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.
  • Ben Carlson: How Many Will Stay The Course During The Next Bear Market?
    FYI: Markets always seem easy when looking through the rearview mirror because knowing what already happened makes us all feel that everything in the past was blatantly obvious. It makes us feel that we would perfectly navigate those markets if only we had the chance to invest in the same scenario again.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2017/05/how-many-will-stay-the-course-during-the-next-bear-market/
  • Multisector Fixed Income
    @Josh, I am confused about why you own what you already own, and did not trace back to the soon house-purchase plan. Depending on horizon, if you want aggressive multisector bond, just split b/w PDI and PTY, though both are cefs trading at a premium now, hence probably require time to reduce risk of loss.
    If you take the SP500 advice or go in the equity direction, buy DSENX and call it a day.
  • FAAFX -- has the Great Pumpkin arrived?
    75, it says
    I made quite a lot with him and feel extremely lucky to have gotten out when I did
    Hmm...I would seem he has stayed at 75 for long time. I'm going to dig deeper.
  • Matthews View on Asia's Importance
    @VF
    Thanks! Enjoy your Holiday weekend! I bet your wife enjoys your ANALysis too!!! Stay safe!
    NO. She will divorce me. She has a PhD. She can spot people who speak from their behinds all the time. I got lucky.
  • Multisector Fixed Income
    Hi Josh!
    Good to see you posting. Just my 2c or your port in the tax sheltered account. Use the S&P 500. You're young.....use that to your advantage. In the taxable area, it gets tougher. You need to put a percentage in and divulge how long you have had your holdings. It's a tax thing....
    You say you will buy a house in a few years. Are you sure? FPACX I would cut; MANKX also. You want to make money, they don't. They're for when you're old. If you look at the port, POGRX and OAKIX is where I would put money for the future. As far as small and mid caps, I think this way trouble is coming. But long term looks good. I would say indexes, but with taxes and house coming soon, stay the course. As far as bonds, you're too young. Just my 2c.......
    God bless
    the Pudd
  • The Math Behind Futility
    Interesting idea, albeit with a biased presentation.
    The article says "Sure, a couple of funds will ...rise above the benchmark, but for most the result will be far less than the average. "
    The average of the losers will be less than market performance (by definition of "loser"), but not that far less. That's because there are more of them than there are winners.
    Think about dividing funds into outperforming and underperforming buckets. Assuming the funds are of equal dollar size, the larger bucket's average must be closer to market performance than the small bucket's. That's just simple arithmetic.
    For example, suppose there are twelve funds covering the market. Suppose two outperform by $5 (total excess return of $10). Then the other ten funds will underperform (on average) by just $1.
    We can invert the 5 poker chip example in the article. Instead of having funds pick two chips out of a market of five, as the example in the article does, suppose all funds pick two stocks to exclude. Just as 6 out of 10 funds miss the big winner if they pick only two chips, 6 out of 10 funds will miss excluding the big winner if they exclude two chips. So 6 out of 10 funds will be winners (but not big winners).
    All just a little fun with numbers. It gets back to Sharpe's observation that the average dollar must get the average return before subtracting fees.
  • Putnam Unveils Three ‘Alternative’ Mutual Funds
    FYI: Putnam Investments plans to introduce three new alternative types of mutual funds that will be managed by PanAgora Asset Management, a Boston firm that typically manages money for institutions and is majority-owned by Putnam.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/05/24/putnam-unveils-three-new-alternative-mutual-funds/LiuZDWWbKt9bF9HCfWk54L/story.html
  • A Fund That Promises Good Returns In Any Market
    FWIW, the number three holding according to Bloomberg is Sberbank.
    The fund began just three years ago, Jan 1, 2014. The inception date reported by Bloomberg appears to be the "strategy" inception date of Jan 1, 1990 (also reported on the fact sheets).
    https://www.orbisaccess.co.uk/our-funds/global-equity-fund/
    I've been reading through the prospectus, and while the 50,000 foot level description by Bloomberg is okay, the details seem significantly different from what's in the article. For example, the performance fee (or refund) is assessed daily, not semimonthly as Bloomberg writes. The amount is 50% of the excess (shortfall), not 33%. And so on.
