Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • Investing According To Your Values Can Also Make You Money
    Right. First it excludes all companies that are involved (generally 5% or more of their business) in alcohol, gambling, tobacco, military weapons, civilian firearms, nuclear power, adult entertainment, or GMOs. Then on what's left it applies inclusionary screens.
    If anything, based on this enumerated list and the curvilinear (roughly speaking, parabolic) relationship between the number of screens and performance cited by RBC, the index uses nearly the absolute worst number of screens.
    One would expect an index with either more screens or fewer screens to do better. Selective choice by RBC of index or just bad luck? Doesn't matter, the effect's the same.
  • A 'big fall' in markets is coming as traders put record cash to work
    >> I figure every day has a 50/50 chance of going up, or going down.
    ?
    And then you go on to say that actually this is not how you 'figure'. I mean, none of us does.
  • Investing According To Your Values Can Also Make You Money
    @Jojo26
    The RBC study you referenced looks at the KLD 400 Index. According to MSCI, the index's owner: "The MSCI KLD 400 Social Index is maintained in two stages. First, securities of companies involved in Nuclear Power, Tobacco, Alcohol, Gambling, Military Weapons, Civilian Firearms, GMOs and Adult Entertainment are excluded." https://msci.com/documents/10199/904492e6-527e-4d64-9904-c710bf1533c6
    It is precisely such exclusionary screens for SRI funds I stated the research was neutral about, revealing that such exclusionary indexes/funds either match the market or lag it slightly. It is ESG rankings in which every sector is included but the worst ranked ESG companies are minimized or eliminated that there is strong corroborative evidence for. Since you didn't read the links I provided to the DB report, here is an important excerpt:
    The evidence is compelling: Sustainable Investing can be a clear win for investors and for companies. However, many SRI fund managers, who have tended to use exclusionary screens, have historically struggled to capture this. We believe that ESG analysis should be built into the investment processes of every serious investor, and into the corporate strategy of every company that cares about shareholder value. ESG best-in-class focused funds should be able to capture superior risk-adjusted returns if well executed.
    This is the key finding of our report in which we looked at more than 100 academic studies of sustainable investing around the world, and then closely examined and categorized 56 research papers, as well as 2 literature reviews and 4 meta studies – we believe this is one of the most comprehensive reviews of the literature ever undertaken.
    Frequently, Sustainable Investing is stated to yield ‘mixed results”. However, by breaking down our analysis into different categories (SRI, CSR, and ESG) we have identified exactly where in the sprawling, diverse universe of so-called Sustainable Investment, value has been found.
    By applying what we believe to be a unique methodology, we show that “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) and most importantly, “Environmental, Social and Governance” (ESG) factors are correlated with superior risk-adjusted returns at a securities level. In conducting this analysis, it became evident that CSR has essentially evolved into ESG. At the same time, we are able to show that studies of fund performance – which have been classified “Socially Responsible Investing” (SRI) in the academic literature and have tended to rely on exclusionary screens – show SRI adds little upside, although it does not underperform either. Exclusion, in many senses, is essentially a values-based or ethical consideration for investors.
    We were surprised by the clarity of the results we uncovered:
    100% of the academic studies agree that companies with high ratings for CSR and ESG factors have a lower cost of capital in terms of debt (loans and bonds) and equity. In effect, the market recognizes that these companies are lower risk than other companies and rewards them accordingly. This finding alone should put the issue of Sustainability squarely into the office of the Chief Financial Officer, if not the board, of every company.
    89% of the studies we examined show that companies with high ratings for ESG factors exhibit market-based outperformance, while 85% of the studies show these types of company’s exhibit accounting-based outperformance. Here a gain, the market is showing correlation between financial performance of companies and what it perceives as advantageous ESG strategies, at least over the medium (3-5 years) to long term (5-10 years).
    The single most important of these factors, and the most looked at by academics to date, is Governance (G), with 20 studies focusing in on this component of ESG (relative to 10 studies focusing on E and 8 studies on S). In other words, any company that thinks it does not need to bother with improving its systems of corporate governance is, in effect, thumbing its nose at the market and hurting its own performance all at the same time. In the hierarchy of factors that count with investors and the markets in general, Environment is the next most important, followed closely by Social factors.
    Most importantly, when we turn to fund returns, it is notable that these are all clustered into the SRI category. Here, 88% of studies of actual SRI fund returns show neutral or mixed results. Looking at the compositions of the fund universes included in the academic studies we see a lot of exclusionary screens being used. However, that is not to say that SRI funds have generally underperformed. In other words, we have found that SRI fund managers have struggled to capture outperformance in the broad SRI category but they have, at least, not lost money in the attempt.
