 106,450 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R3 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 9,187 | | $ | 95,388 | | | 10,007 | | $ | 100,073 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 674 | | | 6,767 | | | 259 | | | 2,645 | |
Repurchased | | | (684 | ) | | (6,788 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 9,177 | | $ | 95,367 | | | 10,264 | | $ | 102,697 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R4 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 97 | | $ | 946 | | | 10,002 | | $ | 100,020 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 440 | | | 4,426 | | | 278 | | | 2,843 | |
Repurchased | | | — | | | — | | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 537 | | $ | 5,372 | | | 10,278 | | $ | 102,842 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class R5 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 980 | | $ | 9,618 | | | 10,002 | | $ | 100,020 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 474 | | | 4,769 | | | 298 | | | 3,040 | |
Repurchased | | | (1 | ) | | (8 | ) | | (2 | ) | | (21 | ) |
Net increase | | | 1,453 | | $ | 14,379 | | | 10,298 | | $ | 103,039 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class 1 shares | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sold | | | 22,765,338 | | $ | 228,178,574 | | | 7,847,983 | | $ | 80,813,062 | |
Distributions reinvested | | | 565,986 | | | 5,643,203 | | | 54,521 | | | 563,991 | |
Repurchased | | | (7,198,772 | ) | | (71,496,368 | ) | | (1,541,863 | ) | | (15,951,117 | ) |
Net increase | | | 16,132,552 | | $ | 162,325,409 | | | 6,360,641 | | $ | 65,425,936 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net increase | | | 17,407,423 | | $ | 175,256,332 | | | 7,005,317 | | $ | 72,090,286 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
1 | Period from 10-30-06 (commencement of operations) to 8-31-07. |
| |
72 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
8. Purchases and sales of securities
The following summarizes the Portfolios’ purchases and sales of the affiliated and unaffiliated underlying funds for the year ended August 31, 2008:
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Purchases | | Sales and Maturities | |
Portfolio | | U.S. Government | | Other Issuers | | U.S. Government | | Other Issuers | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Lifecycle 2045 | | — | | $ | 96,134,388 | | — | | $ | 9,945,437 | |
Lifecycle 2040 | | — | | | 112,315,925 | | — | | | 11,529,931 | |
Lifecycle 2035 | | — | | | 157,485,206 | | — | | | 14,863,856 | |
Lifecycle 2030 | | — | | | 211,886,773 | | — | | | 14,060,967 | |
Lifecycle 2025 | | — | | | 264,877,062 | | — | | | 16,957,704 | |
Lifecycle 2020 | | — | | | 262,473,426 | | — | | | 18,124,090 | |
Lifecycle 2015 | | — | | | 200,156,586 | | — | | | 14,860,078 | |
Lifecycle 2010 | | — | | | 122,325,229 | | — | | | 11,165,401 | |
Lifecycle Retirement | | — | | | 258,604,955 | | — | | | 89,047,328 | |
9. Investment in affiliated underlying funds
The Portfolios invest primarily in affiliated underlying funds that are managed by affiliates of the Adviser. The Portfolios do not invest in affiliated underlying funds for the purpose of exercising management or control; however, the Portfolios’ investments may represent a significant portion of each underlying funds’ net assets. As of August 31, 2008, the following Portfolios held 5% or more of the underlying funds’ net assets:
| | | | | |
Portfolio | | Affiliate—Class NAV | | Percent of Underlying Funds’ Net Assets |
| | | | | |
Lifecycle 2045 | | Value | | 7.99% | |
| | | | | |
Lifecycle 2040 | | Emerging Small Company | | 5.43% | |
| | Value | | 9.18% | |
| | | | | |
Lifecycle 2035 | | Emerging Small Company | | 7.76% | |
| | Value | | 13.06% | |
| | | | | |
Lifecycle 2030 | | Emerging Small Company | | 10.64% | |
| | Index 500 | | 5.19% | |
| | International Equity Index | | 5.09% | |
| | Value | | 17.94% | |
| | | | | |
Lifecycle 2025 | | Emerging Small Company | | 11.54% | |
| | Index 500 | | 6.88% | |
| | International Equity Index | | 6.45% | |
| | Total Bond Market | | 9.89% | |
| | Value | | 11.37% | |
| | | | | |
Lifecycle 2020 | | Emerging Small Company | | 7.64% | |
| | Index 500 | | 7.08% | |
| | International Equity Index | | 5.82% | |
| | Total Bond Market | | 9.66% | |
| | Value | | 11.21% | |
| | | | | |
Lifecycle 2015 | | Index 500 | | 5.20% | |
| | Total Bond Market | | 18.83% | |
| | Value | | 8.76% | |
| | | | | |
Lifecycle 2010 | | Total Bond Market | | 21.59% | |
| | | | | |
Lifecycle Retirement | | Total Bond Market | | 15.90% | |
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 73 |
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
To the Board of Trustees and Shareholders of John Hancock Funds II,
In our opinion, the accompanying statements of assets and liabilities, including the portfolios of investments, and the related statements of operations and of changes in net assets and the financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Funds (identified in Note 1) which are part of John Hancock Funds II (the “Trust”) at August 31, 2008, the results of each of their operations, the changes in each of their net assets and the financial highlights for each of the periods indicated, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These financial statements and financial highlights (hereafter referred to as “financial statements”) are the responsibility of the Trust’s management; our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits, which included confirmation of securities at August 31, 2008 by correspondence with the custodian, transfer agent, and brokers, and the application of alternative auditing procedures where securities purchased had not been received, provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
October 30, 2008
| |
74 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
|
|
Tax information |
|
Unaudited |
For federal income tax purposes, the following information is furnished with respect to the distributions of the Portfolios, if any, paid during its taxable year ended August 31, 2008.
Long Term Capital Gains The Portfolios below have designated the following amounts as capital gain dividends paid during the year.
| | | | |
Portfolio | | Capital Gain | |
| | | | |
|
Lifecycle 2045 | | $ | 64,011 | |
Lifecycle 2040 | | | 72,022 | |
Lifecycle 2035 | | | 45,027 | |
Lifecycle 2030 | | | — | |
Lifecycle 2025 | | | — | |
Lifecycle 2020 | | | — | |
Lifecycle 2015 | | | — | |
Lifecycle 2010 | | | — | |
Lifecycle Retirement | | | 108,827 | |
Dividend Received Deduction Corporate shareholders are generally entitled to take the dividend received deduction on the portion of a Portfolio’s dividend distribution that qualifies under tax law. The percentage of the Portfolio’s fiscal 2008 ordinary income dividends that qualifies for the corporate dividend received deduction is set forth below.
| | | | |
Portfolio | | Dividend Received Deduction | |
| | | | |
|
Lifecycle 2045 | | | 32.25 | % |
Lifecycle 2040 | | | 31.87 | |
Lifecycle 2035 | | | 31.05 | |
Lifecycle 2030 | | | 27.64 | |
Lifecycle 2025 | | | 22.34 | |
Lifecycle 2020 | | | 18.05 | |
Lifecycle 2015 | | | 13.51 | |
Lifecycle 2010 | | | 13.90 | |
Lifecycle Retirement | | | 9.26 | |
Qualified Dividend Income The Portfolio hereby designates the maximum amount allowable of its net taxable income as qualified dividend income as provided in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. This amount will be reflected on Form 1099-DIV for the calendar year 2008.
Shareholders will be mailed a 2008 U.S. Treasury Department Form 1099-DIV in January 2009. This will reflect the total of all distributions that are taxable for the calendar year 2008.
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 75 |
EVALUATION OF ADVISORY AND SUBADVISORY AGREEMENTS BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
This section describes the evaluation by the Board of Trustees of the Advisory Agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) and each of the Subadvisory Agreements and the Sub-Subadvisory Agreements (collectively, the “Subadvisory Agreements”) for each of the portfolios (the “Funds”) of John Hancock Funds II (the “Trust”) discussed in this annual report.
EVALUATION BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
The Board, including the Independent Trustees, is responsible for selecting the Trust’s adviser, John Hancock Investment Management Services, LLC (the “Adviser” or “JHIMS”), approving the Adviser’s selection of subadvisers for each of the portfolios of the Trust and approving the Trust’s advisory and subadvisory (and any sub-subadvisory) agreements, their periodic continuation and any amendments. Consistent with SEC rules, the Board regularly evaluates the Trust’s advisory and subadvisory arrangements, including consideration of the factors listed below. The Board may also consider other factors (including conditions and trends prevailing generally in the economy, the securities markets and the industry) and does not treat any single factor as determinative, and each Trustee may attribute different weights to different factors. The Board is furnished with an analysis of its fiduciary obligations in connection with its evaluation and, throughout the evaluation process, the Board is assisted by counsel for the Trust and the Independent Trustees are also separately assisted by independent legal counsel. The factors considered by the Board are:
| | |
| 1. | the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Trust and by the subadvisers to the Funds; |
| | |
| 2. | the investment performance of the Funds and their subadvisers; |
| | |
| 3. | the extent to which economies of scale would be realized as a Fund grows and whether fee levels reflect these economies of scale for the benefit of Trust shareholders; |
| | |
| 4. | the costs of the services to be provided and the profits to be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates (including any subadvisers that are affiliated with the Adviser) from the Adviser’s relationship with the Trust; and |
| | |
| 5. | comparative services rendered and comparative advisory and subadvisory fee rates. |
The Board believes that information relating to all of these factors is relevant to its evaluation of the Trust’s advisory agreement. With respect to its evaluation of subadvisory agreements (including any sub-subadvisory agreements) with subadvisers not affiliated with the Adviser, the Board believes that, in view of the Trust’s “manager-of-managers” advisory structure, the costs of the services to be provided and the profits to be realized by those subadvisers that are not affiliated with the Adviser from their relationship with the Trust generally are not a material factor in the Board’s consideration of these subadvisory agreements because such fees are paid by the Adviser and not by the Funds and the Board relies on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the subadvisory fees at arm’s-length.
In evaluating subadvisory arrangements, the Board also considers other material business relationships that unaffiliated subadvisers and their affiliates have with the Adviser or its affiliates, including the involvement by certain affiliates of certain subadvisers in the distribution of financial products, including shares of the Trust, offered by the Adviser and other affiliates of the Adviser (“Material Relationships”).
APPROVAL OF ADVISORY AGREEMENT
At its meeting on May 30, 2008, the Board, including all the Independent Trustees, approved the Advisory Agreement.
In approving the renewal of the Advisory Agreement, and with reference to the factors that it regularly considers, the Board:
| |
(1) | (a) considered the high value to the Trust of continuing its relationship with JHIMS as the Trust’s adviser, the skills and competency with which JHIMS has in the past managed the Trust’s affairs and its subadvisory relationships, JHIMS’s oversight and monitoring of the subadvisers’ investment performance and compliance programs, including its timeliness in responding to performance issues and the qualifications of JHIMS’s personnel, |
| |
| (b) considered JHIMS’s compliance policies and procedures and its responsiveness to regulatory changes and mutual fund industry developments, and |
| |
| (c) considered JHIMS’s administrative capabilities, including its ability to supervise the other service providers for the Funds and concluded that JHIMS may reasonably be expected to continue to perform its services under the Advisory Agreement with respect to the Funds; |
| |
(2) | reviewed the investment performance of each of the Funds; the comparative performance of their respective benchmarks, comparable funds as included in a report prepared by an independent third party (i.e., funds having approximately the same investment objective), if any; and JHIMS’s analysis of such performance and its plans and recommendations regarding the Trust’s subadvisory arrangements generally and with respect to particular Funds; and concluded that each of the Funds has generally performed well or within a range that the Board deemed competitive except as discussed in Appendix A and in such cases, that appropriate action is being taken to address performance, if necessary, or that such performance is reasonable in light of all factors considered, and that JHIMS may reasonably be expected to continue ably to monitor the performance of the Funds and each of their subadvisers; |
| |
(3) | (a) reviewed the advisory and other fee waivers and expense reimbursements with respect to certain of the Funds, |
| |
| (b) reviewed the Trust’s advisory fee structure and the incorporation therein of any subadvisory fee breakpoints in the advisory fees charged and concluded (i) that to |
| |
76 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
| |
| the extent that Funds have subadvisory fees with breakpoints, those breakpoints are reflected as breakpoints in the advisory fees for Funds, (ii) that all Funds with a subadviser that is not affiliated with the Adviser have subadvisory fees which are the product of arm’s-length negotiations between the Adviser and the subadviser and which in many, but not all, cases contain breakpoints, and (iii) that, although economies of scale cannot be measured with precision, these arrangements permit shareholders of Funds with advisory fee breakpoints to benefit from economies of scale if those Funds grow; |
| |
(4) | (a) reviewed the financial statements of JHIMS and considered (i) an analysis presented by JHIMS regarding the net profitability to JHIMS of each Fund, |
| |
| (b) reviewed and considered an analysis presented by JHIMS regarding the profitability of the JHIMS’s relationship with each Fund and whether JHIMS has the financial ability to continue to provide a high level of services to the Fund, |
| |
| (c) considered that in the case of Class 1 shares the John Hancock insurance companies that are affiliates of JHIMS, as shareholders of Class 1 shares of the Trust directly or through their separate accounts, receive certain tax credits or deductions relating to foreign taxes paid and dividends received by certain Funds of the Trust and noted that these tax benefits, which are not available to contract owners under applicable income tax law, are reflected in the profitability analysis reviewed by the Board. |
| |
| (d) considered that JHIMS derives reputational and other indirect benefits from providing advisory services to the Funds, and |
| |
| (e) noted that JHIMS pays the subadvisory fees out of the advisory fees JHIMS receives from the Funds and concluded that the advisory fees paid by the Trust with respect to the Funds are not unreasonable in light of such information; |
| |
| (f) considered that the Adviser should be entitled to earn a reasonable level of profits in exchange for the level of services it provides to each Fund and the entrepreneurial risk that it assumes as Adviser. Based upon its review, the Board concluded that the Advisor and its affiliates’ level of profitability, if any, from their relationship with each Fund was reasonable and not excessive. |
| |
(5) | reviewed comparative information with respect to the advisory fee rates and concluded that the Trust’s advisory fees are generally within a competitive range of those incurred by other comparable funds. In this regard, the Board took into account management’s discussion with respect to the advisory fee structure. The Board also noted that JHIMS is currently waiving fees and/ or reimbursing expenses with respect to certain of the Funds and that the Adviser pays the subadvisory fees of the Funds. The Board also took into account the level and quality of services provided by JHIMS with respect to the Funds, as well as the other factors considered. |
In addition, in the case of each Lifecycle Fund (each a “Fund of Funds”), the Trustees reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser for each Fund of Funds and concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser with respect to each Fund of Funds is based on services provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the underlying portfolios of the Fund of Funds and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of a Fund of Funds and those of its underlying portfolios.
Additional information that the Board considered in approving the Advisory Agreement is set forth in Appendix A.
APPROVAL OF SUBADVISORY AGREEMENTS
At its meeting on May 30, 2008, the Board, including all the Independent Trustees, renewed and approved the Subadvisory Agreements.
In making its determination with respect to the factors that it considers, the Board reviewed:
| |
(1) | information relating to each subadviser’s business, which may include information such as: business performance, assets under management and personnel; |
| |
(2) | the historical and current performance of the Fund and comparative performance information relating to the Fund’s benchmark and comparable funds; |
| |
(3) | the subadvisory fee for each Fund and comparative fee information provided by an independent third party; and |
| |
(4) | information relating to the nature and scope of Material Relationships and their significance to the Trust’s adviser and unaffiliated subadvisers. |
The Board noted that in the case of each sub-subadvisory agreement, that the sub-subadvisory fee would be paid by the subadviser out of the subadvisory fee and would not be an expense of the Fund.
The Board’s decision to approve each Subadvisory Agreement was based on a number of determinations, including the following:
| |
(1) | The subadviser has extensive experience and demonstrated skills as a manager; |
| |
(2) | Although not without variation, the current and historical performance of each Fund managed by a subadviser has generally been in line with or outperformed the current and historical performance of comparable funds and the Fund’s respective benchmarks with the exceptions noted in Appendix A (with respect to such exceptions, the Board concluded that appropriate action was being taken to address such |
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 77 |
| |
| Funds’ performance, if necessary, or that performance was reasonable in light of all factors considered); |
| |
(3) | The subadvisory fees are generally competitive within the range of industry norms and, with respect to each subadviser that is not affiliated with the Adviser, are a product of arm’s-length negotiation between the Adviser and the subadviser; |
| |
(4) | With respect to those Funds that have subadvisory fees that contain breakpoints, such breakpoints are reflected as breakpoints in the advisory fees for the Funds in order to permit shareholders to benefit from economies of scale if those Funds grow; and |
| |
(5) | The Material Relationships consist of arrangements in which unaffiliated subadvisers or their affiliates provide advisory, distribution or management services in connection with financial products sponsored by the Trust’s adviser or its affiliates, which may include other registered investment companies, a 529 education savings plan, managed separate accounts and exempt group annuity contracts sold to qualified plans, and which in no case contained elements which would cause the Board to conclude that approval of the subadvisory agreement with the subadviser would be inappropriate. |
In addition, in the case of each Fund of Funds, the Trustees reviewed the subadvisory fee to be paid to the subadviser for each Fund of Funds and concluded that the subadvisory fee to be paid to the subadviser with respect to each Fund of Funds is based on services provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the subadvisory agreements for the underlying portfolios of the Fund of Funds and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of a Fund of Funds and those of its underlying portfolios.
Additional information that the Board considered for a particular Fund is set forth in Appendix A.
| |
78 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
John Hancock Funds II
Appendix A
| | | | | | |
Fund (Subadviser) | | Performance of Fund as of March 31, 2008 | | Fees and Expenses | | Other Comments |
| | | | | | |
Lifecycle 2010
(MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited) | | The Fund underperformed the benchmark index over the one-year period.
The Fund underperformed the Morningstar Category Average over the one-year period. | | No subadvisory fee comparative information recorded due to limited size of peer group.
Advisory fees for this Fund are lower than the peer group median.
Total expenses for this Fund are modestly higher than the peer group median. | | The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses. The Board also noted that the Fund is subject to a voluntary fee waiver which reduces certain expenses of the Fund. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Fund’s performance. |
|
| | | | | | |
Lifecycle 2015
(MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited) | | The Fund underperformed the benchmark index over the one- year period.
The Fund outperformed the Morningstar Category Average over the one-year period. | | No subadvisory fee comparative information recorded due to limited size of peer group.
Advisory fees for this Fund are lower than the peer group median.
Total expenses for this Fund are modestly higher than the peer group median. | | The Board noted that the Fund is subject to a voluntary fee waiver which reduces certain expenses of the Fund.
The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses. |
|
| | | | | | |
Lifecycle 2020
(MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited) | | The Fund outperformed the benchmark index over the one-year period.
The Fund outperformed the Morningstar Category Average over the one-year period. | | No subadvisory fee comparative information recorded due to limited size of peer group.
Advisory fees for this Fund are lower than the peer group median.
Total expenses for this Fund are slightly higher than the peer group median. | | The Board noted that the Fund is subject to a voluntary fee waiver which reduces certain expenses of the Fund.
The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses. |
|
| | | | | | |
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 79 |
Appendix A (continued)
| | | | | | |
Fund (Subadviser) | | Performance of Fund as of March 31, 2008 | | Fees and Expenses | | Other Comments |
| | | | | | |
Lifecycle 2025
(MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited) | | The Fund outperformed the benchmark index over the one-year period.
The Fund underperformed the Morningstar Category Average over the one-year period. | | No subadvisory fee comparative information recorded due to limited size of peer group.
Advisory fees for this Fund are higher than the peer group median.
Total expenses for this Fund are slightly higher than the peer group median. | | The Board noted management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses, including the advisory/ subadvisory fee structure. The Board also noted that the Fund is subject to a voluntary fee waiver which reduces certain expenses of the Fund.
The Board noted management’s discussion of the Fund’s performance, including the peer group in which the Fund was placed. |
|
| | | | | | |
Lifecycle 2030
(MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited) | | The Fund outperformed the benchmark index over the one- year period.
The Fund outperformed the Morningstar Category Average over the one-year period. | | No subadvisory fee comparative information recorded due to limited size of peer group.
Advisory fees for this Fund are lower than the peer group median.
Total expenses for this Fund are slightly higher than the peer group median. | | The Board noted management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses. The Board also noted that the Fund is subject to a voluntary fee waiver which reduces certain expenses of the Fund. |
|
| | | | | | |
Lifecycle 2035
(MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited) | | The Fund outperformed the benchmark index over the one- year period.
The Fund outperformed the Morningstar Category Average over the one-year period. | | No subadvisory fee comparative information recorded due to limited size of peer group.
Advisory fees for this Fund are lower than the peer group median.
Total expenses for this Fund are slightly higher than the peer group median. | | The Board noted management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses. The Board also noted that the Fund is subject to a voluntary fee waiver which reduces certain expenses of the Fund. |
|
| | | | | | |
| |
80 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
Appendix A (continued)
| | | | | | |
Fund (Subadviser) | | Performance of Fund as of March 31, 2008 | | Fees and Expenses | | Other Comments |
| | | | | | |
Lifecycle 2040
(MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited) | | The Fund outperformed the benchmark index over the one-year period.
