Sound Mind launches its third mutual fund

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Columbus, Ind.-based firm has launched a new mutual fund with hopes of catering to conservative investors.

The Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday approved the Sound Mind Balanced Fund, the third component in the Sound Mind Investing Fund family.

It includes 60 percent equity investments using the same strategy that’s a hallmark of the firm. But it also will include 40 percent bonds to provide balance for more risk-averse investors.

Sound Mind is among just a handful of mutual fund families based or managed in the state.

Its equity-investment strategy differs from its counterparts. Instead of betting on stocks, Sound Mind invests in other mutual funds that are performing well, based on relatively short-term metrics. It sticks with them until their performance slips out of the top quartile, based on returns over three-,six- and nine-month periods.

The approach was initially developed as the driving philosophy in a Christian financial newsletter, a separate entity called the Sound Mind Investing newsletter.

It has paid off this year. As of Tuesday, Sound Mind's flagship fund, comprised entirely of equity investments, was up 18 percent year-to-date. But it can force short-term pain, as fund managers must follow the prescribed formula, rather than dropping funds as soon as they begin performing poorly.

The new fund will incorporate the same strategy—termed “upgrading”—into its equity component. Sound Mind has brought on another Columbus firm, Reams Asset Management Co., to serve as advisers on the bond portion of the fund.

Fred Beerwart, Sound Mind’s chief compliance officer, said the new fund meets a need for the fund’s current investors, many of whom read the newsletter and are advised to diversify their portfolios.

“The 60-40 balanced approach does fit hand in glove with what our client base has been taught,” he said.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing