FYI: One of the most widely read documents of the investment calendar is scheduled to be released on Saturday.
I’m referring to Warren Buffett’s annual shareholder letter, which is contained in the annual report of his company, Berkshire Hathaway BRK.A, -1.92% BRK.B, -1.67% . (Here’s the 2017 letter for reference.)
Just because his letter is widely read, however, doesn’t mean it is properly understood. What follows are three of the most profound investment takeaways of his soon-to-be released letter, implications that I fear may otherwise be ignored:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/three-things-to-look-for-in-warren-buffetts-annual-shareholder-letter-2019-02-21/print

FYI: For decades, Mario Gabelli, one of the premier investors of our age. has regaled the Barron’s Roundtable with his insights, wit, and banter.
Gabelli, however, has been reticent about the funds he holds himself, both of the open- and closed-end varieties. But a perusal of public records shows that he personally owns significant stakes in several closed-end offerings of his Gabelli Funds. Indeed, in some cases, he’s the biggest shareholder. And his largest investments are an interesting and eclectic mix.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/what-gabelli-funds-does-mario-buy-51550858564?mod=hp_DAY_5

FYI: Kraft Heinz stock (KHC) was down more than 27% on Friday after the company took a $15 billion asset write down, cut its dividend, and disclosed a regulatory probe into its procurement and accounting practices. The stock was downgraded by five Wall Street analysts, too.
That’s a bad day.
Some big names have been caught up in the Kraft vortex, including Warren Buffett and private-equity firm 3G Capital. But one fund manager steered clear of this week’s Kraft Heinz bloodbath: Nuveen Asset Management. Nuveen avoided the decline for a unique reason: It shunned Kraft Heinz stock because the company has weak scores in ESG, the sustainable investing philosophy that looks at, and is short for, environmental, social, and governance metrics. Kraft Heinz isn’t the only high profile stock debacle Nuveen has managed to avoid. Nuveen’s ESG philosophy should give investors something to think about when assessing corporate risk in the future.
Nuveen offers a few exchanged traded funds for U.S. investors, including the NuShares ESG Large-Cap Growth Fund (NULG) and NuShares ESG Large-Cap Value Fund (NULV). In those funds, Nuveen only invests in companies that are in the upper half of a sector based on Nuveen’s ESG scoring.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/esg-nuveen-asset-management-kraft-heinz-stock-51550862080?mod=djem_b_Weekly barrons_daily_newsletter

(1) ... but we don’t even talk about recent buys or sells anymore.... “
(2) “... can’t we play in the sandbox a little nicer?”

Thanks for the comments @Graust. I won’t even try to defend the politics that seeps in. It’s indefensible - but also hard to avoid in the current political climate.
(1) As to fewer trades, I’ve noticed it too. Couple thoughts: The group of perhaps 25-35 regulars who post often are growing older and more conservative. Heck, I can think of 2 or 3 who’ve gotten out of the market completely in the past six months. They still have a great deal to offer here - but trading funds isn’t where they are anymore. Other oldsters like myself are still investing in the market, but trading a lot less as a means of reducing risk. My most aggressive holdings nowadays tend to be balanced funds (the more boring the better). And I’ve stopped making speculative bets on beaten-up sectors because there’s a very real chance I wouldn’t live long enough to see them come to fruition.
Another factor - We’ve just experienced a 10-20% stock market correction (depending on the index). That experience has, I think, dulled the “animal spirits” a bit. Folks after something like that become more risk averse for a while afterwards. That may be another reason why there’s less talk about buying / selling than 6 months or a year ago. There are some nice exceptions. @Puddenhead posts occasionally about trading for quick profits. I always enjoy his “longneck” ramblings. And @Old_Skeet does a real nice job weekly dissecting his approach and telling you which sectors he likes or dislikes and why. Lest I forget, @MikeM too is always looking for an edge and mentions his buys / sells from time to time. No doubt there are others I’m omitting. Apologies to them.
(2) Re the sandbox - Unfortunately, it just takes one child peeing in it and throwing sand to ruin it for everyone.

@JohnN - Be glad you didn’t put this one up: “Only Five T. Rowe Price U.S. Mutual Funds Saw Positive Returns In 2018”. As @msf and others have pointed out, the statement is patently false.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2019/02/22/muni-bond-sales-surge-as-issuers-ride-demand-wave?utm_source=commentaries_feed&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=item_link
Caveat emptor: current technical supply and demand flows favor issuers more than buyers. But diligent, disciplined investors can always find attractively priced, fundamentally sound bonds.
Municipal bonds have been on a tear so far in 2019, with surging investor demand readily greeting increased supply, in what appears to be more than the typical “January Effect.”
Is it too late to to get into the game?!
Anyone dumping munis?!

Hey @MSF, thanks for the heads up that HNASX is managed by the same manager as TRLGX. I've been interested in the TRLGX but it has a $1M minimum. Looking to invest in either AKREX, TRBCX, BIAWX or this one for my large cap growth exposure. Any thoughts??

Perhaps things have fundamentally evolved. If so, perhaps the outlook for interest rates is not as ominous as the one suggested by Gundlach and others. The Fed appears to be beginning to embrace this possibility....

A Fed pivot, born of volatility, missteps, and new economic reality...interviews with more than half a dozen policymakers and others close to the process suggest it....marked a more fundamental shift that could define Chairman Jerome Powell’s tenure as the point where the Fed first fully embraced a world of stubbornly weak inflation, perennially slower growth and permanently lower interest rates.
One question, for example, is whether to make crisis-fighting policies a part of the routine toolkit. Another is whether to try to prepare the public to accept higher inflation from time to time.
The January statement, JP Morgan analyst Michael Feroli wrote recently, showed the Fed “subtly but profoundly evolving” to a new view of the world where a variety of forces have changed the way inflation and interest rates work, and have now changed how the central bank responds.

https://reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-pivot-insight/a-fed-pivot-born-of-volatility-missteps-and-new-economic-reality-idUSKCN1QB0IK?il=0

Was curious if anyone had done some due diligence on this fund. I've been running the numbers on MFO Premium and its risk adjusted performance is impressive over the 1, 3, and 5 year time frames. Also held up well in the October-December selloff. It looks like a winner to me. Top performer in International Growth category and available for no load at Schwab. Looking to add this fund as well as ARTJX as my new international holdings.

FYI: Michael Batnick and Downtown Josh Brown are Live From The Compound to talk about a really simple way to figure out the optimal mix between stocks and bonds for individual investors – this is something everyone can do for themselves as a device to determine how much risk you can really stand.
By examining the drawdown vs returns history of a two-index portfolio, and looking at ten different incarnations of it, you can get an idea of how much downside IN DOLLAR TERMS you’d be able to live with during a worst case scenario market event.
Regards,
Ted
https://thereformedbroker.com/2019/02/22/the-two-fund-portfolio/

If I'm reading my graphs right PRHSX (the only one of the mentioned fund I own) has clawed it's way back from the Dec'18 dump. I'd love to know how many shareholders dumped it and similarly slumping funds.

Lots of T. Rowe Price funds made money last year (2018). In addition to the five listed were several bond and allocation funds (and a couple more domestic equity funds). That goes to @Derf 's point that cash and fixed income did better than equity last year.
This is just another column tossing out junk statistics and not even doing its homework. The two other Price equity funds (albeit institutional funds) that had positive returns were: TRLGX (you can get the same manager via HNASX), and TPLGX (likely a clone of TRBCX).

I resemble that remark. Can’t recall seeing my TRBUX (ultra-short bond fund) on that list of 5. Failure to take note of that omission may signal how gravely concerned I am about all this. :)
Thanks @msf for lifting some of the curtain (err ... shroud?) here.

Lots of T. Rowe Price funds made money last year (2018). In addition to the five listed were several bond and allocation funds (and a couple more domestic equity funds). That goes to @Derf 's point that cash and fixed income did better than equity last year.
This is just another column tossing out junk statistics and not even doing its homework. The two other Price equity funds (albeit institutional funds) that had positive returns were: TRLGX (you can get the same manager via HNASX), and TPLGX (likely a clone of TRBCX).
What's the point in saying that fewer than half the managers who beat the S&P 500 did so by more than 4.38% (i.e. had positive returns)? When your manager beats his (or her) benchmark, do you complain that the fund outperformed by only 3%? Do you expect, in a good year or bad year for the market, half the managers who outperform to do so by over 4%? This is silly.

(1) Value investing had a poor year in ‘18, following a long period of underperformance. Beginning to look as though that may have been the “blow off” stage of the value cycle as they’re hot so far this year. To some extent in ‘18 you were better off putting on a blindfold and buying indexes than in evaluating companies. To the extent Price favors a value approach and does a lot of due diligence, having done their homework may have hurt their numbers in ‘18.
(2) Another factor - Price tends to be more aggressive with their significant number of allocation funds than others. RPSIX, for example, can hold around 10% in PRFDX (a stock fund). If you compare RPSIX to less aggressive “income” funds during a down year for equities it will lag. Their retirement funds are also known for having glide slopes that keep investors in equities further out than many others. More equities in a down year spells lower return.
(3) Price includes a bit of PRAFX (real assets) in many allocation funds. In fact, PRAFX was first developed for in-house use in their allocation funds and than later offered to the public. Commodities, energy, & real estate were poor places to be in ‘18. However, if this year’s trend continues it will pay investors in real assets for their patience.
At first I couldn’t see commenting on this one. A single year says very little about the quality of a firm. Since some have found it worthwhile, I wanted to add my 2-cents. All that being said, I do like to diversify management risk. As now stands, Price has about 50% with the other 50% divided up among Dodge & Cox, Oppenheimer, and Permenant Portfolio. I’m much more accustomed to fending off criticism of the latter two (especially PRPFX) than I am of T. Rowe. Some day I may have 100% with Price for ease of managing my assets and because of their great customer service.

FYI: You have likely heard the claim that equity portfolios can't help but to be global. Multinationals account for most stock market assets, and they sell their wares everywhere. Where a blue-chip company is headquartered does not indicate its revenue sources.
In a new report, Morningstar puts that belief to the test. I can't link to the article, because it's tucked away in Morningstar Direct's institutional software, but I can provide its highlight.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/914896/youre-more-internationally-diversified-than-you-pr.html

FYI: One of the biggest contrarians in the bond market is holding firm to a long-held wager that Treasury yields are poised to break out even as global growth fears turbocharge the opposing side of the trade.
Franklin Templeton bond chief Michael Hasenstab remains steadfast in his conviction that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates this year -- putting him at odds with the futures market and the growing raft of Wall Street voices fretting a brewing U.S. downturn.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/templeton-bond-chief-stands-firm-on-bearish-bet-against-treasuries-43419.html?print
M* Snapshot TPINX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/TPINX/quote.html
Lipper Snpshot TPINX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/tpinx
TPINX Is Ranked #15 In The (WB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-bond/templeton-global-bond-fund/tpinx

FYI: When it comes to companies deploying capital, allocators say one of their top choices for management is to buy back shares, flying in the face of a recent Senate proposal to limit the practice.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1d7h46qbdj7z4/Politicians-and-Twitter-May-Hate-Buybacks-But-Institutional-Investors-Don-t

I’d be willing to bet that much of TRPs underperformance was due to foreign stocks. TRP allocation funds, in particular, tend to have higher percentages of holdings in foreign stocks than comparable funds. Their bond funds also had a rough year. I’ve invested part of my portfolio (Roth IRA) with TRP for years, and 2018 was its worst year in performance relative to my investments with other firms.

Keep reading ... on down and through ... to you come to the part on ETF Wrap.
Breaking Down Wrap Fee
Wrap fees are generally set up to be a percentage of the assets under management and can cover both retirement and non-retirement assets. The wrap fee is intended to provide payment for all the direct services the customer receives, as well as cover the administrative costs incurred by the investment firm, which tend to be a full-service brokerage or affiliated or unaffiliated broker/dealer firms. One advantage of a wrap fee is that a customer can be assured that a broker isn't trying to excessively churn trades to generate commissions. Wrap fee accounts are expected to more than double to $1.1 trillion in the next five years, according to Tiburon Strategic Advisors.
Wrap Fee Criticisms
Wrap fees can be expensive. They can range from around 0.75% to as high as 3%. And certain actions could incur other fees, such as if a broker for a wrap fee client were to purchase a mutual fund that charges an expense ratio. Such high fees can quickly erode returns. Accordingly, wrap fee arrangements have attracted a greater level of scrutiny from regulators as of late.
Wrap fee programs can have a variety of names, such as asset allocation programs, investment management programs, asset management programs, separately managed accounts and mini-accounts. Whatever the name, such an account can be subject to additional disclosure under Rule 204-3(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. That rule defines a wrap fee as a “program under which any client is charged a specified fee or fees not based directly on transactions in a client’s account for investment advisory services (which may include portfolio management or advice concerning the selection of other advisers) and execution of client transactions.” In December 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission released an Investor Bulletin that provides basic information about wrap fee programs and some questions to consider asking an investment advisor before choosing to open an account in a wrap fee program.
Who Is A Wrap Fee Right For?
Paying a wrap fee can be advantageous for investors who intend to utilize their broker's full line of services. For anyone else, it might be cheaper to pay an investment professional for individual services in an unbundled arrangement.
Compare Popular Online Brokers
Provider
Name
Description
Advertiser Disclosure
Related Terms
ETF Wrap
An ETF wrap is an investment portfolio in which an investor, with or without the aid of an investment advisor, invests solely in exchange-traded funds. more
Fulcrum Fee
A fulcrum fee is a performance-based fee that adjusts up or down based on outperforming or underperforming a benchmark. more
Agency Cross
An agency cross is a transaction in which an investment adviser acts as the broker for both his client and the other party to the transaction. more
Performance Fee
A performance fee is a payment made to an investment manager for generating positive returns. more
Double Dipping
Double dipping is when a broker puts commissioned products into a fee-based account thereby unethically earning money from both sources. more
Soft Commissions
A soft commission, or soft dollars, is a transaction-based payment made by an asset manager to a broker-dealer that is not paid in actual dollars. more

FYI: A number of T. Rowe Price Group Inc. mutual funds beat the S&P 500 index during a tough 2018 for the U.S. stock market, but only five provided investors with positive returns.
The total is less than half the number of portfolio managers who beat the index last year. Baltimore-based T. Rowe Price's funds, and the stock market overall, were hit hard by the stock market's dramatic plunge in December.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2019/02/20/only-five-t-rowe-price-u-s-mutual-funds-saw.html