The Fund outperformed the Morningstar Category Average over the one-year period. | | No subadvisory fee comparative information recorded due to limited size of peer group.
Advisory fees for this Fund are lower than the peer group median.
Total expenses for this Fund are modestly higher than the peer group median. | | The Board noted management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses. The Board also noted that the Fund is subject to a voluntary fee waiver which reduces certain expenses of the Fund. |
|
| | | | | | |
Lifecycle 2045
(MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited) | | The Fund outperformed the benchmark index over the one- year period.
The Fund outperformed the Morningstar Category Average over the one-year period. | | No subadvisory fee comparative information recorded due to limited size of peer group.
Advisory fees for this Fund are higher than the peer group median.
Total expenses for this Fund are higher than the peer group median. | | The Board noted management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses, including the advisory/subadvisory fee structure. The Board also noted that the Fund is subject to a voluntary fee waiver which reduces certain expenses of the Fund. |
|
| | | | | | |
Lifecycle Retirement
(MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited) | | The Fund underperformed the benchmark index over the one- year period.
The Fund outperformed the Morningstar Category Average over the one-year period. | | No subadvisory fee comparative information recorded due to limited size of peer group.
Advisory fees for this Fund are higher than the peer group median.
Total expenses for this Fund are higher than the peer group median. | | The Board noted management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses, including the advisory/subadvisory fee structure. The Board also noted that the Fund is subject to a voluntary fee waiver which reduces certain expenses of the Fund. |
|
| | | | | | |
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 81 |
Trustees and Officers
This chart provides information about the Trustees and Officers who oversee your John Hancock fund. Officers elected by the Trustees manage the day-to-day operations of the Portfolio and execute policies formulated by the Trustees.
| | | | |
Independent Trustees | | | | |
| | | | |
Name, age Position(s) held with Portfolio Principal occupation(s) and other directorships during past 5 years | | Trustee of Portfolio since1 | | Number of John Hancock funds overseen by Trustee |
| | | | |
Charles L. Bardelis,2 Born: 1941 | | 2005 | | 212 |
| | | | |
Director, Island Commuter Corp. (Marine Transport). Trustee of John Hancock Trust (since 1988) and former Trustee of John Hancock Funds III (2005-2006). | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Peter S. Burgess,2 Born: 1942 | | 2005 | | 212 |
| | | | |
Consultant (financial, accounting and auditing matters (since 1999); Certified Public Accountant. Director of the following publicly traded companies: PMA Capital Corporation (since 2004) and Lincoln Educational Services Corporation (since 2004). Trustee of John Hancock Trust (since 2005), and former Trustee of John Hancock Funds III (2005-2006). | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Elizabeth G. Cook, 3 Born: 1937 | | 2005 | | 212 |
| | | | |
Expressive Arts Therapist, Massachusetts General Hospital (September 2001 to June 2007); Expressive Arts Therapist, Dana Farber Cancer Institute (September 2000 to January 2004); Trustee of John Hancock Trust (since 2005) and former Trustee of John Hancock Funds III (2005-2006). | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Theron S. Hoffman,6 Born: 1937 | | 2008 | | 212 |
| | | | |
Trustee of John Hancock Trust and John Hancock Funds II (since September 2008); Chief Executive Officer, T. Hoffman Associates, LLC (2003–Present); Director, The Todd Organization (2003–Present); President, Westport Resources Management (2006–2008); Partner / Operating Head & Senior Managing Director, Putnam Investments (2000–2003). | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Hassell H. McClellan,3 Born: 1945 | | 2005 | | 212 |
| | | | |
Associate Professor, The Graduate School of The Wallace E. Carroll School of Management, Boston College. Trustee of John Hancock Trust (since 2005), former Trustee of John Hancock Funds III (2005–2006) and Trustee of Phoenix Edge Series Fund (since 2008). | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
James. M. Oates,2 Born: 1946 | | 2005 | | 212 |
| | | | |
Managing Director, Wydown Group (financial consulting firm) (since 1994); Chairman, Emerson Investment Management, Inc. (since 2000); Chairman, Hudson Castle Group, Inc. (formerly IBEX Capital Markets, Inc.) (financial services company) (1997–2006). Director of the following publicly traded companies: Stifel Financial (since 1996); Investor Financial Services Corporation (1995–2007); Investors Bank and Trust (since 1995) and Connecticut River Bancorp, Director (since 1998). Trustee of John Hancock Funds II (since 2005); and Former Trustee of John Hancock Funds III (2005–2006); Director, Phoenix Mutual Funds (since 1998). | | | | |
| |
82 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
Independent Trustees — continued
| | | | |
Name, age Position(s) held with Portfolio Principal occupation(s) and other directorships during past 5 years | | Trustee of Portfolio since1 | | Number of John Hancock funds overseen by Trustee |
| | | | |
Steven M. Roberts,6 Born: 1944 | | 2008 | | 212 |
| | | | |
Trustee of John Hancock Trust and John Hancock Funds II (since September 2008); Deputy Director, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2005–2008); Principal, KPMG (1987–2004). | | | | |
| | | | |
Trustee Emeritus | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
John D. Richardson,4,5 “Trustee Emeritus” Born: 1938 | | 2006 | | 212 |
| | | | |
Former Trustee of JHT (Retired, December 14, 2006). Former Senior Executive Vice President, Office of the President, MFC, February 2000 to March 2002 (Retired, March, 2002); Executive Vice President and General Manager, U.S. Operations, Manulife Financial, January 1995 to January 2000. | | | | |
| |
1 | Because the Trust does not hold regular annual shareholders meetings, each Trustee holds office for an indefinite term until his/her successor is duly elected and qualified or until he/she dies, retires, resigns, is removed or becomes disqualified. |
| |
2 | Member of Audit Committee. |
| |
3 | Member of Compliance Committee. |
| |
4 | Prior to 1997, Mr. Richardson was a Trustee of Manulife Series Fund, Inc., which merged into JHT on December 31, 1996. |
| |
5 | Mr. Richardson retired as Trustee of JHT effective December 14, 2006. On such date, Mr. Richardson became a non-voting Trustee Emeritus. |
| |
6 | Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Roberts were appointed by the Board as Trustees on September 26, 2008. |
Non-Independent Trustees1,2
| | | | |
Name, age Position(s) held with Portfolio Principal occupation(s) and other directorships during past 5 years | | Trustee of Portfolio since1 | | Number of John Hancock funds overseen by Trustee |
| | | | |
James R. Boyle,3 Born: 1959 | | 2005 | | 267 |
| | | | |
Executive Vice President, Manulife Financial Corporation (since 1999); Director and President, John Hancock Variable Life Insurance Company (since 2007); Director and Executive Vice President, John Hancock Life Insurance Company (since 2004); Chairman and Director, John Hancock Advisers, LLC (the Adviser), John Hancock Funds, LLC (John Hancock Funds) and The Berkeley Financial Group, LLC (The Berkeley Group) (holding company) (since 2005); Chairman and Director, John Hancock Investment Management Services, LLC (since 2006); Senior Vice President, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) (until 2004). | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Grace K. Fey,4,5 Born: 1946 | | 2008 | | 212 |
| | | | |
Trustee of John Hancock Trust and John Hancock Funds II (since September 2008); Chief Executive Officer, Grace Fey Advisors (2007 – Present); Director & Executive Vice President, Frontier Capital Management Company (1988 – 2007). | | | | |
| |
1 | Because the Trust does not hold regular annual shareholders meetings, each Trustee holds office for an indefinite term until his successor is duly elected and qualified or until he dies, retires, resigns, is removed or becomes disqualified. |
| |
2 | Non-Independent Trustee holds positions with the Fund’s investment adviser, underwriter and certain other affiliates. |
| |
3 | Mr. Boyle is an “interested person” (as defined in the 1940 Act) due to his prior position with Manulife Financial Corporation (or its affiliates), the ultimate controlling parent of the Adviser. |
| |
4 | Ms. Fey was appointed by the Board as Trustee on September 26, 2008. |
| |
5 | Ms. Fey is an interested person as defined by the 1940 Act due to a deferred compensation arrangement with her former employer, Frontier Capital Management Company, which is a sub-adviser of certain funds of John Hancock Funds II and John Hancock Trust. |
| |
Annual report | Lifecycle Portfolios | 83 |
| | |
Principal officers who are not Trustees | | |
| | |
Name, age Position(s) held with Portfolio Principal occupation(s) and directorships during past 5 years | | Officer of Portfolio since |
| | |
Keith F. Hartstein1, Born: 1956 | | 2005 |
| | |
President and Chief Executive Officer | | |
Senior Vice President, Manulife Financial Corporation (since 2004); Director, President and Chief Executive Officer, the Adviser, The Berkeley Group, John Hancock Funds, LLC (since 2005); Director, MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.), LLC (“MFC Global (U.S.)”) (since 2005); Director, John Hancock Signature Services, Inc. (since 2005); President and Chief Executive Officer, John Hancock Investment Management Services, LLC (since 2006); President and Chief Executive Officer, John Hancock Funds, John Hancock Funds II, John Hancock Funds III, John Hancock Trust,; Director, Chairman and President, NM Capital Management, Inc. (since 2005); Chairman, Investment Company Institute Sales Force Marketing Committee; Director, President and Chief Executive Officer, MFC Global (U.S.) (2005-2006); Executive Vice President, John Hancock Funds, LLC (until 2005). | | |
| | |
| | |
John G. Vrysen1, Born: 1955 | | 2007 |
| | |
Chief Operating Officer | | |
Senior Vice President, Manulife Financial Corporation (since 2006); Director, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, the Adviser, The Berkeley Group and John Hancock Funds, LLC since June 2007; Chief Operating Officer, John Hancock Funds, John Hancock Funds II, John Hancock Funds III, John Hancock Trust since June 2007; Director, Executive Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer, the Adviser, The Berkeley Group and John Hancock Funds, LLC (until June 2007); Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, John Hancock Investment Management Services, LLC (since 2005), Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, MFC Global (U.S.) (since 2005); Director, John Hancock Signature Services, Inc. (since 2005); Chief Financial Officer, John Hancock Funds, John Hancock Funds II, John Hancock Funds III, John Hancock Trust (2005-June 2007); Vice President and General Manager, Fixed Annuities, U.S. Wealth Management (until 2005); Vice President, Operations Manulife Wood Logan (2000-2004). | | |
| | |
| | |
Charles A. Rizzo1, Born: 1957 | | 2007 |
| | |
Chief Financial Officer | | |
Chief Financial Officer, John Hancock Funds, John Hancock Funds II, John Hancock Funds III and John Hancock Trust (June 2007-Present); Assistant Treasurer, Goldman Sachs Mutual Fund Complex (registered investment companies) (2005-June 2007); Vice President, Goldman Sachs (2005-June 2007); Managing Director and Treasurer of Scudder Funds, Deutsche Asset Management (2003-2005); Director, Tax and Financial Reporting, Deutsche Asset Management (2002-2003). | | |
| | |
| | |
Francis V. Knox, Jr.1, Born: 1947 | | 2005 |
| | |
Chief Compliance Officer | | |
Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer, John Hancock Investment Management Services, LLC, the Adviser and MFC Global (U.S.) (since 2005); Chief Compliance Officer, John Hancock Funds, John Hancock Funds II, John Hancock Funds III and John Hancock Trust (since 2005); Vice President and Assistant Treasurer, Fidelity Group of Funds (until 2004. | | |
| | |
| | |
Gordon M. Shone1, Born: 1956 | | 2005 |
| | |
Treasurer, John Hancock Funds (since 2006); John Hancock Funds II, John Hancock Funds III and John Hancock Trust (since 2005); Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, John Hancock Trust (2003-2005); Senior Vice President, John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) (since 2001); Vice President, John Hancock Investment Management Services, Inc. and John Hancock Advisers, LLC (since 2006). | | |
| | |
| | |
Thomas M. Kinzler1, Born: 1955 | | 2006 |
| | |
Vice President and Counsel for John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) (since 2006); Secretary and Chief Legal Officer, John Hancock Funds, John Hancock Funds II, John Hancock Funds III and John Hancock Trust (since 2006); Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (1999-2006); Secretary and Chief Legal Counsel for MML Series Investment Fund (2000-2006); Secretary and Chief Legal Counsel for MassMutual Institutional Funds (2000-2004); Secretary and Chief Legal Counsel for MassMutual Select Funds and MassMutual Premier Funds (2004-2006). | | |
| |
1 | Affiliated with the investment adviser. |
| |
84 | Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report |
Trustees
James R. Boyle†
Grace K. Fey†
Charles L. Bardelis*
Peter S. Burgess*
Elizabeth G. Cook**
Theron S. Hoffman
Hassell H. McClellan**
James M. Oates*
John D. Richardson, Trustee Emeritus
Steven M. Roberts
*Members of the Audit Committee
**Members of the Compliance Committee
†Non-Independent Trustees
Officers
Keith F. Hartstein
President and Chief Executive Officer
Thomas M. Kinzler
Secretary and Chief Legal Officer
Francis V. Knox, Jr.
Chief Compliance Officer
Charles A. Rizzo
Chief Financial Officer
Gordon M. Shone
Treasurer
John G. Vrysen
Chief Operating Officer
Investment adviser
John Hancock Investment Management Services, LLC
Investment Subadviser
MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited
Principal distributor
John Hancock Funds, LLC
Custodian
State Street Bank & Trust Company
Transfer agent
John Hancock Signature Services, Inc.
Legal counsel
K&L Gates LLP
Independent registered
public accounting firm
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|
|
Additional information about your fund is available without charge in several ways. As required by the SEC, you can access proxy voting information and quarterly portfolio information on your fund. The proxy voting information includes a description of proxy voting policies, procedures and information regarding how the fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30. The quarterly portfolio information that includes a complete list of the fund’s holdings for the first and third quarters of the fund’s fiscal period is filed on Form N-Q. You have access to this information:
|
|
By phone |
|
1-800-225-5291 |
|
On the fund’s Website |
|
www.jhfunds.com |
|
At the SEC |
|
www.sec.gov |
1-800-SEC-0330 |
SEC Public Reference Room
|
|
You can also contact us:
|
|
Regular mail |
|
John Hancock Signature Services, Inc. |
P.O. Box 9510 |
Portsmouth, NH 03802-9510 |
|
Express mail |
|
John Hancock Signature Services, Inc. |
Mutual Fund Image Operations |
164 Corporate Drive |
Portsmouth, NH 03801
|
|
|
Month-end portfolio holdings are available at www.jhfunds.com.
| |
Lifecycle Portfolios | Annual report | 85 |
Why John Hancock Funds?
For more than three decades, John Hancock Funds has been helping individual, corporate and institutional clients reach their most important financial goals. With so many fund companies to choose from, why should you invest with us?
A name you know and trust
When you invest with John Hancock Funds, you are investing with one of the most recognized and respected names in the financial services industry. Our parent company has been helping individuals and institutions increase and protect wealth since 1862.
Solutions across the investing spectrum
We offer equity, income, international, sector and asset allocation investment solutions managed by leading institutional money managers. Each of our funds utilizes a disciplined, team approach to portfolio management and research, leveraging the expertise of seasoned investment professionals.
Committed to you
Our shareholders come first. We work hard to provide you with the products you need to build a solid financial foundation. We’re proud to offer you award-winning services and tools, like the www.jhfunds.com Web site, to help you every step of the way.
Not part of the annual report
For immediate insight and answers,
turn to www.jhfunds.com
Discover the new and improved www.jhfunds.com.
| |
§ | View accounts, statements and fund information. |
| |
§ | Access college and retirement planning calculators and investment education. |
| |
§ | Gain investment ideas, expand your knowledge and become a more informed investor. |
This is just the beginning of how much you can do.
Now is the ideal time to experience our Web site that received the following recognition in 2006:
| |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9333a/9333aad627cac41601e8e42323ba1899a99b881d" alt="(WEB PAGE)"
| “Best Innovation: Redesigned Web Site” by the Mutual Fund Education Alliance. |
| |
| |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1ba32/1ba3257e722c01db87666cae2acf4942eb5cf21b" alt="(WEB PAGE)"
| “Outstanding Web Site” by the Web Marketing Association. |
| |
| |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebeac/ebeac54c51917a3460d7f1ac3fca7d024f5db42d" alt="(WEB PAGE)"
| “Creative excellence on the Web, Silver Award winner” by W3. |
Discover convenience and comprehensive resources at one easy-to-access location. Your financial professional can steer you to the tools that will help you the most and enable you to transform your knowledge into action.
See how far www.jhfunds.com can take you!
Not part of the annual report
At the heart of John Hancock Funds is
AWARD-WINNING SERVICE
How our exceptional customer service can benefit you:
| |
1 | We’re committed to providing you with answers, solving problems and saving you time. |
| |
2 | We’re ready to go one step farther by offering a range of resources so you can build your knowledge and expand your skills. |
| |
3 | We’re determined to regularly exceed your expectations. |
| |
Experience award-winning, world-class service. |
Consider the recognition that we received in 2006. |
| |
§ | John Hancock Signature Services, Inc. (JHSS) is the transfer and shareholder services agent for John Hancock Funds. JHSS was awarded “Best-In-Class” honors and “5-Star” performer status for telephone customer service for all of 2006 from the National Quality Review. |
| |
§ | Winner of Source Media’s Fund Operations Awards in the category of Efficiencies/Streamlining. |
| |
§ | One of four finalists for Best Customer Service Organization, Financial Services at The American Business Awards, “The Stevies.”™ |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a1132/a113225bc33d37011278378de125605d48d28cf0" alt="(JOHN HANCOCK FUNDS LOGO)"
Let us demonstrate
the difference that
world-class service
can make.
Call our customer service representatives at 1-800-225-5291
Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M.–7:00 P.M. ET
It will be our pleasure and privilege to help you.
Not part of the annual report
John Hancock Family of Funds
|
|
DOMESTIC EQUITY |
|
Balanced Fund |
Classic Value Fund |
Classic Value Fund II |
Classic Value Mega Cap Fund |
Growth Opportunities Fund |
Large Cap Equity Fund |
Large Cap Select Fund |
Mid Cap Equity Fund |
Optimized Value Fund |
Rainier Growth Fund |
Small Cap Fund |
Small Cap Equity Fund |
Small Cap Intrinsic Value Fund |
Sovereign Investors Fund |
U.S. Core Fund |
U.S. Global Leaders Growth Fund |
Value Opportunities Fund |
|
|
ASSET ALLOCATION |
|
|
TARGET RISK |
|
Lifestyle Aggressive Portfolio |
Lifestyle Balanced Portfolio |
Lifestyle Conservative Portfolio |
Lifestyle Growth Portfolio |
Lifestyle Moderate Portfolio |
|
TARGET DATE |
|
Lifecycle 2045 Portfolio |
Lifecycle 2040 Portfolio |
Lifecycle 2035 Portfolio |
Lifecycle 2030 Portfolio |
Lifecycle 2025 Portfolio |
Lifecycle 2020 Portfolio |
Lifecycle 2015 Portfolio |
Lifecycle 2010 Portfolio |
|
RETIREMENT INCOME |
|
Lifecycle Retirement Portfolio |
Retirement Distribution Portfolio |
Retirement Rising Distribution Portfolio |
|
|
GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL EQUITY |
|
Global Opportunities Fund |
Global Shareholder Yield Fund |
Greater China Opportunities Fund |
International Allocation Portfolio |
International Classic Value Fund |
International Core Fund |
International Growth Fund |
|
|
SPECIALTY |
|
Financial Industries Fund |
Global Real Estate Fund |
Health Sciences Fund |
Regional Bank Fund |
|
|
INCOME |
|
Bond Fund |
Floating Rate Income Fund |
Government Income Fund |
High Yield Fund |
Investment Grade Bond Fund |
Strategic Income Fund |
|
|
TAX-FREE INCOME |
|
California Tax-Free Income Fund |
High Yield Municipal Bond Fund |
Massachusetts Tax-Free Income Fund |
New York Tax-Free Income Fund |
Tax-Free Bond Fund |
|
|
MONEY MARKET |
|
Money Market Fund |
|
|
CLOSED-END |
|
Bank and Thrift Opportunity Fund |
Income Securities Trust |
Investors Trust |
Patriot Premium Dividend Fund II |
Preferred Income Fund |
Preferred Income II Fund |
Preferred Income III Fund |
Tax-Advantaged Dividend Income Fund |
Tax-Advantaged Global Shareholder Yield Fund |
The Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses are included in the prospectus and should be considered carefully before investing. For a prospectus, contact your financial professional, call John Hancock Funds at 1-800-225-5291 or visit the Fund’s Web site at www.jhfunds.com. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing or sending money.