    These conclusions go a long way towards explaining why the concept of sustainable investing has taken so long to gain acceptance and even now inspires indifference and even cynicism among many investors. It has been too closely associated for too long with the SRI fund manager results which are not only an extremely broad category (i.e. in terms of investment mandate), but historically were based more on exclusionary – as opposed to positive or best-in-class – screening. ESG investing, by contrast, takes the best-in-class approach. By analyzing the various categories within the universe of sustainable investing, we can now say confidently that the ESG approach, at an analytical level, works for investors and for companies both in terms of cost of capital and corporate financial performance (on a market and accounting basis). It is now a question of ESG best-in-class funds capturing the available returns.
  • Investing Lessons From Edward Thorp, Quant Pioneer And Card Counter
    FYI: Edward O. Thorp pioneered the use of quantitative investment techniques in the financial markets. He is the author of “Beat the Dealer,” which was the first book to prove mathematically that blackjack could be beaten by card counting, and “Beat the Market,” which showed how warrant option markets could be priced and beaten.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/investing-lessons-from-edward-thorp-quant-pioneer-and-card-counter-2017-07-25/print
  • A 'big fall' in markets is coming as traders put record cash to work
    I figure every day has a 50/50 chance of going up, or going down. Historically there have been a lot more up days than down. We are wired to remember the down days and "forget" the good days. So the moral (IMHO) is to create an allocation that allows you to sleep at night, knowing there will be some down days and some just plain awful days, in addition to the great days. Timing these things is impossible. Be sure you have any cash needs for 3-5 years from the portfolio held in cash or short-term bonds. Yes, it may be "fun" to look at the accounts every day, but it really doesn't matter. Make changes along the way when really needed, and try to keep expenses as low as is practical. Don't think you will find a magic bullet, and don't spend too much time trying to find the perfect manager. Don't be afraid to index, especially in domestic stocks. Get a life if you don't have one. These are probably over-simplified, but they have worked for me...when I adhere to them.
  • M*: A Newly Rated Emerging-Markets Fund
    Vintage, according to what I see, ARTZX is rated a 3* fund, but yes, no Analyst Rating. It's as if ARTZX doesn't exist anymore. Still has only about $47 million, compared to ARTYX $1.4 billion. Clearly the parent company is pushing the newer fund with its "star" manager. Returns since the new one started are fairly even, although ARTYX has the edge. ARTYX has an almost 50% higher net expense ratio than ARTZX. We do not use either fund, and we see no compelling reason to own expensive ARTYX.
  • Investing According To Your Values Can Also Make You Money
    There absolutely has been strong evidence for many years:
    https://db.com/cr/en/docs/Sustainable_Investing_2012.pdf
    This is specifically for the model I'm describing of ranking by ESG factors not exclusionary screens of entire sectors. There is a ton of supporting evidence for ranking by ESG factors.
    Anybody can data mine evidence to support their camp. And back tests don't tell me anything or give me any confidence that this will be effective moving forward.
    RBC has a piece that supports ESG/SRI, but at least they still point to the lack of evidence it outperforms.
    "This has also been illustrated in an updated study by di Bartolomeo and Kurtz (2011). Performing a holdings-based attribution analysis using the North eld U.S. Fundamental Equity Risk Model, they examined the risk and return characteristics of the S&P 500 Index and the KLD 400 Index for an 18-year period between January 1992 and June 2010. Within the total 18-year period, 2 sub-periods were also analyzed: January 1992-November 1999, and December 1999-June 2010. The KLD 400 outperformed the S&P 500 during January 1992-November 1999, but underperformed during the latter period. Di Bartolomeo and Kurtz concluded that the strong performance in the 1990s was entirely factor driven, during which time the KLD 400 Index had a higher market beta, bets on higher valuation, and an overweight position in the Information Technology sector (i.e., growth stocks). The underperformance following the 1999 peak
    was said to be due to an over reliance on the same factors."
  • KKR To Buy WebMD For $2.8 Billion
    @BenWP: The K-1 forms are well worth the effort especially when I have my tax accountant handle them. In addition to KKR, I own BK with a 6.25% yield and appreciation of YTD 27.88% and 1 year of 24.92%, and APO with a 7.05% yield and YTD return of 43.90% 1 year 66.83%
    Regards,
    Ted
  • KKR To Buy WebMD For $2.8 Billion
    FYI: (KKR is one of my income stock, that has had some nice capital appreciation in the last year coupled with a 3.52% dividend yield.)