    I suspect that the fund would have problems registering in the US because the performance fee structure is not perfectly symmetric. Given that the fund's base fee is zero, I think it would be required to return fees in case of underperformance. The fund does not return performance fees if the reserve set aside is depleted, i.e. the management company does not make up this shortfall. Unlike Bridgeway, which actually paid into one of its funds for underpeformance at one point.
  • Matthews View on Asia's Importance
    For disclosure purposes... I do own OAKIX, WAIGX and TAREX. Some of my domestic equity mf's have anywhere from 0-20% international exposure. My portfolio currently sits @20% international equity... enough??? Do I need 8-10 mf's dedicated to international/Asia??? Just saying...
    I will let someone else attempt to give you a definite answer. I will give you mine.
    IMHO, you have demonstrated you have a sound head already. You have already concluded you do not, or you wouldn't have asked the question. Because it is quite clear it does not make sense to you. Or sense FOR you. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. If it indeed has to be so then YOU in time will figure it out, and that is good enough. I have learnt from my mistakes. I never learnt from OTHER people's mistakes.
    If you listen to "expert" telling you US is dead, International reigns supreme, you could go 100% international. Whatever you decide one thing to remember is that you don't make a living the same way as this "expert" does. HE (and I don't say SHE because we know gender diversity does not exist in the field of "expertise" we are talking about) has already made his money shoving his "expertise" down your throat. Those are HIS earnings. What you do makes no difference to HIM. It will make a difference to YOU.
    YOU decide. And once again, when I say "expert" I meant the financial pron stars. MFO "experts" are not experts, they are your well wishers and your "teachers". That's how I see it.
    Happy Anniversary to ME. No, REALLY. Now let me sell some of my international holdings and show my wife a good time.
  • DSE_X style
    See
    http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=DSENX&region=usa&culture=en-US
    Last year style was deemed LC b/w G and V, and this year MCV, deep value actually.
    Is that because the lower SP500 holdings are typically 'smaller' companies?
    M* category remains LV. Benchmark = Russell 1k Value.
    fwiw, M* CAPE entry has almost no data. LV is category.
  • Consuelo Mack's WealthTrack: Guests: Jeff Klingelhofer & Nicholos Venditti, Thornberg Bonds
    I caught just the last couple of minutes of the interview portion when flipping channels. One of them was saying that you should invest in active bond management because you can't buy a bond index - too many securities for full replication as with the S&P 500.
    I guess they've never read the disclaimer: you cannot invest directly in an index, period. Nor do they understand that sampling works just fine for funds like FSTVX, or many other total stock market index funds.
    There are lots of reasons one can give for choosing active bond management. But saying that there's no such thing as a real bond index fund because they all sample is pure sales talk.
  • Matthews View on Asia's Importance
    @MCPO. God incarnate John Bogle has often proclaimed most investors do not need any international exposure. The logic is you are "exposed" to international economy because stocks in the S&P 500 index derive a large portion of their revenues/profits through overseas sales and operations.
    First and foremost, stop overthinking. Don't Analyse, but ANALyse. Who cares what anyone else is writing. You do what you think is right. I may be wrong about my thoughts on Education being overrated, but Investment Expertise is most certainly overrated. Remember, that over the "long term", which starts and ends based on when one wants to write an article you will find whether you invest internationally or domestically, you will get your number between 8% or 15% to proclaim victory over the other.
    I'm not making living writing anything, but here and now I can offer you advice. You should only invest in internet stocks. Below is the proof. Now pay me.
    Screen_Shot_2017_05_27_at_12_29_12_PM
    fb upload image
  • FAAFX -- has the Great Pumpkin arrived?
    75, it says
    I made quite a lot with him and feel extremely lucky to have gotten out when I did
  • Abby Joseph Cohen: Fixed Income Headed For Trouble
    @VinetageFreak,
    Supply and demand should work for bonds just like it is for stocks. So simply saying the inverse relationship exists is IMO not good enough. There needs to be substantial availability of higher yielding bonds of same maturity out there to meaningfully depress the prices of the lower yielding bonds.