Not part of the annual report
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/32655/3265567cc7cbdb17b448ff61ebf9a79b5dba530f" alt="-s- John Hancock"
1-800-225-5291
1-800-554-6713 TDD
1-800-338-8080 EASI-Line
www.jhfunds.com
|
|
|
Now available: electronic delivery www.jhfunds.com/edelivery |
| |
This report is for the information of the shareholders of John Hancock Lifecycle Portfolios. | |
It is not authorized for distribution to prospective investors unless preceded or accompanied by a prospectus. | LC00A 8/08 10/08 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/495c3/495c3913ab53548f97e707ee4c870b676010e8be" alt=""
John Hancock Funds II
President’s Message
To Our Shareholders
The financial markets battled a laundry list of ills and produced negative results in a volatile 12 months ended August 31, 2008. The worst U.S. housing slump since the Great Depression, combined with a subprime mortgage-induced credit crunch, an anemic economy bordering on recession and skyrocketing oil prices for much of the period, sent the markets tumbling into bear market territory in early July. For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index returned –11.14%, led down by financial stocks, which were the most severely impacted by the credit crisis. The pain was felt in financial markets around the world, amid inflation fears and concerns about the spillover effects of the widening U.S. credit woes.
Bonds held up much better in the 12-month period, as the Federal Reserve Board cut interest rates seven times between September 2007 and April 2008 to help bolster the economy and made other efforts to provide liquidity to the credit markets. For the 12 months ended August 31, 2008, the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Index — a broad measure of bond market performance — returned 5.86%. It’s worth noting that the 10-year return for bonds, including Treasuries, has now eclipsed the 10-year return of stocks — a very rare occurrence. In every instance when this has happened in the past, stocks went on to outperform both bonds and Treasuries over the ensuing 10-year period. Of course, there’s no guarantee that that will occur this time.
Just weeks after the funds’ reporting period ended, volatility spiked even further, as the credit markets virtually ground to a halt amid investors’ growing concerns about the extent and duration of financial companies’ mortgage losses — and about their ability to carry on. The fears mounted in a period of extraordinary volatility starting in mid-September in response to the sale, bankruptcy, takeover or reorganization of numerous renowned financial institutions. Top among them was the U.S. government’s takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and insurance giant AIG. In reaction, the Dow Jones Industrial Average experienced wild swings — up and down days of several hundred points a day.
Even a much-anticipated $700 billion rescue package approved in early October by the U.S. government to shore up the financial system and restore investor confidence did little to calm the markets. The contagion spread overseas, where markets worldwide plunged as European and other foreign governments began taking dramatic steps to bolster some of their ailing banks, and avoid a global recession.
Recent events, as trying as they have been, are a vivid example of the importance of keeping a long-term perspective and sticking to your investment goals. With negative sentiment abounding and the prospect for continued volatility quite real, the impulse to flee is understandable. But we urge you to stay the course and keep a well-diversified portfolio, along with a longer-term investment perspective. Leaving the market can mean missing out on the inevitable moves up. Working with your investment professional on your long-term plan is especially critical in turbulent times to avoid making emotional decisions.
Keith F. Hartstein
President and Chief Executive Officer
This commentary reflects the CEO’s views as of October 21, 2008. They are subject to change at any time.
2
John Hancock Funds II
Annual Report — Table of Contents
Manager’s Commentary and Fund Performance (See below for each Fund’s page #) | | 4 |
Shareholder Expense Example | | 62 |
Portfolio of Investments (See below for each Fund’s page #) | | 68 |
Statements of Assets and Liabilities | | 353 |
Statements of Operations | | 370 |
Statements of Changes in Net Assets | | 385 |
Notes to Financial Statements | | 412 |
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm | | 467 |
Federal Tax Information | | 468 |
Evaluation of Advisory and Subadvisory Agreements by the Board of Trustees | | 470 |
Trustees and Officers Information | | 495 |
Fund
| | | | Manager’s Commentary & Fund Performance | | Portfolio of Investments |
---|
Absolute Return Portfolio | | | | 5 | | 68 |
Active Bond Fund | | | | 6 | | 68 |
All Cap Core Fund | | | | 7 | | 84 |
All Cap Growth Fund | | | | 8 | | 87 |
All Cap Value Fund | | | | 9 | | 89 |
American Diversified Growth & Income Fund | | | | 10 | | 90 |
American Fundamental Holdings Fund | | | | 11 | | 91 |
American Global Diversification Fund | | | | 12 | | 91 |
Blue Chip Growth Fund | | | | 13 | | 91 |
Capital Appreciation Fund | | | | 14 | | 93 |
Core Bond Fund | | | | 15 | | 95 |
Core Equity Fund | | | | 16 | | 102 |
Emerging Growth Fund | | | | 17 | | 103 |
Emerging Markets Value Fund | | | | 18 | | 105 |
Emerging Small Company Fund | | | | 19 | | 118 |
Equity-Income Fund | | | | 20 | | 121 |
Fundamental Value Fund | | | | 21 | | 123 |
Global Bond Fund | | | | 22 | | 125 |
Global Real Estate Fund | | | | 23 | | 136 |
High Income Fund | | | | 24 | | 138 |
High Yield Fund | | | | 25 | | 142 |
Index 500 Fund | | | | 26 | | 151 |
International Equity Index Fund | | | | 27 | | 158 |
International Opportunities Fund | | | | 28 | | 176 |
International Small Cap Fund | | | | 29 | | 178 |
International Small Company Fund | | | | 30 | | 179 |
International Value Fund | | | | 31 | | 209 |
Investment Quality Bond Fund | | | | 32 | | 211 |
Large Cap Fund | | | | 33 | | 221 |
Large Cap Value Fund | | | | 34 | | 222 |
Mid Cap Index Fund | | | | 35 | | 224 |
Mid Cap Intersection Fund | | | | 36 | | 230 |
Mid Cap Stock Fund | | | | 37 | | 232 |
Mid Cap Value Fund | | | | 38 | | 234 |
Mid Cap Value Equity Fund | | | | 39 | | 235 |
Natural Resources Fund | | | | 40 | | 238 |
Optimized All Cap Fund | | | | 41 | | 239 |
Real Estate Equity Fund | | | | 42 | | 241 |
Real Estate Securities Fund | | | | 43 | | 242 |
Real Return Bond Fund | | | | 44 | | 242 |
Small Cap Fund | | | | 45 | | 247 |
Small Cap Index Fund | | | | 46 | | 248 |
Small Cap Opportunities Fund | | | | 47 | | 266 |
Small Company Fund | | | | 48 | | 269 |
Small Company Growth Fund | | | | 49 | | 273 |
Small Company Value Fund | | | | 50 | | 275 |
Spectrum Income Fund | | | | 51 | | 278 |
Strategic Bond Fund | | | | 52 | | 307 |
Strategic Income Fund | | | | 53 | | 317 |
Total Bond Market Fund | | | | 54 | | 323 |
Total Return Fund | | | | 55 | | 326 |
U.S. Government Securities Fund | | | | 56 | | 333 |
U.S. High Yield Bond Fund | | | | 57 | | 336 |
U.S. Multi Sector Fund | | | | 58 | | 343 |
Value Fund | | | | 59 | | 347 |
Value & Restructuring Fund | | | | 60 | | 348 |
Vista Fund | | | | 61 | | 350 |
3
John Hancock Funds II
Manager’s Commentary and Fund Performance
Fund Performance
In the following pages we have set forth information regarding the performance of each Fund of the John Hancock Funds II (the “trust”). There are several ways to evaluate a Fund’s historical performance. One can look at the total percentage change in value, the average annual percentage change or the growth of a hypothetical $10,000 investment. With respect to all performance information presented, it is important to understand that past performance does not guarantee future results. Return and principal fluctuate, and shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost.
Performance Tables
The Performance Tables show two types of total return information: cumulative and average annual total returns. A cumulative total return is an expression of a Fund’s total change in share value in percentage terms over a set period of time — one, five and ten years (or since the Fund’s inception if less than the applicable period). An average annual total return takes the Fund’s cumulative total return for a time period greater than one year and shows what would have happened if the Fund had performed at a constant rate each year. The tables show all cumulative and average annual total returns, net of fees and expenses of the Trust, but do not reflect the insurance (separate account) expenses (including a possible contingent deferred sales charge) that invest in the Fund. If these were included, performance would be lower.
Graph — Change in Value of $10,000 Investment and Comparative Indices
The performance graph for each Fund shows the change in value of a $10,000 investment over the life or ten-year period of each Fund, whichever is shorter. Each Fund’s performance is compared with the performance of one or more broad-based securities indices as a “benchmark.” All performance information includes the reinvestment of dividends and capital gain distributions, as well as the deduction of ongoing management fees and Fund operating expenses. The benchmarks used for comparison are unmanaged and include reinvestment of dividends and capital gains distributions, if any, but do not reflect any fees or expenses. Funds that invest in multiple asset classes are compared with a customized benchmark. This benchmark is comprised of a set percentage allocation from each of the asset classes in which the Fund invests.
Portfolio Manager’s Commentary
Finally, we have provided a commentary by each portfolio manager regarding each Fund’s performance during the period ended August 31, 2008. The views expressed are those of the portfolio manager as of August 31, 2008, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. Information about a Fund’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is no indication of future fund composition, which will vary. Information provided in this report should not be considered a recommendation to purchase or sell securities. The Funds are not insured by the FDIC, are not a deposit or other obligation of, or guaranteed by banks and are subject to investment risks including loss of principal amount invested. For a more detailed discussion of the risks associated with the Funds, see the Fund prospectus.
“Standard & Poor’s,” “Standard & Poor’s 500,” “S&P 500” and “S&P MidCap 400 Index” are trademarks of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. “Russell 1000,” “Russell 2000,” “Russell 3000” and “Russell Midcap” are trademarks of Frank Russell Company. “Wilshire 5000” is a trademark of Wilshire Associates. “Morgan Stanley European Australian Far East Free”, “EAFE” and “MSCI” are trademarks of Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated. ”Lehman Brothers“ is a registered trademark of Lehman Brothers Inc. ”Lipper“ is a registered trademark of Reuters S.A. None of the Trusts are sponsored, endorsed, managed, advised, sold or promoted by any of these companies, and none of these companies make any representation regarding the advisability of investing in the Trust.
4
Absolute Return Portfolio
Subadviser: MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited
Portfolio Manager: Jim Schetakis
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek maximum real return, consistent with preservation of capital and prudent investment management.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
U.S. Large Cap | 12.68 |
Intermediate Bond | 11.75 |
Real Estate | 10.33 |
Financial | 10.29 |
Multi-Sector Bond | 8.26 |
High Yield Bond | 7.24 |
International Large Cap | 6.27 |
Diversified | 5.39 |
Emerging Markets | 4.90 |
U.S. Mid Cap | 4.75 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Absolute Return Class A returned –3.64%, underperforming the +12.34 % of the Lehman Brothers U.S. TIPS 1–10 Year Index and the +11.97% return of the CPI + 5% Index.
Market Environment • The Fund’s one-year performance was below its real-return objective. Domestic and international markets posted double-digit negative returns. Large-cap stocks continued to outperform small-caps, both domestically and internationally.
Fixed income investments posted positive returns for the year, with global issues marginally outperforming domestic. In the U.S., yields declined 30 basis points (0.30 percentage points) for 30-year Treasuries and about 75 basis points for the 10-year maturity. However, credit spreads continued to expand as the credit crisis deepened and kept financial firms under stress.
The Fund posted a loss for the year and missed its real-return objective. The superior performance of commodities, while helpful, had a muted effect as we began to underweight early in the year. While the portfolio’s asset mix was positive, the portfolio’s sub-advisors had below-benchmark performance in most asset classes.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1,4
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Absolute Return Class A (began 6/26/06) | | | | | –3.64 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.09 | % | | | –3.64 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 9.16 | % |
Absolute Return Class B (began 6/26/06) | | | | | –4.27 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.35 | % | | | –4.27 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.48 | % |
Absolute Return Class C (began 6/26/06) | | | | | –4.27 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.35 | % | | | –4.27 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.48 | % |
Absolute Return Class 1 (began 6/26/06) | | | | | –3.38 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.33 | % | | | –3.38 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 9.72 | % |
Lehman Brothers U.S. TIPS 1-10 Year Index3,5,7 | �� | | | | 12.34 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 9.11 | % | | | 12.34 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 21.04 | % |
CPI +5% Index3,6,7 | | | | | 11.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 9.43 | % | | | 11.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 21.60 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since June 26, 2006. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Since inception, a portion of the Absolute Return Portfolio expenses were reimbursed. If such expenses had not been reimbursed, returns would be lower. |
5 | | Lehman Brothers U.S. TIPS 1-10 Year Index is an unmanaged index which consists of Inflation-Protection securities issued by the U.S. Treasury. The stocks in this index must have at least one year to final maturity, have at least $250 million par amount outstanding and be rated investment-grade (Baa3/BBB– or higher) by at least two of the following ratings agencies: Moody’s, S&P, Fitch. |
6 | | The CPI + 5% Index is created by adding 5% to the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index. This index reflects non-seasonably adjusted returns. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is an unmanaged index representing the rate of inflation in U.S. consumer prices as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. There can be no guarantee that the CPI or other indices will reflect the exact level of inflation at any given time. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
7 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Index figures do not reflect sales charges and would be lower if they did. |
5
Active Bond Fund
Subadviser: Declaration Management & Research, LLC and MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.), LLC
Portfolio Managers: Peter Farley, James E. Shallcross, Barry Evans, Howard C. Greene and Jeffrey N. Givens
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • The Fund seeks income and capital appreciation by investing at least 80% of its net assets in a diversified mix of debt securities and instruments.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Federal National Mortgage Association | 23.74 |
Mortgage Securities | 17.68 |
Financial | 16.03 |
Government | 5.91 |
Asset Backed Securities | 4.58 |
Communications | 4.48 |
U.S. Treasury Notes | 4.03 |
Energy | 3.95 |
Utilities | 3.57 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 3.04 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Active Bond Class NAV returned +0.88%, underperforming the +5.86% return of the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index.
Market Environment • Interest rates fell sharply over the period as the Federal Reserve and market participants remained concerned over slowing economic growth and the fragile condition of the financial system. Over the course of one year, the market and the economy have responded to many historic events. The worst housing market since the Great Depression, the bailout of Bear Stearns, the price of oil and other commodities hitting record highs, the U.S. dollar’s swift decline, the collapse of whole industries, such as mortgage insurance, monoline insurance, automobile, homebuilding, and banking/brokerage, and lastly, the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It’s been a challenging year, with the credit crisis continuing to unfold and the economy (while resilient) beginning to show cracks with plunging consumer confidence, rising unemployment, and uneven growth.
The portfolio underperformed the benchmark as fixed income credit sectors massively deteriorated over the period. The portfolio’s overexposure to corporate credit and commercial mortgage-backed securities heavily weighed on performance. Specifically, concerns over credit losses plagued financial institutions, rising commodity prices pressured cyclical industries, and general economic weakness hurt the whole market. Mortgage sectors also performed terribly as the deterioration in the housing market intensified and tight credit conditions began to hamper commercial real estate.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Active Bond Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | 0.72 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 2.69 | % | | | 0.72 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.95 | % |
Active Bond Class NAV (began 10/27/05) | | | | | 0.88 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 2.91 | % | | | 0.88 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 8.50 | % |
Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index (10/15/05) 3,4,5 | | | | | 5.86 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.03 | % | | | 5.86 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 15.18 | % |
Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index (10/27/05) 3,4,5 | | | | | 5.86 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.22 | % | | | 5.86 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 15.58 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadvisers have managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index is an unmanaged index of dollar-denominated and nonconvertible investment-grade debt issues. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
6
All Cap Core Fund
Subadviser: Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.
Portfolio Managers: Julie Abbett, Robert Wang and James Francis
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term growth of capital by investing in common stocks and other equity securities within all asset classes primarily in the Russell 3000 Index.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 17.10 |
Energy | 14.00 |
Financial | 13.08 |
Industrial | 10.65 |
Technology | 10.01 |
Communications | 9.23 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 7.52 |
Basic Materials | 6.08 |
Utilities | 1.51 |
Diversified | 0.83 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the All Cap Core Class NAV returned –11.50%, underperforming the –10.22% return of the Russell 3000 Index.
Market Environment • The U.S. stock market has remained mired in the swings of extreme volatility that began last August. The triple crisis of the credit crunch, deep decline in housing prices, and dramatic increase in the price of oil has weighed heavily on investors’ minds. Investors have also had to grapple with the threat of a persistent increase in inflation and rumors of additional bank failures. Most notably, U.S. exports have experienced strong growth, which caused the government to revise second-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) growth upward to 3.3%. The economy has also benefited from the stimulus checks that were sent out to millions of taxpayers. After the Federal Reserve waged an aggressive rate-cutting campaign throughout the past 12 months, resulting in a total reduction of 3.25 percentage points, the federal funds rate remains at 2%.
Growth is likely to be much weaker over the balance of this year and into early 2009, as the fiscal stimulus that bolstered spending in the spring fades, and as the spillovers from the housing and credit woes become more evident. The recent decline in energy prices should help avert a sharper retrenchment in consumption, and will contribute to reversing some of the upward pressure on overall inflation. On the plus side, though, the non-financial business sector is in better shape than it usually is when the economy sours. Because most firms did not overbuild or over-hire during the recent expansion, they’re likely under less pressure to slash capital spending and hiring than in past downturns.
The Fund underperformed its benchmark during the period. Stocks within the diversified financials, banks, and media industry groups contributed most to relative performance. The portfolio benefited from our decisions to avoid shares in troubled financial firms including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Lehman Brothers. The largest detractors from relative performance were energy, pharmaceuticals & biotechnology, and health care equipment & services.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
All Cap Core Class NAV (began 4/28/06) | | | | | –11.50 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –0.74 | % | | | –11.50 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –1.73 | % |
Russell 3000 Index3,4,5 | | | | | –10.22 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1.02 | % | | | –10.22 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 2.41 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since April 28, 2006. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell 3000 Index is an unmanaged index of the 3,000 largest U.S. companies based on total market capitalization, which represents approximately 98% of the investable U.S. equity market. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
7
All Cap Growth Fund
Subadviser: Invesco Aim Capital Management, Inc.
Portfolio Managers: Robert J. Lloyd & Ryan A. Amerman
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term capital appreciation by investing the Fund’s assets primarily in common stocks of companies that are believed to benefit from new or innovative products, services or processes as well as those that have experienced above-average, long-term growth in earnings and have excellent prospects for future growth.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 29.92 |
Industrial | 20.57 |
Energy | 17.94 |
Basic Materials | 9.86 |
Technology | 8.87 |
Communications | 5.03 |
Financial | 3.12 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 0.77 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the All Cap Growth Class NAV returned –13.76%, underperforming the –6.56% return of the Russell 3000 Growth Index.
Market Environment • Major U.S. equity markets had negative performance during the fiscal year due to ongoing concerns about the credit markets, weakness in the housing market, rising energy and food prices and a deteriorating outlook for corporate earnings. In this environment, indexes measuring the performance of large-, mid- and small-cap stocks were all in negative territory, with small-cap stocks generally outperforming mid- and large-cap stocks. Overall, growth-style stocks outperformed value stocks.
Among the key detractors to results relative to the Russell 3000 Growth Index was substantial underperformance in the Information Technology sector, driven largely by stock selection. Poor stock picking also hampered results in the Industrials and Consumer Discretionary sectors. An overweighted position was also costly within Industrials, which suffered in a weak economic environment. In Health Care and Consumer Staples, weak relative performance was caused by sub-par stock selection and underweighted positions in sectors that performed relatively well in the benchmark index.
The Fund received positive contributions from the Financials and Telecommunications sectors because of strong stock selection. An underweighted stance in financials boosted results further, as many financial stocks struggled during the reporting period.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
All Cap Growth Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –13.81 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 2.48 | % | | | –13.81 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.32 | % |
All Cap Growth Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –13.76 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 2.54 | % | | | –13.76 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.50 | % |
Russell 3000 Growth Index3,4,5 | | | | | –6.56 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.65 | % | | | –6.56 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 17.13 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell 3000 Growth Index is an unmanaged index that measures the performance of those Russell 3000 Index companies with higher price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values. The stocks in this index are also members of either the Russell 1000 Growth or the Russell 2000 Growth indexes. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
8
All Cap Value Fund
Subadviser: Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC
Portfolio Managers: Robert P. Fetch, Howard E. Hansen and Deepak Khana
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek capital appreciation by investing in equity securities of U.S. and multinational companies that are believed to be undervalued in all capitalization ranges.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Industrial | 24.50 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 22.40 |
Energy | 12.53 |
Financial | 12.33 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 10.83 |
Basic Materials | 8.01 |
Communications | 4.59 |
Utilities | 3.17 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the All Cap Value Class NAV returned –4.57%, outperforming the –14.11% return of the Russell 3000 Value Index.
Market Environment • During the period, large-cap, mid-cap, and small-cap stocks within the Russell 3000 Value Index all declined by double digits. Stock selection in all three market capitalization segments was positive relative to the benchmark. The portfolio’s weighting in large-cap stocks (over $10 billion capitalization) was 55% on average, versus 76% for the benchmark. Exposure to mid-cap stocks ($2–$10 billion cap) was 34% versus 16%, and the small-cap allocation (below $2 billion cap) was 7% of the portfolio versus 8%.