    .YTD 25.57%
    .1 Year 33.55%
    WebMD Health Corp. agreed to be taken private by buyout firm KKR & Co. for about $2.8 billion, five months after hiring bankers to explore a possible sale.
    Stockholders of the online health information company will receive $66.50 a share in cash, according to a statement Monday. The price is 20 percent more than Friday’s closing level and 29 percent higher than where the shares traded in mid-February, when New York-based WebMD hired JPMorgan Chase & Co. to review strategic alternatives.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-24/webmd-agrees-to-be-bought-by-buyout-firm-kkr-for-2-8-billion
  • M*: A Newly Rated Emerging-Markets Fund
    FYI: Newcomer Artisan Developing World earns a Bronze rating thanks to its seasoned manager, attractive approach, and good parent with a long record of success.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=816785
  • Jonathan Clements: Looking Bad
    FYI: AS I THINK BACK over the past three decades, I have one overriding investment regret.
    No, it has nothing to do with the investments I bought. For much of the past 30 years, I’ve owned a globally diversified portfolio, with 100% in stocks when I was younger and closer to 70% now that I’m in my mid-50s. Initially, I owned actively managed funds and a few individual stocks, but I substituted index funds as they became available, so my stock performance has been what you would expect—very similar to the broad market.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.humbledollar.com/2017/07/looking-bad/
  • How Short Selling And Leverage Impact Your Mutual Fund Returns
    "The first that you may notice when looking at the simple index funds compared to the complex funds is the difference in expense ratios. ... The simple index fund ... does very little trading, which is what helps it keep its expense ratio so low."
    Sigh. Trading costs are excluded from expense ratios, so a lack of trading cannot be what keeps a fund's ER low.
    WSJ: "Portfolio managers can rack up steep expenses buying and selling securities, but that burden isn't reflected in a fund's standard expense ratio."
  • Record S&P 500 Failing To Stem Steadiest Fund Outflow Since 2009
    FYI: Even as the S&P 500 Index clawed its way to a fresh record and squeezed out a third consecutive weekly gain, signs of fading enthusiasm in U.S. stocks have become increasingly difficult to ignore.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-21/record-s-p-500-failing-to-stem-steadiest-fund-outflow-since-2009
  • Bill Gross's Investment Outlook For July: Curveball
    In this case, mainly because he never just comes out with a call ("foreign sovereigns look like the place to be the next 15 years or so", "everyone thinks Treasuries are going up, but oil prices tell a different story so we're positioning ourselves differently", etc.) -- he wraps his "read" up in some pseudo-literary naval gazing.
    And, among the would be poets out there, he's the worst.
  • Bill Gross's Investment Outlook For July: Curveball
    Sorry but why single him out for his flatulence? Pretty much 95% if not 99% stink up the place anyways.
  • Homebuilder Optimism Up In Smoke
    here in Central Ohio the building boom is going full speed. Builders cannot put up new single-family, apartment, and condo homes fast enough. Even the massive apartment complexes are mostly leased before they open. We are having bidding wars over existing homes on the market, and even in my own neighborhood, home sale prices have pushed up values some 20-30% in the last year alone.

    Do you sense that this is (somewhat) the case in Springfield and Dayton too?
    I am less enthusiastic about those two smaller cities. Springfield, especially, is still suffering economically from several major industrial employers leaving. The folks I know that live there all commute outside the area for work, either going east to Columbus or west and south to Dayton and Cincy. Dayton is looking a bit better, but the city and area relied on NCR, GM and other auto industry so heavily that it was crushed during the recession. It does seem to be coming back, but nothing close to the boom that is going on in Columbus. The suburban Dayton area has really grown, while the city itself continues to lose population, down almost 50% from its 1970's high.
  • World Allocation Fund With Low Risk
    I would suggest carving a separate part of your portfolio for these kind of funds that have the ability to change their allocations as world economies and interest rates change. We call these "Dynamic" funds, and do not try to parse their holdings into asset classes like 40% international, 35% domestic, and 25% bonds. They are a separate asset class that we own for specific reasons. Funds that would not go here would be those that maintain by design or by decree a limited asset allocation variation, such as VWELX, VWINX, DODBX, VBINX, etc. These funds have parameters that prohibit their managers from much, if any, change in their stock/bond/cash allocation. Funds that WOULD fall into the Dynamic bucket would be OAKBX, PRWCX, WHIGX, FPACX, MALOX, RPGAX, TIBIX.