    Great point!
    Some additional 'gurgitation.
    An Individual 30-yr bonds doesn't act any differently in year 29 than they did in year 1. You still get your coupon...and, you eventually get your principal back (in year 30). A bond fund is a mix of 30-yr bonds which were bought at different times with a variety of yields and are blended together to provide a coupon at a relative share price. Its the movement of this bond fund share price comparison that is made with other blended bond fund that has some concerned. If rates drop, yesterdays 30-yr bond fund is more valuable in price (if you were to sell). If rates rise, yesterdays 30-yr bond fund is less valuable (again, if you sell).
    If you don't sell and just live off the dividends (yesterday it was 4%...tomorrow it may move to 5%), irregardless to the bond fund's share price you have less concern about the direction of interest rates. I believe the typical fix income investor is spending down shares of their bond fund as well as spending the coupon. This may be what AJC is concerned about. If you never sell your bond shares the individual securities will eventually mature out of the 4% yields and it will be replaced with new, potentially higher yielding contracts. Selling shares is what 'fixes the price" and obviously you don't have control over other investor's selling. This could be at a loss compared to what the shares were first bought at.
    This is the price of admission to get at the bond coupon in a bond fund. Price appreciation and coupon yield are what we have enjoyed for the last thirty years with bond funds. A Bond fund share price can rise and fall significantly even when interest rate move just a small amount.
    I wonder if it might be easier to think of a bond fund like an annuity. If you invest in an immediate annuity you give up principal for a stream of income. Think of a 30 year bond fund or any other bond fund the same way. If you discipline yourself to only collect the coupon from the bond fund you have "an annuity" that will always have a cash value. The 'cash value" (share price) changes as a result of its comparative value to other bond funds (and their underlying coupon).
    Also, if you reinvest your dividends you are nudging your cost basis lower (buying additional shares at lower share price) if that share price did indeed dropped.
  • Matthews View on Asia's Importance
    I have almost 25% of my portfolio and two-thirds of my international exposure in Asia while I'm underweight Japan and the other developed markets, so I completely agree with Matthews on this one. I own the usual suspects as others have mentioned- GPIOX, GPEOX, GPMCX, MEASX, MAPIX and SFGIX all have big if not total allocations to Asia, but I also own KGGAX, OBIOX, QUSOX, EWX, TVRVX and WAFMX which each have 30% or more in Asia. That might be too many funds but I'm not uncomfortable at all with the large allocation because the stats on all these funds in terms of P/E, P/B, ROA, ROE and expected EPS growth seem very good pretty much across the board. Since I've built several of these positions over the last couple of years as emerging markets have suffered, I would also eventually reduce holdings if and when emerging markets/these funds have higher valuations. I'd expect that could ultimately reduce Asia to less than 20% of my portfolio with pretty much all of that coming out of emerging markets when it happens.
  • Switch It Up This Year: Buy In May, Till November Stay
    FYI: "Sell in May and go away" is perhaps the oldest saw on Wall Street, but it appears there's no shortage of U.S. mutual funds doing exactly that this year.
    After all, the S&P 500 .SPX has delivered a total return, including reinvested dividends, of 10.8 percent over the last six months, essentially capturing all of the average rolling 12-month total return on the index since 1990, so why not cash in?
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-weekahead-idUSKBN18M2DW
  • Abby Joseph Cohen: Fixed Income Headed For Trouble
    Reminds me of "Trouble in River City" from a favorite musical. I think the warnings about trouble in fixed income have been running now for almost as long as The Music Man.
    A kid born when these "warnings" first began must be about ready to enter college today. If the fixed income was invested in longer dated bonds or high yield bonds the parents probably did well in saving for college. Equities however likely out-performed fixed-income over the past 15 years (but turned many stomachs during the '07-'09 time-frame).
    I like Abby Cohen a lot. A regular on Rukeyser's old show. But if you're not aware, Abby is a perma-bull. Can't ever recall her being negative on equities. FWIW