The Financial Services sector was the most significant contributor to relative performance. The portfolio held less than half the benchmark weighting in this sector, which was the Index’s weakest performing area, as many financial firms continued to suffer from the subprime mortgage fallout and the ensuing credit crunch. A favorable overweight and good stock selection in the Other Energy sector also helped, as it was the Index’s best performing area.
The Auto & Transportation sector was the portfolio’s weakest sector. The portfolio’s underweight within the Integrated Oils sector also detracted from performance as crude oil prices topped $140 per barrel. Fortunately, the portfolio’s positioning in “Other Energy” stocks more than made up for the shortfall in the Integrated Oils sector.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
All Cap Value Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –4.62 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.50 | % | | | –4.62 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 23.15 | % |
All Cap Value Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –4.57 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.53 | % | | | –4.57 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 23.25 | % |
Russell 3000 Value Index3,4,5 | | | | | –14.11 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.46 | % | | | –14.11 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 13.38 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell 3000 Value Index is an unmanaged index that measures the performance of those Russell 3000 companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower forecasted growth values. The stocks in this index are also members of either the Russell 1000 Value or Russell 2000 Value indexes. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
9
American Diversified Growth & Income Fund
Subadviser: MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited
Portfolio Managers: Steve Orlich and Scott Warlow
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • Seeks long-term growth of capital by investing in underlying funds American Funds strategies. The fund may also invest in fixed-income and equity securities, which can include common and preferred stocks of large-, medium- and small-capitalization companies in both developed (including the U.S.) and emerging markets.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Energy | 24.16 |
Large Value | 17.96 |
U.S. Large Cap | 15.98 |
Intermediate Bond | 13.97 |
Financial | 5.99 |
International | 4.99 |
International Mid Cap | 4.99 |
Diversified | 4.00 |
Utilities | 3.96 |
International Small Cap | 2.00 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the two-month period from the Fund’s inception on July 1 to August 31, 2008, the American Diversified Growth & Income Class 1 returned –2.50%, underperforming the +0.66% return of the Combined Index.
Market Environment • For the two-month period, the U.S. equity market held up reasonably well during a time of tremendous global volatility in which the U.S. dollar enjoyed a vigorous rally vs. the euro from mid-July through the end of August. International equity markets significantly lagged the U.S. markets. For the two-month period, international large caps in developed markets outperformed international small-caps which in-turn beat emerging market equities. Investment-grade bonds and particularly Treasury instruments performed well over the period, while high yield bonds lagged amid a tepid appetite for risk. Global bonds struggled due to the strengthening U.S. dollar.
Allocations to international equity markets including emerging markets and international small caps detracted significantly from portfolio performance on an absolute basis, while allocations to the fixed income asset class mitigated some of the downside risk. Managers performed reasonably well against individual benchmark indexes but detracted when compared to the broad benchmarks.
American Funds Bond Fund of America, a 14% allocation, trailed the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index due to its relative over-weight to high yield securities, while American Fundamental Investors, a 12% weight, lagged the S&P 500 due to its over-weight to the underperforming Energy and Materials sectors. Conversely, American Washington Mutual Investors, a 12% allocation, contributed positively to portfolio results due to strong security selection within the volatile Financial sector.
Global stock markets appear to be near an important inflection point. Recent sharp declines in energy and food commodities have called into question whether the Energy and Materials sectors can continue to provide market leadership, and it remains to be seen which other sectors can take the lead in their stead. Moreover, while the sharp decline in commodities prices provided some relief from inflationary pressures, it might also reflect the recent weakening trends we’ve seen in economic growth rather than merely the bursting of a speculative bubble. On the positive side, emerging markets continue to offer relatively strong economic growth, a trend we expect to persist for the foreseeable future. We remain convinced that in these uncertain times it is especially important to have a portfolio that provides broad diversification.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | |
American Diversified Growth & Income Class 1 (began 7/01/08) | | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.50 | % |
Combined Index2,3,4 | | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 0.66 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
3 | | The Combined Index represents 75% of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and 25% of the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index. |
4 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
10
American Fundamental Holdings Fund
Subadviser: MFC Global Investment Management (USA) Limited
Portfolio Managers: Steve Orlich and Scott Warlow
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek growth of capital. The Fund invests in common stocks of U.S. companies with market capitalization of at least $10 billion.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Intermediate Bond | 24.95 |
Energy | 22.11 |
International | 12.99 |
Large Value | 11.99 |
U.S. Large Cap | 11.99 |
Government | 8.04 |
Utilities | 7.93 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the two-month period from the Fund’s inception on July 1 to August 31, 2008, the American Fundamental Holdings Class 1 returned –2.20%, underperforming the +0.68% return of the Combined Index.
Market Environment • During the portfolio’s short existence, from 7/1/08 to 8/31/08, the U.S. equity market held up reasonably well during a period of tremendous global volatility in which the dollar enjoyed a vigorous rally versus the Euro from the middle of July through the end of August. For the two-month period, small-cap stocks outperformed mid-caps, which beat large-caps. Value stocks outpaced growth stocks due to the strength in Financials stocks, which tend to fall into the value category. Foreign stocks significantly underperformed their domestic counterparts, particularly in the international small-cap and emerging markets segments. Investment-grade bonds and particularly Treasury instruments performed well over the period, while high yield bonds lagged amid a tepid appetite for risk. Global bonds struggled due to the strengthening U.S. dollar.
Allocations to international equity markets including detracted the most from portfolio performance on an absolute basis, while allocations to the fixed income asset class mitigated some of the downside risk. Managers performed reasonably well against individual benchmark indexes but detracted when compared to the broad benchmarks.
Investments in American Funds Washington Mutual Investors and American Funds U.S. Government Securities aided portfolio performance, while American Funds Bond Fund of America, American Funds Income Fund of America, American Funds Investment Company of America, American Funds EuroPacific Growth Fund, American Funds Fundamental Investors, and American Funds Growth Fund of America all detracted from results.
American Funds Bond Fund of America, a 25% allocation, trailed the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index due to its relative over-weight to high yield securities, while American Fundamental Investors, a 12% weight, lagged the S&P 500 due to its over-weight to the underperforming Energy and Materials sectors. Conversely, American Washington Mutual Investors, a 10% allocation, contributed positively to portfolio results due to strong security selection within the volatile Financial sector.
Global stock markets appear to be near an important inflection point. Recent sharp declines in energy and food commodities have called into question whether the Energy and Materials sectors can continue to provide market leadership, and it remains to be seen which other sectors can take the lead in their stead. Moreover, while the sharp decline in commodities prices provided some relief from inflationary pressures, it might also reflect the recent weakening trends we’ve seen in economic growth rather than merely the bursting of a speculative bubble. On the positive side, emerging markets continue to offer relatively strong economic growth, a trend we expect to persist for the foreseeable future. We remain convinced that in these uncertain times it is especially important to have a portfolio that provides broad diversification.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | |
American Fundamental Holdings Class 1 (began 7/01/08) | | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.20 | % |
Combined Index2,3,4 | | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | 0.68 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
3 | | The Combined Index represents 65% of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and 35% of the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index. |
4 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
11
American Global Diversification Fund
Subadviser: MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited
Portfolio Managers: Steve Orlich and Scott Warlow
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term growth of capital by investing in underlying American Funds strategies. The fund may also invest in fixed income and equity securities, which can include common and preferred stocks of large-, medium- and small-capitalization companies in both developed (including the U.S.) and emerging markets.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Intermediate Bond | 21.08 |
International Small Cap | 15.98 |
International Mid Cap | 15.98 |
Diversified | 11.98 |
International | 9.98 |
U.S. Large Cap | 9.98 |
Large Value | 7.96 |
High Yield Bond | 7.06 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the two-month period from the Fund’s inception on July 1 to August 31, 2008, the American Global Diversification Class 1 returned –4.90%, underperforming the –2.38% return of the Combined Index.
Market Environment • For the two-month period, the U.S. equity market held up reasonably well during a time of tremendous global volatility in which the U.S. dollar enjoyed a vigorous rally vs. the euro from mid-July through the end of August. International equity markets significantly lagged the U.S. markets. For the two-month period, international large caps in developed markets outperformed international small-caps which in-turn beat emerging market equities. Investment-grade bonds and particularly Treasury instruments performed well over the period, while high yield bonds lagged amid a tepid appetite for risk. Global bonds struggled due to the strengthening U.S. dollar.
Allocations to international equity markets including emerging markets and international small caps detracted the most from portfolio performance on an absolute basis, while allocations to the fixed income asset class mitigated some of the downside risk. Managers performed reasonably well against individual benchmark indexes but detracted when compared to the broad benchmarks. American Funds Capital Income Builder aided portfolio performance, while investments in American Funds High-Income Trust, American Funds Bond Fund of America, American Funds New Perspective, American Funds New World, American Funds SMALLCAP World, American Funds EuroPacific Growth, and American Funds Capital World Growth & Income all detracted from results. As an example, American Funds Bond Fund of America, a 21% allocation, trailed the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index due to its relative over-weight to high yield securities.
Global stock markets appear to be near an important inflection point. Recent sharp declines in energy and food commodities have called into question whether the Energy and Materials sectors can continue to provide market leadership, and it remains to be seen which other sectors can take the lead in their stead. Moreover, while the sharp decline in commodities prices provided some relief from inflationary pressures, it might also reflect the recent weakening trends we’ve seen in economic growth rather than merely the bursting of a speculative bubble. On the positive side, emerging markets continue to offer relatively strong economic growth, a trend we expect to persist for the foreseeable future. We remain convinced that in these uncertain times it is especially important to have a portfolio that provides broad diversification.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | |
American Global Diversification Class 1 (began 7/01/08) | | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | –4.90 | % |
Combined Index2,3,4 | | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.38 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemption of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
3 | | The Combined Index represents 70% of the MSCI AC World Index and 30% of the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index. |
4 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
12
Blue Chip Growth Fund
Subadviser: T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.
Portfolio Manager: Larry J. Puglia
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To provide long-term growth of capital with current income as a second objective. The Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in common stocks of large- and medium-sized blue chip growth companies that are considered well established in their industries and have the potential for above-average earnings growth.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 21.20 |
Communications | 17.81 |
Technology | 16.01 |
Financial | 11.94 |
Energy | 9.54 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 8.98 |
Industrial | 8.61 |
Basic Materials | 4.66 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Blue Chip Growth Class NAV returned –8.31%, outperforming the –11.14% return of the S&P 500 Index.
Market Environment • The past 12 months were turbulent for equity markets, primarily due to the consequences of the subprime mortgage crisis and rising prices for commodities, particularly oil. In addition, high headline (overall) inflation and a poor employment outlook combined to put considerable pressure on consumer spending.
The S&P 500 Index posted a double-digit negative return for the period. The Energy and Materials sectors posted absolute gains as oil and commodity prices soared, though that trend had begun to reverse itself by the end of the period. Two traditionally non-cyclical sectors, Utilities and Consumer Staples, enjoyed positive returns, but results in the remaining sectors were all negative. Financials fared worst as the mortgage-related credit crisis continued to play out, with the average stock in the sector losing more than a third of its market value.
Although the portfolio posted a loss for the year ended August 31, 2008, it held its value considerably better than its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index. Stock selection results were excellent overall, while sector positioning was marginally negative.
A significant underweight in the sagging Financials sector contributed greatly to the portfolio’s outperformance, and stock selection in this area was highly productive, particularly in the capital markets industry.
Sector and stock positioning in Health Care also made a major contribution to relative results. Health Care generally outperformed the index average, and our overweight was beneficial. In addition, stock selection was strong here, especially our focus on two major biotechnology firms.
Our positions in Information Technology, Industrials and Business Services, Materials, and Telecommunication Services all added value for the portfolio during the period. However, these relative gains were offset to a degree by our underweights in both Energy and Consumer Staples, the benchmark’s two best-performing sectors. Our stock choices in Consumer Discretionary were disappointing as well.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1,4
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Blue Chip Growth Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –8.35 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.59 | % | | | –8.35 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 16.96 | % |
Blue Chip Growth Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –8.31 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.64 | % | | | –8.31 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 17.12 | % |
S&P 500 Index3,5,6 | | | | | –11.14 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.77 | % | | | –11.14 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 14.36 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Since inception, a portion of the Blue Chip Growth Fund expenses were reimbursed. If such expenses had not been reimbursed, returns would be lower. |
5 | | S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged index that includes 500 widely traded common stocks. |
6 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
13
Capital Appreciation Fund
Subadviser: Jennison Associates, LLC
Portfolio Managers: Michael Del Balso, Kathleen A. McCarragher and Spiros Seagalas
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term growth of capital by investing at least 65% of the Fund’s total assets in equity-related securities of companies that exceed $1 billion in market capitalization and that are believed to have above-average growth prospects.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 30.41 |
Technology | 19.57 |
Communications | 15.42 |
Energy | 9.10 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 8.28 |
Industrial | 7.33 |
Financial | 4.14 |
Basic Materials | 3.41 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Capital Appreciation Class NAV returned –5.65%, outperforming the –6.77% return of the Russell 1000 Growth Index.
Market Environment • Problems in the subprime mortgage market spread throughout the financial system during the past 12 months, creating a full-blown liquidity/credit crisis that roiled global markets. Financial institutions with balance sheets exposed to leveraged securities faced mounting losses and a need to raise additional capital. In March, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department intervened to facilitate the sale of securities firm Bear Stearns, which had been immobilized by liquidity problems. To contain financial market turmoil and to fend off a possible recession, the Fed also cut key interest rates substantially, opened the discount window to brokers, and created a massive lending facility for swapping illiquid debt obligations for U.S. Treasuries.
Increased loan defaults and higher rates of non-performing assets throughout the global financial system reflected a growing list of consumer woes — substantial housing declines, tighter lending standards, and rampant energy and food price escalation. Softening labor markets and broadening declines in consumption joined housing weakness and higher commodity prices as economic strains. Declining markets and the U.S. dollar’s devaluation soured consumer sentiment. Citing increased concerns about inflationary pressures, the Fed held short-term interest rates steady in June, ending a series of consecutive reductions that began last September. Real economic growth grew at a paltry 1.0% pace in 2008’s first quarter.
The Fund outperformed its benchmark, largely on solid stock selection in the Health Care, Materials, and Energy sectors. Health Care holdings benefited from new drug approvals, the promise of innovative treatments under development, and merger and acquisition activity. In Materials, a genetically modified seed provider benefited from a bullish agriculture cycle, advancing on higher prices, market share gains, and expanded margins. Top-performing Energy holdings included a low-cost solar cell manufacturer and a high-quality natural gas firm. Stock selection also contributed to returns relative to the benchmark in Financials and Information Technology, although both sectors declined substantially in absolute terms. Stock selection in the Industrials sector was the greatest drag on performance, as key holdings in this sector fell on capacity constraints and disappointing earnings. Consumer Discretionary holdings also hurt returns, as housing market weakness, rising unemployment, and spiraling food and energy prices curtailed spending.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Capital Appreciation Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –5.80 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.56 | % | | | –5.80 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 10.61 | % |
Capital Appreciation Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –5.65 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.65 | % | | | –5.65 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 10.89 | % |
Russell 1000 Growth Index3,4,5 | | | | | –6.77 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.45 | % | | | –6.77 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 16.50 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell 1000 Growth Index is an unmanaged index composed of the Russell 1000 securities that have a greater-than-average growth orientation. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
14
Core Bond Fund
Subadviser: Wells Capital Management, Inc.
Portfolio Managers: William Stevens, Thomas O’Connor, Lynne Royer, Troy Ludgood
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • The Fund seeks total return consisting of income and capital appreciation by investing at least 80% of its net assets in a broad range of investment grade debt securities, including U.S. Government obligations, corporate bonds, mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities and money market instruments.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Federal National Mortgage Association | 26.58 |
Mortgage Securities | 18.00 |
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. | 11.51 |
Asset Backed Securities | 10.46 |
Financial | 5.91 |
Short-term Securities | 5.32 |
U.S. Treasury Notes | 3.38 |
U.S. Treasury Bonds | 3.13 |
Energy | 2.70 |
Government National Mortgage Association | 2.40 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Core Bond Class NAV returned +5.49% underperforming the +5.86% return of the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index.
Market Environment • We witnessed a significant re-pricing of risk across all markets as subprime mortgage problems spread to all market sectors. The fixed income market witnessed the near extinction of many recently developed investments such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), structured investment vehicles (SIVs), and auction rate securities. The Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury took a series of actions to move aggressively and creatively to help stabilize the markets. This includes implementing significant federal funds rate cuts, facilitating the JP Morgan/Bear Stearns bailout, making a new lending facility available to investment banks and most recently, the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
As investor fear and lack of confidence overwhelmed the markets and affected the economy, Treasury yields declined significantly in response to Fed easing and a flight-to-quality among investments. Over the past year, the yield curve steepened significantly, with two-year Treasury yields declining 1.88 percentage points while yields on 10-year Treasuries declined 0.80 percentage points. The underperformance of all spread sectors has produced current yield premiums to Treasuries at or near their all-time widest levels. A sharply slowing global economy and rising unemployment have set the stage for a prolonged economic slowdown. For the near term, we expect the broader economy to remain on shaky ground and market volatility to create pockets of opportunity.
Security selection was the largest contributor to performance during the year. In corporate bonds, a large underweight to banks and finance, and being out some of the worst performing finance names, contributed. In addition, security selection within the Telecommunications, Non-corporate, and Utility sectors added relative return vs. the Lehman Aggregate Bond Index. Security selection in structured products also contributed to performance, as did relative value trading in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and pass-through pools. Positioning and security selection in high quality consumer asset-backed securities added to returns. The largest detractors to performance were the Fund’s consistent overweights to mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities, which significantly underperformed Treasuries. Timely shifts in the Fund’s allocation to the Corporate sector enhanced performance.
We remain focused on bottom-up security selection, using market dislocations to identify and capitalize on relative value trading while managing risk.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Core Bond Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | 5.43 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.47 | % | | | 5.43 | % | | | �� | | | | — | | | | 13.43 | % |
Core Bond Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | 5.49 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.53 | % | | | 5.49 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 13.62 | % |
Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index3,4,5 | | | | | 5.86 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.03 | % | | | 5.86 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 15.18 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index is an unmanaged index of dollar-denominated and nonconvertible investment-grade debt issues. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
15
Core Equity Fund
Subadviser: Legg Mason Capital Management, Inc.
Portfolio Managers: Mary Chris Gay and Bill Miller
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term capital growth by investing at least 80% of the Fund’s net assets in equity securities that offer the potential for capital growth.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Communications | 26.10 |
Financial | 25.73 |
Technology | 14.98 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 8.40 |
Industrial | 7.82 |
Utilities | 7.11 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 6.14 |
Basic Materials | 0.63 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Core Equity Class NAV returned –30.94%, underperforming the –11.14% return of the S&P 500 Index.
Market Environment • The credit and liquidity crunch that began last summer recently marked its one-year anniversary. What began with trouble in the U.S. housing market soon spread to structured investment vehicles, asset-backed commercial paper, auction rate securities, as well as other areas of the foreign and domestic financial markets. The resulting financial panic reached several crescendos, including the demise of Bear Stearns in March, and most recently, the government intervention in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September. The Federal Reserve’s steady interest rate cuts and newly implemented credit facilities were unable to halt the market’s swoon, and with the seemingly daily rise in commodity prices during the period, inflation concerns mounted as well. With unemployment on the rise and economic growth slowing, investors were not lacking for bad news.
The Fund underperformed its benchmark during the period. Our underperformance was driven by investments in several financial securities at the eye of the swirling credit storm, which were rescued by other entities after their liquidity positions became or were deemed inadequate. Other financial companies detracted as well, as massive write-downs and a slew of capital raises soured investors. Outside of financials, slow progress in the turnaround of a telecommunications firm led to large selloffs, while a couple of health care companies declined on concerns of a negative underwriting cycle. The strong relative performance of several holdings partly offset poor results elsewhere.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Core Equity Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –31.01 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –7.45 | % | | | –31.01 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –19.99 | % |
Core Equity Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –30.94 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –7.40 | % | | | –30.94 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –19.85 | % |
S&P 500 Index3,4,5 | | | | | –11.14 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.77 | % | | | –11.14 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 14.36 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged index that includes 500 widely traded common stocks. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
16
Emerging Growth Fund
Subadviser: MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.), LLC
Portfolio Manager: Dan Cole
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term capital appreciation by investing primarily in high-quality securities and convertible instruments of small-cap U.S. companies.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 30.47 |
Technology | 14.91 |
Industrial | 13.87 |
Financial | 7.03 |
Energy | 4.95 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 4.71 |
Communications | 4.47 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Emerging Growth Class NAV returned –17.65%, underperforming the –3.79% return of the Russell 2000 Growth Index.
Market Environment • The year witnessed extremely volatile equity markets amid one of the more challenging capital market backdrops in recent history. Deteriorating housing market conditions last year led to credit issues related to subprime lending. Losses in subprime-related investments led to serious problems within the Financial sector and related industries. Ultimately, several banks and financial companies filed for bankruptcy, were sold at deep discounts, or were bailed out by the government. This created a business environment with very tight capital. Fears of inflation persisted as commodity prices soared. A barrel of crude oil rose from just over $70 to a high of $147 in July before retreating below $100 in September. Other commodities rose significantly, which created a significant headwind for stocks with exposure to consumers. This resulted in a very narrow market led by Energy, Materials, and commodity-related Industrials at the expense of Consumer Discretionary, Financials, and Technology.
