CIAF follows a relative value strategy methodology based on industry analysis. The conecpt is related to "relative value arbitrage" employed by many succesful hedge funds in that its long positions reflect areas of unrealized relative value in industries deemed attractive to the fund manager via microeconomic analysis. Present and plausible future metrics are estimated and compared. At the moment, it is strictly "long only". In the future, some offsetting bearish ETF positiosn might be considered for hedging purposes, however the fund should still be expected to be "mostly long". The fund does invest in smaller companies, so volatility and beta may be higher. Selling criteria is reached if a position gets to the top end of an industry's typical value metrics corridor. Some special situations are held longer until the underlying equity story unfolds. A "Thematic Network" concept is employed. Right now "Oil & Gas", "Industrial Growth stories", "Rule Breaking Telecoms", "Generic Pharmas" and occasional techstocks with a promising future are the fund's major focus. This fund chiefly follows a microeconomic approach. In addition, special situations (recapitalization, spin-outs, etc.) are being pursued. If an industry gets out of favour fundamentally, it's de-emphasized and the folio reshuffled. The folio manager cannot predict the market, so the fund tries to find undervalued niches in interesting industries. This "value" and "growth at a reasonable price" approach has performed nicely during the techstock crash, the 2002-2003 "impasse" and the "Great Recession" of 2008-2009 with its prolongued digestion period. Personally, I often compare the "financial crisis of 2008/2009" with the Asian Financial Crisis (AFC) of more than 10 years before. While the events triggering the economic shocks were certainly different, the kind of shock (a "liquidity shock") in both cases was very similar. The more flexible countries (South Korea, Taiwan, China) came out of the AFC within 18 months and emerged stronger. As the US economy has avoided a replay of a 1930ies Depression scenario with the help of the FED's unconventional monetarist QE policies, the market might underappreciate yet again, how smooth the US economy, could have adjusted to a post-fallout trajectory of moderate growth in 2014 and beyond.

New Fund - Diversified Service Fund focuses on service industries, applying principles of industry analysis, group analysis. Doesn't invest in bigcaps, instead attempts to seek out material appreciation opportunities in micro-to-midcap company situations

CEOF - Energy Opportunity Fund Objective : Baiscally growth with an emphasis on undervalued companies in oil&gas and other energy and natural resources related industries. Absurd valuation differentials between domestic and international oil companies are actively pursused among other approaches. At present (Jan 2004) International oils look like having significant catch-up potential. More remote locations, like Kazakhstan, Indonesia, NorthAfrica etc. may offer unprecedented returns and will be the short to midterm fund focus. The fund follows a top down approach (Macro & microeconomic) that necessitates emphasis on trends which I try to anticipate. Some backgrounders: Refinery margins (and midstream and downstream company attractivity) are a functions of economic activity and thus highly correlated to GDP growth - the attractivity of this segment should experience the same drivers. On oil&gas exploration investments, near term (end of 2001, into 2002) the fund will emphasize oil exploration over gas (gas "bubble" connected to industrial activity in heavy demand sectors, towards end of 2001 oil does look more stable), long term the trend is clearly NatGas, especially since more and more power generation facilities are using it as feedstock Fund "Compass" : Diversified within the topic of "Oil&Gas", may invest in smallcaps so volatility may be higher. Fund does NOT invest in the leading firm(s) of a given sub-segment (in order to avoid paying the associated premium). Looking for "Value" in secondary, catch-up plays that appear to have either good chance at spectacular growth or a turnaround potential. Buy selections: Intra Industry comparisons on favourable sub-segments (subject to change). Valuation criteriae either quantitative (historical ratios) - intra industry or future value oriented (market potential) due to underlying company strategy (qualitative). Fund invests in special situations also that promise extraordinary, mostly short term profit (recapitalizations, post Chapter11, strategic changes etc..). Sell selection : portfolio companies that reach valuation of industry leaders, takeover by market leaders etc.. Typical related sectors (sort of a menu of choices to select from): - General Natural Resources related stocks - Integrated Oil / Gas - Gas Utility (like TRP in Canada - tyspically owns a kind of "grid" plus maybe upstream assets) - Oil / Gas Exploration and other mining stocks(Upstream) - Refinery & Milling (Midstream) - Pipeline & Processing (Midstream) - Storage & Processing (Midstream) - Additives (Midstream, Downstream - p.e. Methanol for MBTE, Ethanol Producers) - Final Product Processing (Chemical, Plastics) - Gas Stations / Chains (Downstream) - Contract Services (Contract Drilling, Submarine Services, Helicopter) - Oilfield Equipment (Oil Rigs) & Mining Equipment - Support Services & Equipment Right now I really like Intl. oils - they are trading at significant discount to US oils.

New Fund

The fund tries to maintain a broad but yet balanced participation in lifescience related markets and segments: Big Pharma, Specialty Pharma, Generics, Contract Manufacturers, Medical Device Makers, Medical Supplies, Biotechs Each segment is evaluated on criteriae fund management deems appropriate : for example for Biotechs, primarily pipeline analysis in conjunction with financial health (curRatio, QuickRatio) and valuation criteriae (target market potential, Price/Book, pipeline stage etc) For generics, marketcap, price/sales and growth rates are used for the selection process.. The fund centers itself on a "value" theme - the prime objective is to find grossly undervalued situations. However this objective is always balanced versus growth motivation inherent in life science based industries. Companies with a "balanced" portfolio, are particularly welcomed to the portfolio, since the fund manager attributes such situations with markedly reduced risk. Balanced portfolio describes a company status, where the cash requirements of an upcoming growth or R&D intensive business can be met by cash flow generated by another operation within the company. Such a business won't have to worry about cash burn rates and hit the capital markets for refinancing purposes as often as non-balanced biotechs would need to do. Prime example : Repligen (RGEN) with it's bulk biomaterials Protein-A franchise. Companies are de-emphasized, partially unloaded or sold entirely if valuation criteriae are reached which make further appreciation highly unlikely versus the industry average. The fund started with a more cautious approach instantly, as the climate of 2002 didn't favour risk taking gambits. Consequently initial biotech positions were small-size only. Higher weighting was used in biotechs with exceptional low valuation (such as BCRX) or if at least cash-flow positive status has been achieved (such as BTGC). Also initially, oversea's pharma and generics companies were overweight as were makers of diagnostic products (such as IMA, TRIB and BIOI) Against the general depressed and risk-intolerant market attitude as of summer 2008, the fund has changed to a risk avoiding strategy by emphasizing cash-flow and revenue trends over promising product-pipelines and future market potential. Consequently, the generics, medical equipment and biopharm API exposure was hiked while the biotech exposure was reduced. This is magnified by the outlook of blockbuster drugs coming off-patent over the next 5-10 years. Attractively valued imho are firms like MYL, KG, PRX, DRUG.OB, HITK, CPD, CBM .. among others On an additional note, the fund is aware of the increased role generic pharma is about to play in the future and tries to position itself to capitalize on the underlying developments.

New Fund

New Fund

Technology Fund, uses Industry analysis as basic portfolio creation model

New Fund - Wellness & "sins" like liquor