The Fund significantly lagged its benchmark for the period. Both stock selection and sector allocation held back relative performance. In general, the portfolio was positioned to benefit from a market characterized by a slowing economy that would avert recession, and where classic growth sectors and companies with visible earnings growth would benefit. Our largest active sector bets were in Technology and Health Care, and we were underweight in Energy, Materials, and commodity-related Industrials.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Emerging Growth Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –17.64 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.40 | % | | | –17.64 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 10.11 | % |
Emerging Growth Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –17.65 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.42 | % | | | –17.65 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 10.18 | % |
Russell 2000 Growth Index3,4,5 | | | | | –3.79 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.93 | % | | | –3.79 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 24.57 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell 2000 Growth Index is an unmanaged index that contains those securities from the Russell 2000 Index with a greater than average growth orientation. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
17
Emerging Markets Value Fund
Subadviser: Dimensional Fund Advisors LP
Portfolio Manager: Karen E. Umland
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term capital appreciation by investing primarily in companies associated with emerging markets.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Financial | 26.03 |
Basic Materials | 19.04 |
Industrial | 13.32 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 9.92 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 8.94 |
Energy | 6.35 |
Diversified | 4.35 |
Communications | 4.15 |
Technology | 3.53 |
Utilities | 1.73 |
| |
Country Weighting | % of Total |
Brazil | 12.17 |
South Korea | 11.14 |
Taiwan | 11.07 |
Mexico | 9.97 |
India | 9.67 |
South Africa | 8.24 |
Hong Kong | 5.68 |
China | 4.13 |
Poland | 3.70 |
Malaysia | 3.48 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Emerging Markets Value Class NAV returned –12.61%, underperforming the –9.83% return of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.
Market Environment • Developed market equities performed very poorly during the period, although the dollar-denominated returns of those markets were greatly bolstered by the relative weakness of the U.S. dollar. From September 2007 to August 2008, the U.S. dollar depreciated against all major currencies except the British pound and the Canadian dollar. The overall impact of the U.S. dollar’s decline versus developed country currencies was to increase the dollar-denominated returns of developed market equities by about 3%.
Emerging markets also performed poorly during the one-year period, although the dollar-denominated returns of emerging markets equities benefited somewhat, from the weakness of the U.S. dollar relative to some of the main emerging markets currencies, such as the Mexican peso and the Brazilian real. The overall impact of currency fluctuations between the dollar and emerging markets currencies was to increase the dollar-denominated returns of emerging markets equities by about 1.7%. As measured by the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, the dollar-denominated return for emerging markets was –10.1%.
The portfolio’s relatively large exposure to India and smaller exposure to China, both of which underperformed relative to other emerging markets, boosted relative performance. The portfolio’s limited exposure to deep growth stocks and other differences in allocation along the value/growth dimension also contributed to relative performance, as growth stocks underperformed value stocks during the period. However, the poor relative performance of the portfolio’s basket of deep value stocks had a large negative impact on relative performance. The Fund’s overweighting to small-cap stocks also detracted from relative performance, as large-cap stocks greatly outperformed small-caps in emerging markets. The portfolio’s underweighting to the Energy sector and the poor relative performance of its energy holdings hurt relative performance.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Emerging Markets Value Class NAV (began 5/1/07) | | | | | –12.61 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.77 | % | | | –12.61 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –3.69 | % |
MSCI Emerging Markets Index3,4,5 | | | | | –9.83 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1.67 | % | | | –9.83 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 2.25 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since May 1, 2007. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | MSCI Emerging Markets Index is an unmanaged index designed to measure the performance of developing markets. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
18
Emerging Small Company Fund
Subadviser: RCM Capital Management LLC
Portfolio Managers: Thomas J. Ross and Louise M. Laufersweiler
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term capital appreciation by investing at least 80% of the Fund’s total net assets in equity securities of U.S. companies with smaller capitalizations. The Fund may also invest up to 15% of its assets in foreign securities including emerging markets and may also from time to time invest a significant percentage of its assets in the Technology and/or Health Care sectors.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 29.10 |
Technology | 19.97 |
Industrial | 11.63 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 10.19 |
Energy | 8.35 |
Financial | 6.38 |
Communications | 6.11 |
Utilities | 1.29 |
Basic Materials | 0.37 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Emerging Small Company Class NAV returned –15.06%, underperforming the –3.79% return of the Russell 2000 Growth Index.
Market Environment • U.S. small-cap growth equities experienced a volatile 12 months. The Russell 2000 Growth Index, a proxy for small-cap growth shares, reached a multi-year high on October 10, 2007 before falling 25% from peak to trough before recovering nearly half of those losses in more recent months. Declining home values, tighter lending standards, rising food and energy costs, and contracting employment continue to weigh heavily on the market. However, the Federal Reserve has taken aggressive action to ease credit spreads and inject liquidity back into the system. Meanwhile the nearly $100 billion federal tax rebate package earlier in the year supported consumer spending into the summer months. Nonetheless, the battle between deteriorating fundamentals and stimulative policy has led to an extremely volatile trading environment.
Small-cap growth investors are experiencing a very difficult environment, with momentum spiking to levels last reached in the late stages of the 1990s technology bubble, and the vast majority of small-cap growth managers underperformed the Index for the year to date.
The Fund significantly underperformed its benchmark. Relative returns were hindered by stock selection, particularly in Consumer Discretionary, Technology, Industrials, and Financials. Positive stock selection in Health Care, Telecommunications, Consumer Staples and Utilities was not enough to offset the detraction.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1,4
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Emerging Small Company Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –15.13 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1.42 | % | | | –15.13 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.13 | % |
Emerging Small Company Class NAV (began 6/26/06) | | | | | –15.06 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –0.05 | % | | | –15.06 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –0.11 | % |
Russell 2000 Growth Index (10/15/05)3,5,6 | | | | | –3.79 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.93 | % | | | –3.79 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 24.57 | % |
Russell 2000 Growth Index (6/26/06)3,5,6 | | | | | –3.79 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6.52 | % | | | –3.79 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 14.84 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since April 28, 2006. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Since inception, a portion of the Emerging Small Company Fund expenses were reimbursed. If such expenses had not been reimbursed, returns would be lower. |
5 | | Russell 2000 Growth Index is an unmanaged index that contains those securities from the Russell 2000 Index with a greater than average growth orientation. |
6 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
19
Equity-Income Fund
Subadviser: T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.
Portfolio Manager: Brian C. Rogers
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term capital appreciation and to provide dividend income. The Fund invests at least 80% of its total assets in equity securities, with 65% in common stocks of well-established companies paying above-average dividends.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Financial | 21.10 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 16.23 |
Energy | 11.70 |
Communications | 11.17 |
Industrial | 10.60 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 7.85 |
Basic Materials | 5.63 |
Utilities | 4.43 |
Technology | 4.41 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Equity-Income Class NAV returned –11.79%, outperforming the –14.66% return of the Russell 1000 Value Index.
Market Environment • A slumping economy and rising market volatility challenged investors during the past 12 months. While the Russell 1000 Value Index and Russell 1000 Growth Index both declined during the period, the value index significantly underperformed the growth index. Energy was the strongest sector, riding the surge in oil prices. Consumer Staples and Health Care, sectors that are relatively insensitive to economic weakness, also outperformed the benchmark average. Turmoil in the credit markets led Financials to plummet, and this was by far the weakest sector.
For the 12-month period, the portfolio solidly outperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index. Stock selection and groups weightings both contributed to relative results. The Financials sector was the greatest contributor to relative results, due to strong stock selection and an underweight in this struggling sector. Portfolio positions in trust banks helped returns, as they were not hit as hard as investment banks by market volatility. We remain underweight to Financials stocks, but have added to commercial bank positions.
Deft stock picks in the Consumer Staples sector also contributed to relative returns. Beverage industry names drove the outperformance. A major brewery holding agreed to be purchased at an attractive valuation. A prominent discount retailer performed well as cash-strapped consumers flocked to the store seeking cheaper goods.
An underweight in Energy, the benchmark’s best performer, was the most significant relative detractor. We continue to invest in the sector, but remain underweight due to valuations. Weak stock selection in Materials also held back relative returns. Overweighting paper and forest products hurt returns as the industry was hampered by the rising costs of energy and raw materials.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1,4
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Equity-Income Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –11.83 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.81 | % | | | –11.83 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 14.47 | % |
Equity-Income Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –11.79 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.86 | % | | | –11.79 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 14.63 | % |
Russell 1000 Value Index3,5,6 | | | | | –14.66 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.37 | % | | | –14.66 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 13.11 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Since inception, a portion of the Equity-Income Fund expenses were reimbursed. If such expenses had not been reimbursed, returns would be lower. |
5 | | Russell 1000 Value Index is an unmanaged index containing those securities in the Russell 1000 Index with a less-than-average growth orientation. |
6 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
20
Fundamental Value Fund
Subadviser: Davis Selected Advisers, L.P.
Portfolio Managers: Christopher C. Davis and Kenneth Charles Feinberg
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek growth of capital. The Fund invests in common stocks of U.S. companies with market capitalization of at least $10 billion.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Financial | 29.40 |
Energy | 17.52 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 15.63 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 9.05 |
Communications | 8.01 |
Industrial | 5.91 |
Technology | 5.81 |
Basic Materials | 1.17 |
Diversified | 0.67 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Fundamental Value Class NAV returned –10.93%, outperforming the –11.14% return of the S&P 500 Index.
Market Environment • Consumer Staples, Energy, and Materials were the only sectors within the Index that earned positive returns. Energy companies were the most important contributors to the Fund’s performance over the year. The Fund’s energy holdings outperformed their counterparts within the Index. The Fund also benefited from an overweighting in this sector relative to the benchmark.
Although the Fund’s financial companies outperformed the Financials sector within the Index, they were still the largest detractor from its absolute performance. A higher relative average weighting in this sector (33% versus 17% for the Index) detracted from both absolute and relative performance. The Fund’s Consumer Discretionary companies performed in line with the corresponding sector within the benchmark. However, a higher relative weighting in this sector held back both absolute and relative performance.
The Fund’s long-term focus usually results in low portfolio turnover. We do not overreact to past short-term performance from individual holdings on either the upside or the downside. We deliberately focus on the future, considering each company’s long-term business fundamentals. Five companies dropped out of the Fund’s top 20 holdings as of August of last year. The Fund still owns four of these holdings, and one was sold. Of the five new additions to our top 20 holdings, three were companies that we already owned, and the other two were new investments.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Fundamental Value Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –10.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.86 | % | | | –10.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 11.53 | % |
Fundamental Value Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –10.93 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.92 | % | | | –10.93 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 11.70 | % |
S&P 500 Index3,4,5 | | | | | –11.14 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.77 | % | | | –11.14 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 14.36 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged index that includes 500 widely traded common stocks. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
21
Global Bond Fund
Subadviser: Pacific Investment Management Company LLC
Portfolio Manager: Scott Mather
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek maximum total return, consistent with preservation of capital and prudent investment management. The Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in fixed-income instruments, which may be represented by futures contracts with respect to such securities, and options on such securities.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Government | 32.61 |
Financial | 30.85 |
Mortgage Securities | 16.66 |
Government National Mortgage Association | 6.56 |
Asset Backed Securities | 6.22 |
Federal National Mortgage Association | 4.49 |
Communications | 1.75 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 1.39 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 1.07 |
Energy | 0.91 |
| |
Country Weighting | % of Total |
United States | 73.81 |
Japan | 30.33 |
Germany | 8.01 |
Canada | 5.56 |
United Kingdom | 5.14 |
Ireland | 2.99 |
France | 2.66 |
Cayman Islands | 2.48 |
Australia | 2.26 |
Italy | 1.94 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Global Bond Class NAV returned +7.81%, underperforming the +9.52% return of the JP Morgan Global Government Bond Unhedged Index.
Market Environment • The credit crisis that began in the summer of 2007 continued to weigh on the financial markets throughout the year. Government bond yields fell worldwide amid a flight to the highest quality assets. Economies slowed in the U.K., the European Union Countries, and Japan. To forestall a U.S. recession and unfreeze credit markets, the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) lowered the federal funds rate from 5.25% to 2.00% before pausing in April due to concerns about inflation. The Fed also took several unconventional steps. It made several hundred billion dollars of liquidity facilities available against an expanded range of collateral, opened its discount window to investment banks, and arranged the rescue of Bear Stearns, a brokerage firm weighed down by subprime-related exposure. The U.S. yield curve remained steep. Agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) continued to underperform Treasuries, driven by the liquidity crisis. Dealers struggled with regulatory capital constraints and the looming threat of further downgrades to positions; they may soon be forced to unwind more risk. Price volatility remains high and liquidity extremely poor across the capital structure.
The portfolio was well positioned through February. Developed market global bonds posted strong returns during this period. Global yield curves steepened sharply as short-dated government bonds outperformed in a flight to quality. Above-index duration and curve steepening bias in the U.S. and U.K. helped performance through February. However, after March, the front-end of the yield curves started to flatten. In the last six months, rising interest rates and yield curve flattening detracted from performance in the U.S. and U.K. The subprime debacle led to a liquidity crisis. Allocation to high quality corporate debt of select financial companies also detracted from returns as these companies continued to face subprime-related write-downs. Tactical holdings of mortgage securities detracted from performance during the past six months as spreads widened due to the pickup in volatility. Cash-backing strategies had a negative impact on returns, especially asset-backed securities as they continued to be marked down.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Global Bond Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | 7.73 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.70 | % | | | 7.73 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 14.14 | % |
Global Bond Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | 7.81 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.77 | % | | | 7.81 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 14.36 | % |
JP Morgan Global Government Bond Unhedged Index3,4,5 | | | | | 9.52 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6.05 | % | | | 9.52 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 18.68 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | JP Morgan Global Government Bond Unhedged Index is an unmanaged index which measures the performance of leading government bond markets based on total return in U.S. currency. By including only traded issues, the Index provides a realistic measure of market performance for international investors. It is calculated by J.P. Morgan, and reflects reinvestment of all applicable dividends, capital gains and interest. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
22
Global Real Estate Fund
Subadviser: Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.
Portfolio Managers: John F. Robertson, Daniel Ekins, John Hammond, William Leung and John W. Vojticek
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • The Fund seeks a combination of long-term capital appreciation and current income by primarily investing in equity securities of U.S. REITs, foreign entities with tax-transparent structures similar to REITs, and U.S. and foreign real estate operating companies.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Financial | 92.13 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 3.87 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 0.83 |
Industrial | 0.02 |
| |
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. | |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Global Real Estate Class NAV returned –22.75%, underperforming the –18.66% return of the EPRA NAREIT Global Unhedged U.S. Index.
Market Environment • Global real estate markets gave investors a rollercoaster ride on the heels of the credit crises that affected nearly all asset classes over the past 12 months. Early in the period, both Asia and Australia seemed to shrug off fears of a global recession, and the “decoupling” of these markets gave investors hope that there was a place to hide during the economic crisis. Australia fell first on the dramatic implosion of several companies, and then Asia began to falter on fears of overheated economies and high valuations within the region. Meanwhile some positives came in the western markets, as the U.S. and Europe (particularly the UK) rebounded as generalist investors moved back into the heavily downtrodden real estate securities markets. Relief (mostly Federal Reserve intervention) came, but was only able to help the U.S. markets, as weakening in both the commercial and residential property markets in Europe caused investor sentiment to be near all-time lows. As we entered the summer months, oil prices (and inflation concerns) soared globally, particularly in Asia, and all markets suffered. There was some relief towards the end of the reporting period, but weak economic data and slower growth expectations resulting from central bank intervention to address inflation drove investor expectations and sentiment. The market continues to wait for a catalyst to restore market liquidity and calm investor anxiety.
Overall, the Fund’s stock selection had a negative impact on performance. Strong stock selection in the Americas and Asia was beneficial. However, weaker stock selection in Australia and Europe detracted more. Overall, regional selection hurt performance. Over the period, our underweight positions in Europe and Australia had a neutral effect on results. However, our overweighting in underperforming Asian stocks and our underweight position in outperforming stocks in the Americas’ region detracted from performance.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Global Real Estate Class NAV (began 4/28/06) | | | | | –22.75 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –3.83 | % | | | –22.75 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –8.74 | % |
EPRA NAREIT Global Unhedged U.S. Index3,4,5 | | | | | –18.66 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.71 | % | | | –18.66 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –6.21 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since April 28, 2006. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | EPRA NAREIT Global Unhedged U.S. Index is an unmanaged index. Designed to track the performance of listed real estate companies and REITs worldwide, the series acts as a performance measure of the overall market and is also suitable for use as the basis for investment products such as derivatives and Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
23
High Income Fund
Subadviser: MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.), LLC
Portfolio Managers: Arthur N. Calavritinos, John F. Iles and Joseph Rizzo
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek high current income with capital appreciation as a secondary goal by investing primarily in U.S. and foreign fixed-income securities that are rated BB/Ba or lower and unrated equivalents.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Cyclical | 39.00 |
Communications | 31.67 |
Basic Materials | 5.36 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 4.84 |
Industrial | 3.87 |
Mortgage Securities | 3.73 |
Utilities | 3.05 |
Financial | 2.73 |
Asset Backed Securities | 0.74 |
Energy | 0.58 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the High Income Class NAV returned –14.76%, underperforming the –1.02% return of the Merrill Lynch U.S. High Yield Master II Constrained Index.
Market Environment • During this period, the spread (additional yield) above U.S. Treasuries for high yield bonds widened from 455 basis points (4.55 percentage points) to 828 basis points. The widening of high yield bonds coincided with a 12.97% decline in the S&P 500 Index. Broad market declines were caused by economic uncertainty in an inflationary environment as well as a severe crisis in the financial sector that was sparked by a meltdown in U.S. housing prices. This led to a major sell-off in the mortgage market, which, when combined with the enormous supply of leveraged buyout (LBO) debt from 2007, led to drastic decreases in liquidity and risk tolerance. High yield debt was particularly susceptible to the market’s poor liquidity, and large LBO issues that had been recently priced at very aggressive levels underperformed by a wide margin.
The portfolio’s performance was greatly hampered by a sudden spike in oil prices that affected our larger airline investments. For most of the period, oil soared, peaking at $146 in July, almost twice its price from last August. By the end of August 2008, oil had slipped back to $115. We expect recent lower levels to hold and to become a large catalyst to performance when combined with the capacity reductions that the industry made during what we feel was a speculative bubble in oil. Other detractors from performance were bonds from gaming companies. Gaming was one of the worst performing industries over the period as investors anticipated a decrease in discretionary consumer spending combined with an increase in the supply of casinos across the country. Contributors to performance were bonds, convertible bonds and preferred shares issued by a satellite radio service and a cellular provider.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
High Income Class NAV (began 4/28/06) | | | | | –14.76 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –0.97 | % | | | –14.76 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.27 | % |
Merrill Lynch U.S. High Yield Master II Constrained Index3,4,5 | | | | | –1.02 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.12 | % | | | –1.02 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.46 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since April 28, 2006. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Merrill Lynch U.S. High Yield Master II Constrained Index is an unmanaged index composed of U.S. currency high-yield bonds issued by U.S. and non-U.S. issuers. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
24
High Yield Fund
Subadviser: Western Asset Management Company
Portfolio Manager: S. Kenneth Leech, Steven A. Walsh, Mike Buchanan, Keith J. Gardner
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To realize an above-average total return over a market cycle of three to five years, consistent with reasonable risk, by investing primarily in high yield securities, including corporate bonds, preferred stocks, U.S. government and foreign securities, mortgage-backed securities and loan assignments.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Communications | 14.44 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 13.34 |
Financial | 13.12 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 12.97 |
Energy | 12.65 |
Utilities | 7.95 |
Industrial | 7.63 |
Basic Materials | 7.54 |
Government | 3.47 |
Technology | 1.31 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the High Yield Class NAV returned –2.18%, underperforming the –1.43% return of the Citigroup High Yield Index.
Market Environment • Market performance was held back by the meltdown of the consumer cyclical industries and the financial industry, which fell steeply due to mortgage-related write-downs. Declining auto sales resulted in sharp drops in the stocks of American car manufacturers. Reduced traffic at major casinos hurt the gaming sector. As home construction slowed, the industry’s bonds declined in value. The Financial sector suffered severe stress as mortgage-related losses mounted. Excluding the Consumer Cyclical and Financial sectors, six of the remaining eight high yield sub-sectors had positive returns. Fundamentals in these healthier sectors generally supported positive performance for high yield companies as liquidity levels remained elevated and leverage levels below historical average. The riskier areas of the market were punished, including lower-rated issuers. In general, issues rated CCC and below returned –6.50% while the more U.S. Treasury-sensitive BB-rated issuers gained 2.33%.
Not surprisingly, default rates moved higher over the period. However, they remained below the 30-year annual average of 4.14%. New issue supply was lower than it has been since 2002. A lack of leveraged buyout (LBO) activity and the inability of issuers to refinance at a lower cost of funds kept issuance low.
The portfolio’s overweight to lower-rated high yield securities, which underperformed, detracted from relative performance. Issue selection aided relative performance as the top 10 overweights all outperformed and six of the portfolio’s top 10 underweights underperformed. Sector allocation aided relative performance due in large part to underweights to the struggling Financials and Consumer Cyclical sectors and overweights to Energy and Basic Industry.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
High Yield Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –2.33 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.43 | % | | | –2.33 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 10.19 | % |
High Yield Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –2.18 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.50 | % | | | –2.18 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 10.42 | % |
Citigroup High Yield Index3,4,5 | | | | | –1.43 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.72 | % | | | –1.43 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 11.24 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Citigroup High Yield Index is an unmanaged index which measures the performance of below-investment grade debt issued by corporations domiciled in the U.S. or Canada. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
25
Index 500 Fund
Subadviser: MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited
Portfolio Managers: Carson Jen and Narayan Ramani
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To approximate the aggregate total return of a broad-based U.S. domestic equity market index by investing at least 80% of the Fund’s net assets in (a) common stocks that are included in the S&P 500 Index and (b) securities that are believed to behave in a manner similar to the Index.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 20.80 |
Financial | 14.94 |
Energy | 13.75 |
Technology | 11.74 |
Industrial | 11.28 |
Communications | 10.39 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 7.44 |
Basic Materials | 4.06 |
Utilities | 3.30 |
Diversified | 0.07 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Index 500 Class NAV returned –11.69%, underperforming the –11.14% return of the S&P 500 Index.
Market Environment • The U.S. economy’s growth was modest over the past 12 months and the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product (GDP), grew at an annualized rate of 2.2%, although recession fears persisted. The year-over-year headline inflation rate rose from 2.5% a year ago to 5.6% in August, primarily due to increased energy costs. The core inflation rate inched up to 2.5% from 2.2%. The Federal Reserve acted aggressively to forestall any weakening of the economy and lowered the benchmark federal funds rate from 5.25% to 2.0%, including a reduction of 125 basis points (1.25 percentage points) in January 2008. In August, the unemployment rate was at 5.7%, up from 4.6% a year earlier. The job market remained weak, with monthly job losses throughout 2008, suggesting a stagnating economy. The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index has dropped steadily over the past year and was at 51 in August 2008, off from a high of 111 just a year ago.
For the period, Consumer Staples and Energy were the best performing sectors, returning 6.6% and 5.2%, respectively; Telecommunications and Financials were the worst performers, returning –20.0% and –34.7%, respectively.
Some of the best performing securities included Massey Energy, CF Industries and Southwestern Energy with returns of over 100%. E-Trade Financial and National City Corp were among the worst performers dropping more than 75%.
The fund invests in all the securities of the S&P 500 Index in the same proportion as in the index and hedges all cash with S&P 500 futures contracts. It is well-positioned to meet its goal of replicating the performance and portfolio characteristics of the S&P 500 Index.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Index 500 Class NAV (began 10/27/06) | | | | | –11.69 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.33 | % | | | –11.69 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –4.26 | % |
S&P 500 Index3,4,5 | | | | | –11.14 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.28 | % | | | –11.14 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –4.17 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 27, 2006. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged index that includes 500 widely traded common stocks. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
26
International Equity Index Fund
Subadviser: SSgA Funds Management, Inc.
Portfolio Managers: Karl Schneider and Thomas Coleman
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • The Fund seeks to track the performance of a broad-based equity index of foreign companies primarily in developed countries and, to a lesser extent, in emerging market countries. The Fund primarily invests in securities listed in the Morgan Stanley Capital International All Country World excluding U.S. Index.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Financial | 24.37 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 13.42 |
Basic Materials | 11.41 |
Energy | 11.38 |
Industrial | 10.77 |
Communications | 9.23 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 7.83 |
Utilities | 5.37 |
Technology | 3.44 |
Diversified | 1.12 |
| |
Country Weighting | % of Total |
United Kingdom | 15.29 |
Japan | 14.79 |
France | 7.07 |
Canada | 6.93 |
Germany | 6.43 |
Switzerland | 5.32 |
Australia | 4.36 |
Brazil | 3.14 |
Hong Kong | 2.91 |
Spain | 2.76 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the International Equity Index Class NAV returned –13.58%, underperforming the –12.59% return of the MSCI AC World ex US Index.
Market Environment • International equity markets have struggled over the past 12 months. Mortgage weakness, private equity excess, overvaluation in China, and hedge fund leverage dominated the headlines in the latter part of 2007. Investors initially shrugged off these dislocations as natural consequences of imprudent risk taking, but August brought an unprecedented seizure in the global money markets. Central bankers were forced to provide emergency liquidity, calming the markets which then proceeded to move higher. But declines in US housing prices showed no signs of letting up, and subprime mortgage prices continued to fall. To make matters worse, investors began to wonder if slowing in China and other emerging markets would herald a broad downturn in global growth, and equities around the world began falling back from their peaks.
The turn of the calendar into 2008 unleashed a fresh burst of profit-taking, and the unwinding of rogue trading positions at a major French bank in mid-January caused alarm. The disarray was great enough to prompt an inter-meeting rate cut from the US Federal Reserve, and once again equity markets attempted to rebuild their sense of equilibrium. By mid-March, however, the complexity and illiquidity of many long-term mortgage assets made reasonable transactions all but impossible, and the major Wall Street house of Bear Stearns could no longer fund its own business. Investors have come to find out that Bear Stearns did not stand alone however, and the markets continued to suffer from strains in the financial sector.
All developed market countries except for Canada were down over the last year, and all but 10 emerging market countries declined for the period. Emerging markets once again outperformed developed markets. Latin America was the clear regional winner with a return of +10% versus –12% for Europe and –16% for Asia/Pacific.
All 10 sectors had negative returns. Financials (–24%) and Industrials (–20%) led the downward charge. Consumer Staples (flat) and Health Care (–6%) were the best performing sectors. U.S.-based investors were also helped as the U.S. dollar continued to fall against most currencies.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
International Equity Index Class NAV (began 10/29/05) | | | | | –13.58 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 9.62 | % | | | –13.58 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 29.82 | % |
MSCI AC World ex US Index3,4,5 | | | | | –12.59 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 10.77 | % | | | –12.59 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 33.74 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 29, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | MSCI AC World ex US Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure equity market performance in the global developed and emerging markets excluding U.S. As of June 2006 the MSCI ACWI consisted of the following 47 developed and emerging market country indices: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore Free, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
27
International Opportunities Fund
Subadviser: Marsico Capital Management, LLC
Portfolio Manager: James G. Gendelman
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term growth of capital by investing at least 65% of its assets in common stocks of foreign companies that are selected for their long-term growth potential.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Industrial | 16.67 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 14.60 |
Financial | 13.49 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 9.81 |
Basic Materials | 7.29 |
Energy | 7.21 |
Communications | 6.45 |
Technology | 5.34 |
Utilities | 2.77 |
Diversified | 0.92 |
| |
Country Weighting | % of Total |
United States | 18.21 |
Switzerland | 13.46 |
France | 11.35 |
United Kingdom | 9.54 |
Japan | 8.43 |
Canada | 7.69 |
Germany | 5.67 |
Brazil | 5.37 |
Denmark | 4.25 |
Taiwan | 3.46 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the International Opportunities Class NAV returned –10.50%, outperforming the –13.97% return of the MSCI EAFE Gross Index.
Market Environment • International equity performance in developed markets struggled during the year ended August 31, 2008, saddled by rapidly mounting concerns that a significant global growth slowdown could be unfolding. Losses in developed markets, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, were widespread — nine of the ten sectors of the MSCI EAFE Index posted negative returns.
The Fund’s stock selection within the Information Technology and Industrials sectors was a material positive contributor to performance results. Information technology company Research In Motion, Ltd., manufacturer of the Blackberry, was a leading individual holding. Industrials holdings were led by Dutch-based wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Wind Systems A/S.
During the reporting period, the Fund maintained, on average, an underweighted posture in the weaker-performing Financials sector than the benchmark index, which helped returns. Strong performance of Financials holdings, including Brazil bank Unibanco-Uniao de Bancos Brasileiros S/A and U.K-based Man Group PLC., further aided performance. In addition, stock selection in the Energy sector and the Health Care sector were additional areas of strength. Oil producer Petroleo Brasileiro SA was the largest individual contributor to performance for the period.
Performance detractors for the period included stock selection in the Utilities sector. France-based utility companies Veolia Environnement S.A. and Electricite de France S.A. were among the weakest-performers. Electricite de France S.A. was sold from the Fund. Stock selection and an overweighted posture in the weak-performing Consumer Discretionary sector hampered results. Hotel/casino operator Las Vegas Sands Corp., media company British Sky Broadcasting, and retailer PPR S.A., each had a material, negative impact on performance during the reporting period.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
International Opportunities Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –10.51 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 10.73 | % | | | –10.51 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 34.11 | % |
International Opportunities Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –10.50 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 10.79 | % | | | –10.50 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 34.33 | % |
MSCI EAFE Gross Index3,4,5 | | | | | –13.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.20 | % | | | –13.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 22.48 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | MSCI EAFE Gross Index (Europe, Australia, Far East) is a free-float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure developed market equity performance, excluding the U.S. & Canada. As of June 2006, the MSCI EAFE Gross Index consisted of the following 21 developed market country indices: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
28
International Small Cap Fund
Subadviser: Franklin Templeton Investment Corp.
Portfolio Manager: Bradley Radin
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term capital appreciation. The Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in securities issued by foreign companies which have total stock market capitalizations or annual revenues of $4 billion or less.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Cyclical | 22.62 |
Industrial | 18.10 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 16.52 |
Financial | 13.65 |
Communications | 5.10 |
Basic Materials | 5.03 |
Technology | 3.59 |
Diversified | 2.77 |
Utilities | 2.22 |
Energy | 0.83 |
| |
Country Weighting | % of Total |
United States | 11.05 |
United Kingdom | 9.95 |
Taiwan | 9.11 |
Japan | 8.53 |
South Korea | 8.40 |
Canada | 7.69 |
Australia | 7.66 |
Hong Kong | 7.46 |
Thailand | 4.37 |
Netherlands | 4.32 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the International Small Cap Class NAV returned –23.58%, underperforming the –19.87% return of the S&P/Citigroup Global ex U.S. less than $2 Billion Index.
Market Environment • The past 12 months were a challenging period for equity investors. Many of the trends underpinning the bull market of the past five years reversed sharply during the period. Developed market economies slowed while those in emerging markets remained more resilient. Increased demand and problematic supply drove up raw materials prices, most notably crude oil, which doubled during the year. The relative loss of confidence in the U.S. economy and financial system were significant factors that drove down the value of the U.S. dollar versus most other currencies, and further increased commodity prices, many of which are priced in U.S. dollars. Central banks were left with the delicate task of crafting policy that addressed rising inflation without stifling already slowing growth.
We remained focused on companies where we saw value in more defensive industries. Holdings that detracted from Fund performance relative to its benchmark included a leading Chinese logistics company that was hurt by a weakening economy dampening demand. A Taiwan-based global data networking vendor saw its shares fall in value as capital and consumer spending on information technology products slowed. Another detractor from relative performance was a U.K.-based leader in the chemicals industry that had its share price suffer due to the market’s focus on restructuring charges.
Several holdings helped relative performance during the period. An Australian business services provider enjoyed a rising share price following the sale of a division at a higher-than-expected price, the renewal of two major mining contracts and the appointment of a new CEO. A large U.K.-based retailer of computer software, video games, consoles and related products benefited from strong demand for Nintendo’s Wii and DS products amid widespread hardware shortages. The Fund’s cash position also boosted performance.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
International Small Cap Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –23.67 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.61 | % | | | –23.67 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 17.03 | % |
International Small Cap Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –23.58 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.73 | % | | | –23.58 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 17.40 | % |
S&P/Citigroup Global ex U.S. <$2 Billion Index3,4,5 | | | | | –19.87 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 8.25 | % | | | –19.87 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 25.64 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since April 28, 2008. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | S&P/Citigroup Global ex U.S. <$2 Billion Index is an unmanaged index which follows an objective, free float-weighted, rules based methodology, capturing the broad investable opportunity set. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
29
International Small Company Fund
Subadviser: Dimensional Fund Advisors LP
Portfolio Manager: Karen E. Umland
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • The Fund seeks long-term capital appreciation by investing at least 80% of its net assets in securities of small cap companies. The Fund will primarily invest its assets in equity securities of non-U.S. small companies of developed markets but may also invest in emerging markets.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Industrial | 23.40 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 16.44 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 14.07 |
Financial | 12.82 |
Basic Materials | 10.88 |
Energy | 6.74 |
Communications | 6.02 |
Technology | 4.60 |
Diversified | 1.95 |
Utilities | 1.09 |
| |
Country Weighting | % of Total |
Japan | 22.30 |
United Kingdom | 16.50 |
Canada | 10.12 |
Australia | 8.75 |
Germany | 6.02 |
France | 5.19 |
Switzerland | 4.30 |
Italy | 3.22 |
Finland | 2.51 |
United States | 2.47 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the International Small Company Class NAV returned –19.32%, outperforming the –20.65% return of the MSCI EAFE Small Cap Gross Index.
Market Environment • Developed market equities performed very poorly in the one-year period, although the dollar-denominated returns of those markets were greatly bolstered by the U.S. dollar’s relative weakness. During the 12 months, the U.S. dollar depreciated against all major currencies except the British pound and the Canadian dollar. The overall impact of the U.S. dollar’s decline versus developed country currencies was to increase the dollar-denominated returns of developed market equities by about 3%.
Emerging markets also performed poorly in the period, although the dollar-denominated returns of emerging markets equities benefited from the weakness of the U.S. dollar relative to some major emerging markets currencies, such as the Mexican peso and the Brazilian real. The overall impact of currency fluctuations between the dollar and emerging markets currencies was to increase the dollar-denominated returns of emerging markets equities by about 1.7%. As measured by the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, the dollar-denominated return for emerging markets was –10.1%.
The portfolio’s exposure to Canada, which was the best performing developed market during the period, and other differences in allocation across regions boosted relative performance. Within regions, the portfolio’s baskets of securities generally outperformed those of the Index. The Fund’s overweighting to the smallest stocks and its allocation across the market capitalization segments detracted from relative performance. Composition differences within those segments, however, helped relative returns. The Fund’s avoidance of REITs, one of the worst-performing sectors from September 2007 to August 2008, and other differences in industry allocation helped relative performance. Security selection, especially in the Financials sector, added to relative performance as well.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
International Small Company Class NAV (began 4/28/06) | | | | | –19.32 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.80 | % | | | –19.32 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –6.43 | % |
MSCI EAFE Small Cap Gross Index3,4,5 | | | | | –20.65 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –4.07 | % | | | –20.65 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –9.28 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since April 28, 2006. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | MSCI EAFE Small Cap Gross Index is an unmanaged index that is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure developed market equity performance, excluding the US & Canada. As of June 2006 the MSCI EAFE Index consisted of the following 21 developed market country indices: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
30
International Value Fund
Subadviser: Templeton Investment Counsel, LLC
Portfolio Managers: Tucker Scott, Cindy Sweeting, Peter Nori and Neil Devlin
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term growth of capital. The Fund invests at least 65% of its total assets in equity securities of companies located outside the U.S., including emerging markets.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Communications | 21.25 |
Financial | 20.56 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 16.38 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 8.00 |
Industrial | 8.29 |
Technology | 8.03 |
Energy | 7.54 |
Basic Materials | 2.42 |
Diversified | 1.45 |
Utilities | 1.25 |
| |
Country Weighting | % of Total |
United Kingdom | 26.88 |
France | 10.72 |
Germany | 7.41 |
United States | 6.89 |
Taiwan | 6.69 |
Japan | 6.65 |
Switzerland | 6.23 |
Netherlands | 5.38 |
Italy | 3.57 |
South Korea | 3.16 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, International Value Class NAV returned –15.09%, underperforming the –13.97% return of the MSCI EAFE Gross Index.
Market Environment • Many of the trends underpinning the bull market of the past five years, including ample liquidity, soaring real estate prices, manageable inflation, and strengthening global economic growth, reversed sharply during the year. Growth slowed in developed economies although emerging markets showed resilience as increased demand, and supply shortages for industrial and agricultural commodities, drove up oil and most raw materials prices. Exacerbating this trend was declining investor confidence in the U.S. economy and financial markets, which contributed to a depreciating U.S. dollar and higher commodity prices.
Europe’s relative abundance of what we believe to be quality companies trading near historically low stock valuations attracted us to the region, though performance there suffered during a time when developed market value strategies remained largely out of favor. Eight of the Fund’s 10 biggest detractors from performance were European stocks, where stock selection in the U.K. hurt results relative to the MSCI EAFE Index. The Materials sector detracted from relative performance, where our underweighted allocation and focus on cyclically depressed paper companies and lack of metals and mining company stocks hindered relative performance. Similarly, our underweighting and stock selection in the Utilities sector detracted from performance. An overweighting in the Consumer Discretionary sector also hurt results amid softening economic conditions and consumer spending.
The Fund’s investments in Financials stocks fell in value but performed better than the benchmark, aided by our underweighted position in a sector that until recently relied heavily on leverage and risky loan growth to support record profitability. Stock selection and an overweighting in the Telecommunication Services sector contributed to performance, as investors seemed to recognize the long-term growth potential, balance sheet strength and global reach of the world’s leading mobile service providers. Our Industrials stocks also performed better than the benchmark’s despite negative absolute returns, and stock selection in Information Technology also aided relative returns.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1,4
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
International Value Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –15.08 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6.51 | % | | | –15.08 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 19.92 | % |
International Value Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –15.09 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6.56 | % | | | –15.09 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 20.09 | % |
MSCI EAFE Gross Index3,5,6 | | | | | –13.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.20 | % | | | –13.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 22.48 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Since inception, a portion of the International Value Fund expenses were reimbursed. If such expenses had not been reimbursed, returns would be lower. |
5 | | MSCI EAFE Gross Index (Europe, Australia, Far East) is a free-float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure developed market equity performance, excluding the U.S. & Canada. As of June 2006, the MSCI EAFE Index consisted of the following 21 developed market country indices: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. |
6 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
31
Investment Quality Bond Fund
Subadviser: Wellington Management Company, LLP
Portfolio Managers: Thomas L. Pappas, Christopher L. Gootkind and Christopher A. Jones
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To provide a high level of current income consistent with the maintenance of principal and liquidity. The Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in bonds rated investment grade at the time of investment. The Fund will invest primarily in corporate bonds and U.S. government bonds with intermediate to longer term maturities.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Financial | 19.19 |
U.S. Treasury Bonds | 18.17 |
Mortgage Securities | 11.07 |
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities | 8.05 |
Government | 7.53 |
Communications | 6.55 |
Utilities | 4.42 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 3.95 |
Asset Backed Securities | 3.03 |
Federal National Mortgage Association | 1.88 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Investment Quality Bond Class NAV returned +4.57%, underperforming the +5.39% return of the 50% Lehman Brothers Government Bond/50% Lehman Brothers Credit Bond Index Blend .
Market Environment • Financial markets suffered strong headwinds, during the one-year period, as investors contended with an array of troublesome news. The widespread credit crisis, deteriorating housing market, slowing global economy, rising unemployment, and mounting inflation concerns all challenged markets. Liquidity within fixed income remains challenged and investors remain risk averse.
The primary detractors from the Fund’s performance were the out-of-benchmark allocation to commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and security selection within the Investment Grade Credit sector. Specifically an overweight to debt issued by Financial companies including exposure to diversified financial firms hurt relative results. The CMBS sector struggled as recession concerns and increased shorting of the CMBX derivative index put downward pressure on all CMBS valuations.
The Fund’s non-dollar positions contributed to performance. In the second half of 2007, the fund was positioned for U.S. rates to fall versus Australian and Swedish rates on expectations that the U.S. economy would slow more quickly than these two economies. In 2008, the Fund was positioned for a steeper yield curve in Canada and for slower growth in the UK and New Zealand relative to the U.S. All of these positions contributed to relative results. The Fund’s underweight to corporate bonds, allocation to Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS), and exposure to rates in Brazil were also additive.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Investment Quality Bond Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | 4.52 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.05 | % | | | 4.52 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 12.10 | % |
Investment Quality Bond Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | 4.57 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.10 | % | | | 4.57 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 12.28 | % |
Lehman Brothers Government Bond/Lehman Brothers Credit Bond Index Blend3,4,5 | | | | | 5.39 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.43 | % | | | 5.39 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 13.48 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Lehman Brothers Government Bond Index and Lehman Brothers Credit Bond Index Blend-A blended index is used combining 50% of the Lehman Brothers Government Bond Index which is an unmanaged index that represents securities issued by the U.S. Government (i.e. securities in the Treasury and Agency indices); and 50% Lehman Brothers Credit Bond Index, which is an unmanaged index of publicly issued U.S. corporate and specified foreign debentures and secured notes that meet the specified maturity, liquidity, and quality requirements. To qualify, bonds must be SEC registered. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
32
Large Cap Fund
Subadviser: UBS Global Asset Management (Americas) Inc.
Portfolio Managers: John Leonard, Thomas Cole, Thomas Digenan and Scott Hazen
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek to maximize total return, consisting of capital appreciation and current income. The Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in equity securities of U.S. large capitalization companies as in the Russell 1000 Index.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 19.50 |
Financial | 17.08 |
Technology | 13.99 |
Industrial | 11.79 |
Energy | 10.48 |
Communications | 10.47 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 9.09 |
Utilities | 4.41 |
Funds | 2.32 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Large Cap Class NAV returned –11.99%, underperforming the –10.60% return of the Russell 1000 Index.
Market Environment • Overall portfolio underperformance was primarily driven by industry selection. Though the underweight to energy reserves was positive over the last three months, it was the primary detractor to results over the last 12 months. Market fundamentals do not, in our view, justify current oil prices. Demand growth for oil is slowing, while spare oil production capacity is rising. Yet the price of oil keeps rising — up more than 50% since the start of the year — due in part to speculation and the rampant growth of passive commodity investments. In addition, fears of a major supply interruption from the Middle East remains. We believe the price of oil will normalize downward, and energy stocks in general will underperform other areas of the US market, thus rewarding our position. There are pockets of relative value within the sector, but overall we are maintaining our underweight.
Though we were underweight in energy reserves, we identified opportunities within oil services. We focused on those companies that provide the logistical infrastructure for the many exploration and production projects that are in process or coming on line in the near term. These projects tend to be supported by national oil companies or large integrated energy companies that have the financial strength to continue funding such projects, regardless of the direction of oil prices over the next few years.
An overweight to railroads contributed to performance, as well. This overweight was driven by bottom-up stock-specific opportunities. We believe the market had been focusing on recent weaker utilization of railroads relative to trucking rather than the company’s long-term trend of solid volume growth. As Burlington continued to grow market share in a positive pricing.
Offsetting industry selection were positive contributions through strong security selection and an underweight to areas of the market that had until recently shown a high degree of positive price momentum. Less exposure to the largest companies in the market also benefited results over the year, as those stocks tended to lag smaller stocks.
Our large overweight to banks detracted from returns. Though these stocks did not perform as well as we expected, we continue to overweight banks. We find very attractive valuations within financials. In fact, based on our analysis, the sector as a whole now appears to be more than 40% underpriced — a degree of mispricing in the financial sector that we have only seen during the latter part of 1990 and the peak of the technology-media-telecom bubble in 2000. While we fully recognize that the headwinds facing the financial sector are significant and will likely last into the next year, we believe that the environment will eventually improve and could be reflected in stock prices more quickly than the market expects.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Large Cap Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –12.04 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.57 | % | | | –12.04 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 10.63 | % |
Large Cap Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –11.99 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.63 | % | | | –11.99 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 10.83 | % |
Russell 1000 Index3,4,5 | | | | | –10.60 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.99 | % | | | –10.60 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 15.06 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell 1000 Index is an unmanaged index which measures the performance of the 1,000 largest companies in the Russell 3000 Index. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
33
Large Cap Value Fund
Subadviser: BlackRock Investment Management, LLC
Portfolio Managers: Robert C. Doll, Jr. and Daniel Hanson
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term growth of capital by investing in a diversified portfolio of equity securities of large-cap companies located in the U.S. At least 80% of the Fund’s net assets are invested in equity securities of large-capitalization companies.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Energy | 25.31 |
Financial | 16.57 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 14.97 |
Industrial | 13.04 |
Technology | 8.87 |
Basic Materials | 7.81 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 7.62 |
Communications | 4.58 |
Utilities | 1.10 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Large Cap Value Class NAV returned –12.13%, outperforming the –14.66% return of the Russell 1000 Value Index.
Market Environment • The Fund’s relative performance benefited from a significant underweighting and stock selection in the Financials sector, as well as stock selection in the Industrials sector. The Financials sector’s second-quarter 2008 earnings (based on all financial companies in the S&P 500) were down approximately 90% relative to the second quarter of 2007. In industrials, the Fund’s two strongest performing securities were both in the machinery industry.
Conversely, security selection in Energy, and an underweight plus security selection in the Consumer Staples sector, detracted from the Fund’s relative return. Underperformance in Energy came largely during the first three months of 2008, when the Fund was overweight in refiners, which were hard hit by the skyrocketing price of oil, which greatly outpaced the price of their output products.
The broad-market indexes representing U.S. equity markets all fell during the past 12 months, with the representative Russell 1000 Index declining by 10.60%. Shares of large-cap growth companies outperformed large-cap value stocks, with the Russell 1000 Growth Index returning –6.77% versus the –14.66% return of the Russell 1000 Value Index.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Large Cap Value Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –12.16 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.30 | % | | | –12.16 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 12.88 | % |
Large Cap Value Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –12.13 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.35 | % | | | –12.13 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 13.05 | % |
Russell 1000 Value Index3,4,5 | | | | | –14.66 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.37 | % | | | –14.66 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 13.11 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell 1000 Value Index is an unmanaged index containing those securities in the Russell 1000 Index with a less-than-average growth orientation. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
34
Mid Cap Index Fund
Subadviser: MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited
Portfolio Managers: Carson Jen and Narayan Ramani
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • The Fund seeks to appropriate the aggregate total return of a mid-capitalization U.S. domestic equity market index by primarily investing in (a) common stocks that are included in the S&P MidCap 400 Index and (b) securities that are believed to behave in a manner similar to the index.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 18.62 |
Industrial | 17.77 |
Financial | 14.20 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 10.96 |
Energy | 8.51 |
Technology | 7.21 |
Utilities | 6.49 |
Basic Materials | 5.96 |
Communications | 4.79 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Mid Cap Index Class NAV returned –4.61%, underperforming the –4.22% return of the S&P MidCap 400 Index.
Market Environment • The U.S. economy’s growth was modest over the past 12 months and the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product (GDP), grew at an annualized rate of 2.2%, although recession fears persisted. The year-over-year headline inflation rate rose from 2.5% a year ago to 5.6% in August, primarily due to increased energy costs. The core inflation rate inched up to 2.5% from 2.2%. The Federal Reserve acted aggressively to forestall any weakening of the economy and lowered the benchmark federal funds rate from 5.25% to 2.0%, including a reduction of 125 basis points (1.25 percentage points) in January 2008. In August, the unemployment rate was at 5.7%, up from 4.6% a year earlier. The job market remained weak, with monthly job losses throughout 2008, suggesting a stagnating economy. The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index has dropped steadily over the past year and was at 51 in August 2008, off from a high of 111 just a year ago.
For the period, Energy and Materials were the best performing sectors, returning 25.8% and 11.2%, respectively; Telecommunications Services and Financials were the weakest sectors, returning –36.6% and –14.6%, respectively.
Some of the best performing securities included Perrigo Co and Netflix Inc. with returns of over 75%. PMI Group Inc. was the worst performer dropping more than 90%.
The fund invests in all the securities of the S&P MidCap 400 Index in the same proportion as in the index and hedges all cash with S&P 400 futures contracts. It is well-positioned to meet its goal of replicating the performance and portfolio characteristics of the S&P MidCap 400 Index.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Mid Cap Index Class NAV (began 10/29/05) | | | | | –4.61 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6.86 | % | | | –4.61 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 20.76 | % |
S&P MidCap 400 Index3,4,5 | | | | | –4.22 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.43 | % | | | –4.22 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 22.59 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 29, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | S&P MidCap 400 Index is an unmanaged index of 400 domestic stocks of medium-sized companies. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
35
Mid Cap Intersection Fund
Subadviser: Wellington Management Company, LLP
Portfolio Managers: Doris T. Dwyer, David J. Elliot
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • The Fund seeks long-term growth of capital by investing primarily in equity securities of medium-sized companies with significant capital appreciation potential.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 17.86 |
Industrial | 16.62 |
Financial | 14.14 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 10.57 |
Energy | 10.33 |
Technology | 9.97 |
Basic Materials | 7.23 |
Utilities | 6.61 |
Communications | 4.01 |
Diversified | 0.46 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008 the Mid Cap Intersection Class NAV returned –10.68%, underperforming the –4.22% return of the S&P MidCap 400 Index.
Market Environment • US equity markets fell during the period, as concerns over continued economic weakness and rising inflation pressured returns downward. Small-cap stocks outperformed mid-cap stocks, which in turn outperformed large-cap stocks as measured by the Russell 2000, Russell MidCap, and Russell 1000 indices, respectively. Within the S&P 400 Midcap Index, Energy contributed the most to returns while Telecommunication Services stocks were the largest detractors from performance.
The Fund underperformed the S&P 400 Midcap Index as a result of weak security selection in the Industrials, Energy, Information Technology and Consumer Discretionary sectors. Within Industrials, our overweight to an employment services firm and automobile rental company, combined with an underweight to a mining equipment manufacturer, detracted most from relative returns. Negative returns were partially offset by strong security selection within the Materials sector.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Mid Cap Intersection Class NAV (began 5/1/07) | | | | | –10.68 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –10.94 | % | | | –10.68 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –14.34 | % |
S&P MidCap 400 Index3,4,5 | | | | | –4.22 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –3.75 | % | | | –4.22 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –4.98 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since May 1, 2007. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | S&P MidCap 400 Index is an unmanaged index of 400 domestic stocks of medium-sized companies. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
36
Mid Cap Stock Fund
Subadviser: Wellington Management Company, LLP
Portfolio Managers: Michael T. Carmen and Mario E. Abularach
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term growth of capital by investing at least 80% of the Fund’s net assets in equity securities of medium-sized companies with significant capital appreciation potential.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 24.20 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 15.11 |
Industrial | 14.47 |
Communications | 10.33 |
Energy | 9.74 |
Basic Materials | 8.17 |
Technology | 7.78 |
Financial | 1.38 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Mid Cap Stock Class NAV returned –4.90%, outperforming the –7.57% return of the Russell Mid Cap Growth Index.
Market Environment • The one-year period was volatile and began with difficulties in the U.S. subprime market. The problems eventually spread throughout the credit markets leading to the near collapse of the investment bank Bear Sterns and the subsequent bailout by the Federal Reserve. The markets were further complicated by soaring energy prices and their impact on inflation and food prices. The Federal Reserve responded by cutting interest rates to avoid stalling growth.
The Fund’s relative outperformance during the period was largely the result of strong stock selection, particularly in the Consumer Discretionary, Energy and Information Technology sectors. The biggest individual contributions came from a fertilizer company, an energy company and a money transfer agency. Stock selection within Consumer Staples, Financials and Telecommunication Services detracted from performance. Individual holdings that lagged included an aircraft leasing firm, a derivatives broker, and an oil services business.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception2 | |
Mid Cap Stock Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –4.91 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 11.48 | % | | | –4.91 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 36.73 | % |
Mid Cap Stock Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –4.90 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 11.52 | % | | | –4.90 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 36.87 | % |
Russell Mid Cap Growth Index3,4,5 | | | | | –7.57 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6.90 | % | | | –7.57 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 21.20 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell Mid Cap Growth Index is an unmanaged index that contains those stocks from the Russell Mid Cap Index with a greater than average growth orientation. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
37
Mid Cap Value Fund
Subadviser: Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC
Portfolio Managers: Howard E. Hansen and Jeff Diamond
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek capital appreciation. The Fund invests primarily in equity securities which it believes to be undervalued in the marketplace. Under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets will consist of investments in mid-sized companies.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Communications | 19.96 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 18.12 |
Industrial | 14.06 |
Utilities | 9.91 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 9.52 |
Financial | 7.49 |
Energy | 6.19 |
Basic Materials | 3.92 |
Technology | 2.37 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Mid Cap Value Class NAV returned –16.99%, underperforming the –10.44% return of the Russell Midcap Value Index.
Market Environment • The largest detractor during the period was weak stock selection within the poorly performing Consumer Discretionary sector. A directory publisher tumbled after management lowered guidance for all of 2008, resulting from a decline in advertisement sales. Disappointing stock selection within the Utilities sector also hurt performance, as did the portfolio’s underweighting within the soaring Integrated Oils sector, which benefited from the rising price of oil, which had topped $140 per barrel by July.
During the period, the portfolio strongly benefited from its relative underweighting within the struggling Financial Services sector, especially within regional banks. Within the Other Energy sector, the portfolio benefited from positive stock selection and a relative overweight position. Several holdings posted impressive gains. An oil and natural gas exploration and production company benefited from the sharp rise in oil prices. The top performer in the portfolio overall was a fertilizer producer that profited from the rising prices and robust global demand for potash and phosphate.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception 2 | |
Mid Cap Value Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –17.03 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1.29 | % | | | –17.03 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.76 | % |
Mid Cap Value NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –16.99 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1.36 | % | | | –16.99 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.95 | % |
Russell Midcap Value Index3,4,5 | | | | | –10.44 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.86 | % | | | –10.44 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 17.81 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell Midcap Value Index is an unmanaged index that measures the performance of those Russell Midcap companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower forecasted growth values. The stocks are also members of the Russell 1000 Value Index. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
38
Mid Cap Value Equity Fund
Subadviser: RiverSource Investments, LLC
Portfolio Managers: Steve Schroll, Laton Spahr, Warren Spitz and Paul Stocking
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term growth of capital. The Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in equity securities of medium-sized companies.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Industrial | 19.46 |
Financial | 16.45 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 16.36 |
Energy | 13.84 |
Technology | 7.30 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 6.89 |
Basic Materials | 6.51 |
Communications | 4.21 |
Utilities | 3.91 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Mid Cap Value Equity Class NAV returned –11.17%, underperforming the –10.44% return of the Russell Midcap Value Index.
Market Environment • The annual period was dominated by skyrocketing oil and gasoline prices, the after-shocks of the mortgage market collapse, ongoing deterioration of the housing market and concerns about whether the U.S. economy was or was not in a recession. Both mid- and small-cap stocks outperformed large-cap stocks, and growth outpaced value equities for the period.
Against this challenging backdrop, the portfolio’s significant overweight in the Oil Services sector helped performance relative to the benchmark. Strong performers included two international offshore and land contract drillers and an integrated energy company. Financials was one of the worst performing sectors for the period and the Fund’s significant underweight helped performance. Lastly, stock selection in the materials and processing industry contributed during the period.
Detracting from performance was stock selection in the Transportation sector. The portfolio’s underweight in the integrated oils industry also detracted from performance as the industry was one of the strongest performing areas. Lastly, the portfolio’s managed care holdings in the Health Care sector lagged and hurt performance.
During the period, we reduced the portfolio’s allocation to the Utilities sector, redeploying the assets into Consumer Discretionary holdings. In addition, we reduced selected portfolio positions in Health Care and Producer Durables. We believe the market volatility of the past year is likely to persist through the end of 2008. As a result, we anticipate maintaining the portfolio’s underweight in Financial Services, recognizing the possibility of further downside risk to that sector. Conversely, we anticipate maintaining meaningful overweights within the cyclical portions of the economy, such as the Industrials and Energy sectors.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception 2 | |
Mid Cap Value Equity Class NAV (began 4/28/06) | | | | | –11.17 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 0.85 | % | | | –11.17 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 2.00 | % |
Russell Midcap Value Index3,4,5 | | | | | –10.44 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 0.58 | % | | | –10.44 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1.38 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since April 28, 2006. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell Midcap Value Index is an unmanaged index that measures the performance of those Russell Midcap companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower forecasted growth values. The stocks are also members of the Russell 1000 Value Index. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
39
Natural Resources Fund
Subadviser: Wellington Management Company, LLP
Portfolio Managers: Karl E. Bandtel and James A. Bevilacqua
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • The Fund seeks long-term total return by investing primarily in equity and equity-related securities of natural resource-related companies worldwide.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Energy | 68.52 |
Basic Materials | 25.33 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Natural Resources Class NAV returned +7.08%, outperforming the +1.89% return of the Combined Index.
Market Environment • Global equity markets struggled during the one-year period as continued distress in the U.S. credit markets plagued the financial industry. The markets were further complicated by steadily rising food and energy prices, which raised inflationary concerns around the globe and created uncertainty about worldwide monetary policy. This particular environment, however, favored many Natural Resource companies whose fundamentals are directly related to energy prices and rising inflation.
Performance benefited from security selection within the Oil & Gas industry and an underweight position to the Paper & Forest Products industry. Strong performance was driven by a couple of individual oil and gas companies, and a coal and methane gas producer. An overweight position in Containers & Packaging and poor security selection in Metals & Mining detracted from performance. An oil refining company, a bauxite mining and aluminum refining firm, and a South African gold mining company were the individual holdings that detracted the most from performance.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception 2 | |
Natural Resources Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | 7.02 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 19.59 | % | | | 7.02 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 67.39 | % |
Natural Resources Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | 7.08 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 19.65 | % | | | 7.08 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 67.62 | % |
Combined Index3,4,5 | | | | | 1.89 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 14.30 | % | | | 1.89 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 47.70 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | The Combined Index is comprised of 60% MSCI World Energy Index, 30% MSCI World Metals & Mining Index and 10% MSCI World Paper & Forest Products Index. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
40
Optimized All Cap Fund
Subadviser: MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited
Portfolio Managers: Harpreet Singh, Chris Hensen, Brett Hryb, Rhonda Chang and Noman Ali
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term growth of capital by investing at least 65% of the Fund’s assets in equity securities of U.S. companies. The Fund will focus on equity securities of U.S. companies across the three market capitalization ranges of large, mid and small.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 21.29 |
Technology | 15.20 |
Industrial | 14.97 |
Financial | 14.16 |
Energy | 13.53 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 7.21 |
Communications | 5.97 |
Basic Materials | 3.69 |
Utilities | 3.48 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Optimized All Cap Class A returned –15.38%, underperforming the –10.22% return of the Russell 3000 Index.
Market Environment • The Russell 3000 declined by just over 10% during the period, suffering its worst 12-month decline since 2002. The market downturn was driven by continued weakness in the housing market and the resulting credit market crisis, which has claimed a number of victims, including Bear Sterns. The Financial sector was the worst performing sector over the period, declining by nearly 33%. Economic numbers were mixed. All housing-related data continued to deteriorate, the unemployment rate increased, inflation moved higher and retail sales slowed. However, overall gross domestic product (GDP) performed better than expected due to the contribution from exports. The price of oil reached an all-time high due to tight supplies and strong demand from emerging economies.
The best performing sectors were Basic Materials, Energy, Consumer Staples and Utilities. These four sectors were the only ones that posted positive returns. Basic Materials and Energy stocks benefited from record-high commodity prices, while Consumer Staples gained from strong growth outside the U.S. and the declining U.S. dollar. The worst performing sectors were Financials, Durables and Telecommunications. Small-cap stocks outperformed large-cap stocks because there are more cyclical stocks and fewer financial stocks in the small-cap segment.
The Fund lagged the Russell 3000 Index. Stock selection within Technology and Consumer Services hurt performance, while stock selection within Financials, Merchandisers and Telecommunications boosted performance. Underweights in some of the larger Financials and overweight positions in some of the globally exposed restaurants within Merchandisers contributed to returns.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1,4
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception 2 | |
Optimized All Cap Class A (began 7/28/06) | | | | | –15.38 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 0.64 | % | | | –15.38 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1.34 | % |
Optimized All Cap Class B (began 7/28/06) | | | | | –15.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –0.05 | % | | | –15.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –0.11 | % |
Optimized All Cap Class C (began 7/28/06) | | | | | –15.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –0.05 | % | | | –15.97 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –0.11 | % |
Optimized All Cap Class I (began 7/28/06) | | | | | –15.08 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 0.96 | % | | | –15.08 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 2.01 | % |
Optimized All Cap Class NAV (began 6/12/08) | | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | –4.15 | % |
Russell 3000 Index (began 7/28/06)3,5,6 | | | | | –10.22 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 2.64 | % | | | –10.22 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.61 | % |
Russell 3000 Index (began 6/12/08)3,5,6 | | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | — | | | | –3.63 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since July 28, 2006. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Since inception, a portion of the Optimized All Cap Fund expenses were reimbursed. If such expenses had not been reimbursed, returns would be lower. |
5 | | Russell 3000 Index is an unmanaged index of the 3,000 largest U.S. companies based on total market capitalization, which represents approximately 98% of the investable U.S. equity market. |
6 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Index figures do not reflect sales charges and would be lower if they did. |
41
Real Estate Equity Fund
Subadviser: T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.
Portfolio Manager: David M. Lee
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • The Fund seeks long-term growth through a combination of capital appreciation and current income by primarily investing in the equity securities of real estate companies.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | | | | % of Total |
---|
Financial | | | | | 89.62 | |
Consumer, Cyclical | | | | | 4.14 | |
Basic Materials | | | | | 1.40 | |
* | | Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Real Estate Equity Class NAV returned –9.91%, underperforming the –8.64% return of the DJ Wilshire REIT Index.
Market Environment • The year began with promise following 2007’s disappointing real estate correction. Unfortunately, the deepening housing crisis weighed heavily on the market. However, the correction in real estate securities resulted in higher dividend yields and more attractive valuations. Demand is weakening in the current economic environment, yet lower supply appears to bode well for the long term.
The economy is weak due to the prolonged impact of the credit crisis and high energy costs. Most major real estate segments posted negative returns due to a tighter liquidity environment, restrictive underwriting standards, and weak consumer spending. While credit markets were tight, we were pleased to see some financings in recent months.
Office stocks were negative as concerns mounted about consumer and commercial weakness. Regional malls were also weak due to investor concerns about sluggish consumer spending. Lodging was the worst performing group. The protracted downturn led to lower expectations at these companies, and investors punished them. Apartments had been one of the worst performers, but now appear to be benefiting from the current housing crisis, as landlords report fewer departures into single-family homes.
The portfolio lagged the benchmark but outpaced the broad market for the period. Sluggish consumer spending, disappointing employment data, and weak economic growth weighed on performance. An overweight and stock selection in the “other real estate” segment was the largest contributor to performance. Solid stock selection in industrial REITs contributed, but that was partially offset by an overweight in the weak group.
On a negative note, our avoidance of health care REITs was the primary detractor from relative performance. We have historically chosen not to own pure-play health care REITs for a number of reasons. First, they tend to have high industry concentration, which adds to risks. Second, they are typically special-use buildings with less adaptability in the event of tenant vacancy and are often located in areas not considered prime. Finally, health care REITs possess characteristics similar to bonds, while we seek equity-like returns in our portfolio.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1,4
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception 2 | |
Real Estate Equity Class NAV (began 4/28/06) | | | | | –9.91 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 0.12 | % | | | –9.91 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 0.27 | % |
DJ Wilshire REIT Index3,5,6 | | | | | –8.64 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –0.63 | % | | | –8.64 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –1.46 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since April 28, 2006. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Since inception, a portion of the Real Estate Equity Fund expenses were reimbursed. If such expenses had not been reimbursed, returns would be lower. |
5 | | DJ Wilshire REIT Index is an unmanaged index consisting of actively traded real estate investment trusts. |
6 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
42
Real Estate Securities Fund
Subadviser: Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.
Portfolio Managers: Jerry W. Ehlinger, John F. Robertson, John W. Vojticek and Asad Kazim
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek a combination of long-term capital appreciation and current income by primarily investing in equity securities of REITs and real estate companies.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | | | | % of Total |
---|
Financial | | | | | 97.34 |
Consumer, Cyclical | | | | | 0.46 |
* | | Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Real Estate Securities Class 1 returned –7.58%, outperforming the –7.66% return of the Morgan Stanley REIT Index.
Market Environment • Throughout the annual period, REITs displayed meaningful volatility on the back of the credit crunch that brought the debt markets to a halt. Federal Reserve rate intervention coupled with the cheapest valuations relative to net asset value in six years led to periods of strong performance, but credit markets continued to be weak throughout the period. Reverberations of the sub-prime mortgage fallout found their way into all areas of the credit and financial markets. These stresses became clearly evident in the economic data as employment worsened and home prices and sales continued to decline through most of the period. Relief (mainly more Fed intervention) came in March, but that was quickly forgotten as oil steadily moved higher, creating heightened concerns for the consumer and increased fears of global inflation. This somewhat reversed itself for a time. However, weak economic data and concerns over growth continued through the end of the period.
Overall, the Fund’s stock selection aided results. Performance was strong among holdings in the Office, Retail, Hotels, and Self Storage sectors, while weaker stock selection in the Apartments and Industrial sectors detracted from performance. Stock selection in the Healthcare sector was slightly positive. Overall, sector selection had a neutral impact. Our overweight to the outperforming Apartments sector and our underweight positions in the underperforming Hotels and Retail sectors helped returns. However, our underweight position in the robust Office sector and overweight position in the weak Regional Malls sector detracted from performance. We also had slight underweight positions in Health Care and Self Storage, the two sectors that significantly outperformed, which detracted from performance. These sectors did well primarily because they were seen as defensive sectors during a period of market turmoil. The worst performing sectors were Hotels, which suffered from concerns over decreased consumer and business spending, and Industrial, which was hurt by continued downward revisions of economic growth.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2007 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception 2 | |
Real Estate Securities Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –7.58 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 8.43 | % | | | –7.58 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 26.23 | % |
Morgan Stanley REIT Index3,4,5 | | | | | –7.66 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 7.79 | % | | | –7.66 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 24.10 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Morgan Stanley REIT Index is an unmanaged index consisting of the most actively traded real estate investment trusts. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
43
Real Return Bond Fund
Subadviser: Pacific Investment Management Company LLC
Portfolio Manager: Mihir Worah
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • The Fund seeks maximum real return, consistent with preservation of real capital and prudent investment management, by investing at least 80% of its net assets in inflation-indexed bonds of varying maturities issued by the U.S. and non-U.S. governments, their agencies or instrumentalities, and corporations.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | | | | % of Total |
---|
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities | | | | | 57.99 |
Financial | | | | | 12.26 |
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. | | | | | 7.80 |
Federal National Mortgage Association | | | | | 5.03 |
Government | | | | | 2.58 |
Asset Backed Securities | | | | | 2.51 |
Mortgage Securities | | | | | 1.55 |
Energy | | | | | 0.80 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | | | | | 0.54 |
Consumer, Cyclical | | | | | 0.43 |
* | | Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Real Return Bond Class NAV returned +12.63%, outperforming the +11.90% return of the Lehman Brothers Global Real U.S. TIPS Index.
Market Environment • The credit crisis that began in the summer of 2007 continued to weigh on the financial markets throughout the year. Government bond yields fell worldwide amid a flight to the highest quality assets. To forestall a U.S. recession and unfreeze credit markets, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate from 5.25% to 2.00% before pausing in April due to concerns about inflation. The Fed also took several unconventional steps. It made several hundred billion dollars of liquidity facilities available against an expanded range of collateral, opened its discount window to investment banks, and arranged the rescue of Bear Stearns, a brokerage firm weighed down by subprime-related exposure. The U.S. yield curve remained steep. Agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) continued to underperform Treasuries, driven by the liquidity crisis. Dealers struggled with regulatory capital constraints and the looming threat of further downgrades to positions; they may soon be forced to unwind more risk. Price volatility remains high and liquidity extremely poor across the capital structure.
Emphasis on shorter maturities in the U.S., U.K., and Euroland helped returns over the year as yield curves steepened. An average underweight in U.S. duration detracted from performance as U.S. yields fell. Favoring Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) over U.S. nominal bonds in the first half helped returns as TIPS outpaced nominal bonds on strong inflation accruals as food prices increased. Exposure to emerging market currencies helped returns as the U.S. dollar weakened amid slowing growth and falling rates. An overweight to mortgages hurt returns as they lagged like-duration Treasuries amid rising global volatility. An overweight position in corporates, high yield and emerging markets bonds detracted from performance as all three sectors underperformed Treasuries.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception 2 | |
Real Return Bond Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | 12.64 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.75 | % | | | 12.64 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 17.47 | % |
Real Return Bond Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | 12.63 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.76 | % | | | 12.63 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 17.49 | % |
Lehman Brothers Global Real U.S. TIPS Index3,4,5 | | | | | 11.90 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6.41 | % | | | 11.90 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 19.59 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Lehman Brothers Global Real U.S.TIPS Index is an unmanaged index that consists of Inflation-Protection securities issued by the U.S.Treasury. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
44
Small Cap Fund
Subadviser: Independence Investments, LLC
Portfolio Manager: Charles S. Glovsky
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek maximum capital appreciation consistent with reasonable risk to principal by investing at least 80% of the Fund’s net assets in equity securities of small-cap companies.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | % of Total |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | 25.08 |
Consumer, Cyclical | 16.51 |
Technology | 14.73 |
Financial | 12.11 |
Industrial | 8.16 |
Communications | 5.96 |
Funds | 5.03 |
Energy | 4.15 |
Basic Materials | 2.83 |
|
* Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGER’S COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Small Cap Class NAV returned –11.22%, underperforming the –5.48% return of the Russell 2000 Index.
Market Environment • While small cap U.S. equities ended the past 12 months down a modest –5.48%, it was far from an ordinary period. The real estate bubble and related credit crisis weighed on the market through August 2007, causing that index to tumble. During the market sell-off, quantitative hedge fund redemptions caused major dislocations. The “Fed” action helped investors regain confidence and market volatility receded for a period. But in the fourth quarter of 2007 continued write-downs from brokerage firms, financial guarantors and mortgage lenders affected the market as a whole, causing a retightening of the lending market. This negative effect on lending reignited fears of a recession and concerns about consumer spending. This continued into the first quarter of 2008, down sharply amid worsening news from the financial sector and signs of broader economic weakening. The Fed’s facilitation of the Bear Stearns buyout and the tax rebate program rallied stocks from March to May but the battered home market, continued balance sheet problems in the financial sector, rising national unemployment and rising inflation caused markets to fall once more. In summary, this has been a truly see-saw period for the markets, one in which recognition of fundamentals has been overshadowed by market fears — a difficult environment for managers like Independence, who focus on companies with strong long term fundamentals.
Underexposure to both the financial and consumer service sectors benefitted the portfolio, but individual stock selection was the major contributor to underperformance. In healthcare, holdings in Nighthawk Radiology, Inventiv Health and Cantel Industries detracted from performance. Stocks within technology also detracted from performance, including Secure Computing and Radiant Systems. Stocks which added to performance included Fuel Systems Solutions and G-III Apparel Group within the consumer cyclical sector and Goodrich Petroleum within the energy sector. The small cap sector was often led by momentum stocks, as investors paid up for growth at any price.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception 2 | |
Small Cap Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –11.25 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1.13 | % | | | –11.25 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.30 | % |
Small Cap Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –11.22 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 1.19 | % | | | –11.22 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 3.45 | % |
Russell 2000 Index3,4,5 | | | | | –5.48 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6.84 | % | | | –5.48 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 20.99 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell 2000 Index is an unmanaged index composed of 2,000 U.S. small capitalization stocks. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
45
Small Cap Index Fund
Subadviser: MFC Global Investment Management (U.S.A.) Limited
Portfolio Managers: Carson Jen and Narayan Ramani
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • The Fund seeks to approximate the aggregate total return of a small-cap U.S. domestic equity market index that primarily invests in (a) common stocks that are included in the Russell 2000 Index and (b) securities that are believed to behave in a manner similar to the Index.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | | | | % of Total |
---|
Consumer, Non-cyclical | | | | | 18.76 |
Financial | | | | | 16.04 |
Industrial | | | | | 13.71 |
Consumer, Cyclical | | | | | 10.29 |
Technology | | | | | 8.17 |
Communications | | | | | 6.88 |
Energy | | | | | 5.65 |
Basic Materials | | | | | 3.33 |
Utilities | | | | | 3.07 |
* | | Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Small Cap Index Class NAV returned –5.60%, underperforming the –5.48% return of the Russell 2000 Index.
Market Environment • The U.S. economy’s growth was modest over the past 12 months and the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product (GDP), grew at an annualized rate of 2.2%, although recession fears persisted. The year-over-year headline inflation rate rose from 2.5% a year ago to 5.6% in August, primarily due to increased energy costs. The core inflation rate inched up to 2.5% from 2.2%. The Federal Reserve acted aggressively to forestall any weakening of the economy and lowered the benchmark federal funds rate from 5.25% to 2.0%, including a reduction of 125 basis points (1.25 percentage points) in January 2008. In August, the unemployment rate was at 5.7%, up from 4.6% a year earlier. The job market remained weak, with monthly job losses throughout 2008, suggesting a stagnating economy. The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index has dropped steadily over the past year and was at 51 in August 2008, off from a high of 111 just a year ago.
For the period, Russell Other and Integrated Oils were the best performing sectors, returning 84.9% and 60.7%, respectively; Auto & Transportation and Consumer Discretionary were the worst performers, returning –17.9% and –16.9%, respectively.
Some of the best performing securities included James River Coal which rose almost eight-fold and Sequenom Inc. with a return of over 360%. Idearc Inc and RH Donnelley Corp. were among the worst performers dropping more than 90%.
The fund invests in an optimized basket consisting of about 1800 securities of the Russell 2000 Index and hedges all cash with Russell 2000 futures contracts. It is well-positioned to meet its goal of replicating the performance and portfolio characteristics of the Russell 2000 Index.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1,4
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception 2 | |
Small Cap Index Class NAV (began 10/29/05) | | | | | –5.60 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6.26 | % | | | –5.60 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 18.81 | % |
Russell 2000 Index3,5,6 | | | | | –5.48 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6.79 | % | | | –5.48 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 20.53 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 29, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Since inception, a portion of the Small Cap Index Fund expenses were reimbursed. If such expenses had not been reimbursed, returns would be lower. |
5 | | Russell 2000 Index is an unmanaged index composed of 2,000 U.S. small capitalization stocks. |
6 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
46
Small Cap Opportunities Fund
Subadviser: Munder Capital Management, LLC and Invesco Aim Capital Management, Inc.
Portfolio Managers: Robert E. Crosby, Julie R. Hollinshead, John P. Richardson, Juliet S. Ellis, Juan R. Hartsfield and Clay Manley
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term capital appreciation by investing at least 80% of the Fund’s net assets in equity securities of small-capitalization companies.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | | | | % of Total |
---|
Financial | | | | | 20.22 |
Industrial | | | | | 18.25 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | | | | | 15.60 |
Consumer, Cyclical | | | | | 9.70 |
Communications | | | | | 9.15 |
Energy | | | | | 7.95 |
Technology | | | | | 6.52 |
Basic Materials | | | | | 3.43 |
Utilities | | | | | 3.08 |
* | | Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Small Cap Opportunities Class NAV returned –18.04%, underperforming the –5.48% return for the Russell 2000 Index.
Market Environment • The low quality, low price, low market-cap rally in August compounded the highly volatile markets of the past 12 months for active small-cap managers who have been left behind by their benchmarks. August was the second month in a row of poor relative performance, with less than 19% of small-cap value funds outperforming the Russell 2000 Value Index. Thus far in the third calendar quarter, less than 8% of small-cap value funds have topped their index.
The portfolio’s lagging performance was primarily attributable to weak stock selection, particularly in the Financials sector. Holdings in the Industrials sector also had a significant negative impact on relative performance. The weakness in these two sectors more than offset positive stock selection in the Health Care, Consumer Staples and Utilities sectors. Some of the weakness in active manager performance in July and August could be attributed to the Russell indices rebalance. Without the rebalance on June 27, the Russell 2000 Index would have gained 4.3% over the last two months versus 6.1% for the new benchmark. The difference in performance can be attributed to the recent weakness in Energy and strength in Financials, Health Care, and Industrials. We also see that the smallest of the small companies have performed well recently along with the poor earnings companies and low-priced stocks.
Despite the difficult environment for small-cap stocks and the portfolio’s lagging performance for the year ended August 31, 2008, the portfolio’s fundamentals have held up well relative to both small-cap stocks and large-cap stocks. Earnings over the last 12 months have risen by 7.8%, relative to –1.1% for the Russell 2000 Value Index. We believe the combination of strong earnings growth and declining stock prices has led to attractive valuations for the portfolio, both on an absolute and relative basis. At period end, the portfolio’s trailing price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio, a widely used measure of valuation, was 14.2, compared to 16.2 for the Russell 2000 Value Index, for the past 12 months.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception 2 | |
Small Cap Opportunities Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –18.09 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.25 | % | | | –18.09 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –6.35 | % |
Small Cap Opportunities Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –18.04 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.21 | % | | | –18.04 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –6.22 | % |
Russell 2000 Index3,4,6,7 | | | | | –5.48 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 6.84 | % | | | –5.48 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 20.99 | % |
Russell 2000 Value Index3,5,6,7 | | | | | –7.52 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 5.60 | % | | | –7.52 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 16.99 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | Russell 2000 Index is an unmanaged index composed of 2,000 U.S. Small Capitalization Stocks. |
5 | | Russell 2000 Value Index is an unmanaged index that measures the performance of those Russell 2000 companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower forecasted growth values. |
6 | | Since June 2008, the index changed from Russell 2000 Value Index to Russell 2000 Index to more accurately reflect the investment objective of the Small Cap Opportunities Fund. |
7 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
47
Small Company Fund
Subadviser: American Century Investment Management, Inc.
Portfolio Managers: Wilhelmine von Turk, Thomas P. Vaiana, Brian Ertley and Melissa Fong
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term capital growth by investing at least 80% of the Fund’s net assets in stocks of companies that have market capitalization not greater than that of the largest company in the S&P SmallCap 600 Index.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | | | | % of Total |
---|
Consumer, Cyclical | | | | | 18.48 |
Industrial | | | | | 17.69 |
Consumer, Non-cyclical | | | | | 15.33 |
Financial | | | | | 14.47 |
Technology | | | | | 12.85 |
Energy | | | | | 7.61 |
Communications | | | | | 4.39 |
Utilities | | | | | 2.73 |
Basic Materials | | | | | 2.42 |
* | | Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Small Company Class NAV returned –11.90%, underperforming the –6.20% return of the S&P Small Cap 600 Index.
Market Environment • The broad U.S. equity indexes suffered double-digit declines for the 12-month period in an environment of exceptionally high market volatility. One of the main factors contributing to the stock market chaos was a meltdown in the subprime mortgage market, which led to a persistent liquidity crunch in the credit markets. In addition, the U.S. economy teetered on the brink of recession amid a deteriorating housing market, rising unemployment, and weaker consumer spending. Other than uneven but noteworthy rallies in the fall of 2007 and the spring of 2008, the stock market sustained its downward trajectory throughout the 12 months. Small-cap stocks held up best overall, outpacing their large and mid-cap counterparts.
Within the portfolio, Materials stocks were far and away the best contributors to absolute performance. Utilities and Energy also generated positive results, while Information Technology and Consumer Discretionary stocks suffered the largest declines during the period. Stock selection in the Information Technology sector contributed the most to the portfolio’s underperformance of its benchmark index, particularly among semiconductor manufacturers and electronic equipment makers. Stock choices in the Energy and Health Care sectors also detracted notably from relative results. On the positive side, stock selection added value in the Materials sector, led by chemicals producers and metals and mining companies. The portfolio’s Consumer Discretionary stocks also contributed to relative performance, particularly apparel makers and specialty retailers.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---|
PERFORMANCE TABLE 1
|
|
|
| Average Annual Total Return
|
| Cumulative Total Return
|
|
---|
Periods Ended August 31, 2008 | | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception | | | | 1-year | | | | 5-year | | | | 10-year | | | | Since inception 2 | |
Small Company Class 1 (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –11.92 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –0.77 | % | | | –11.92 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.22 | % |
Small Company Class NAV (began 10/15/05) | | | | | –11.90 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –0.73 | % | | | –11.90 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | –2.08 | % |
S&P Small Cap 600 Index3,4,5 | | | | | –6.20 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 4.54 | % | | | –6.20 | % | | | — | | | | — | | | | 13.84 | % |
1 | | Performance does not reflect the deduction of taxes on fund distributions or redemptions of fund shares. Past performance does not predict future performance. |
2 | | Current subadviser has managed the fund since October 15, 2005. |
3 | | Since inception returns for the indices may begin on the month-end closest to the actual inception date of the fund. |
4 | | S&P Small Cap 600 Index is an unmanaged index composed of 600 U.S. small-sized companies. |
5 | | It is not possible to invest directly in an index. |
48
Small Company Growth Fund
Subadviser: AIM Capital Management, Inc.
Portfolio Managers: Juliet S. Ellis, Juan R. Hartsfield and Clay Manley
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE & POLICIES • To seek long-term growth of capital by investing at least 80% of the Fund’s net assets in securities of small-capitalization companies.
CHANGE IN VALUE OF $10,000 INVESTMENT AND COMPARATIVE INDICES
Sector Weighting* | | | | % of Total |
---|
Consumer, Non-cyclical | | | | | 26.49 |
Industrial | | | | | 16.17 |
Technology | | | | | 14.23 |
Consumer, Cyclical | | | | | 11.50 |
Energy | | | | | 7.09 |
Communications | | | | | 5.73 |
Financial | | | | | 5.68 |
Utilities | | | | | 1.71 |
Basic Materials | | | | | 0.56 |
* | | Top Sectors as a percentage of market value. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ COMMENTARY
Performance • For the year ended August 31, 2008, the Small Company Growth Class NAV returned –6.57%, underperforming the –3.79% return of the Russell 2000 Growth Index.
Market Environment • Major U.S. equity markets had negative performance during the fiscal year due to ongoing concerns about the credit markets, weakness in the housing market, rising energy and food prices and a deteriorating outlook for corporate earnings. In this environment, indexes measuring the performance of large-, mid- and small-cap stocks were all in negative territory, with small-cap stocks generally outperforming mid- and large-cap stocks. Overall, growth-style stocks outperformed value stocks.
The Fund underperformed the benchmark by the widest margin in the Information Technology sector, driven by both stock selection and an overweight position. A couple of semiconductor holdings were among the key detractors from performance. The Fund also trailed the benchmark in the Industrials, Health Care and Financials sectors. Underperformance in the Industrials and Financials sectors were caused by weak stock selection. Underperformance in the Health Care sector was the result of poor stock selection and an underweight position in an area with good benchmark results.
Some of these weak returns were offset by outperformance in other sectors, including Consumer Staples and Utilities. Strength in these two sectors was largely a result of stock selection.