If it makes you feel any better, the management fee is "only" 1.15% (see M*'s note on the fund's expense page).
That's 1.15% of all assets under management, including the borrowed money (leverage). Since the borrowed money (amount of leverage) is 44.24% of the total assets of the fund, the expenses as a percentage of the amount that investors put in (as opposed to being borrowed) are nearly double the stated 1.15%. I come up with 2.06% vs. M*'s 2.17%, which is based on the older leverage figure found in the annual report - 47.20%.
Viewed this way, the total cost of borrowing adds about 2% to the ER: 0.98% direct cost of borrowing money and about 1% to manage the borrowed money. (Personally, this doesn't make me any more comfortable, but at least the management fee is not some totally outrageous percentage of AUM.)
BTW, have you read the prospectus (well, offering)?

From the link in MFO post, http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/14903/causeway-funds-in-registration#latest,
the following information was posted in their SEC filing:
"...The Fund expects to pay significantly increased taxable distributions of net short-term capital gain (that is, the excess of short-term capital gains over short-term capital losses) and net capital gain (that is, the excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss) in 2014 due to its conversion
29
Table of Contents
in October 2014 from a “fund of funds” structure to directly investing in portfolio securities. This is because when it converted, the Fund redeemed shares in underlying Causeway Funds that had appreciated from the time the Fund purchased the shares, causing the Fund to realize capital gain during 2014. Taxable investors receiving the distributions should be prepared to pay taxes on them (at ordinary income rates for the net short-term capital gain and, for non-corporate shareholders, at the 15% and 20% maximum rates mentioned above for the net capital gain). However, if you are investing in the Fund through a tax-advantaged retirement plan or account, or are a tax-exempt investor, there will be tax consequences to you from those distributions. "

@bee: Bee is correct the ER for PABGX is 1.00%, for TRBCX it's .74%. That .26% might not seem like a lot, but over the years it adds up.
Regards,
Ted
TRBCX: (10k)
3 Years: $237.00
5 Years: $411.00
10 Years $918.00
PABGX: (10k)
3 Years: $318.00
5 Years: $552.00
10 Years $1,225.00

If this has been discussed at length already, please forgive me (and someone share the link!) but I wanted to ask you all how much you're willing to pay in expense ratios? Ed's commentary this week made me think of this again.
The conventional wisdom is, the cheaper the better, but with a few funds you really do seem to get your money's worth. According to M*, PDI charges a 2.17% fee after excluding interest expenses. With interest expenses (for leverage), the fee is 3.15%. The advisor fee is 2.10%. Yet it's been a remarkable performer and has outperformed PIMIX, by the same manager, which only charges 0.45%. And that manager, Ivascyn, has been putting his own money into PDI. Of course he, like most of us, could be overestimating his ability to add value, and we'll have to see if PDI holds up as well as PIMIX next downturn.
My most expensive funds are HUSIX, small value, 1.85%, and GPIOX, foreign small cap, 1.73%. I'm a little uneasy about both, especially HUSIX, since there are good and somewhat cheaper SV funds out there. HUSIX and GPIOX have both earned their money so far, but wow, what a high hurdle they have to overcome.
My thoughts are that with high ERs, you're betting you've got a genius on your hands (and not someone who just got lucky for a few years), while with cheap ERs, a team that's merely very good can earn their fees. Since genius is tough to spot, logicially I should have all my money with D&C and Primecap, but I don't. (Though a Primecap fund is my single largest holding.)
Yet Ed's commentary this month made me think about the other side of the coin: if the fees are too low, talent will flee, and a mediocre fund won't even earn back its modest ER.
What are your thoughts? How much are you willing to pay? What are your highest conviction high cost funds?

Newbie investors might not be aware of this costly fact...advisor shares cost usually .25% more than the "original" fund. PABGX and other advisor share class funds carry this added "advisor fee" for the benefit of being NTF at many brokerages, but the brokerage recieves the added fee as their cut.
I prefer to the lower fee funds. You are almost always better off buying directly from the mutual fund company. As a way of keeping things simple I will grudgingly pay the transaction fee once for TRBCX at my brokerage and then set up a periodic purchase plan (monthly) if you want to d.c.a into or out of the fund later. This keeps fees lower than owning the advisor shares.
Fidelity also markets these pricier advisor shares. Just one more cost to avoid.

Hello @AndyJ,
Here are a couple of ways I have recently raised cash within my own portfolio.
The first one is to sell into strength. I reviewed my portfolio and selected funds that I was overweight in and/or no longer wished to hold. I used the S&P 500 Index as my measure of the market (you can select an index that best fits) and for every 25 point increase I’d sell some of the unwanted funds usually about an amount equal to one percent of my total equity positions.
Here is an example of how this works. Let’s say the S&P 500 Index is now at about 2000 and when it reaches 2025 I'll sell a sum equal to about one percent of all my equity positions and let the residual 0.25% gain ride. I’ll keep doing this until my targeted cash position has been reached.
Another one is to set all bond, stock, and fund investment positions, etc. to pay their distributions to cash.
Combine the two of these together and I have found that it did not take long for me to grow my cash allocation by four, five or perhaps even ten percent over a one year period of time.
I hope this might help you with some ideas as to how you might grow your cash allocation.

FYI: Six funds we've known about for a while but that investors have missed.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=663519

FYI: The S&P 500 is up a whopping 200% from its March 2009 low. At 2,003, the S&P has already exceeded many analysts' forecasts.
Morgan Stanley strategist Adam Parker and economist Ellen Zentner believe that the conditions are just right for the bull market to keep going for years.
"Our best guess is that an S&P 500 peak of near 3000 is possible should the U.S. expansion prove to have five or more years left to it, based on 6% per annum EPS growth through that time frame and a 17x price-to-earnings ratio," Parker writes.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-sp-500-3000-2014-9

@catch22: I went onto stockcharts.com to put in the data that Charles presented on the other thread, SPY from Nov 1, 2007-June 30, 2014. You titled this thread "the quick method". Messing with that slider bar did not seem like "the quick method" to me, but eventually I got it!
But it gave me the result in terms of cumulative total return, and Charles presented his data in terms of annualized return. Is there something you need to click on stockcharts.com to get annualized total return instead?

Howdy @rjb112
You noted: "in that stockcharts.com, as you mentioned, cannot often easily accept any start and end date you wish......although apparently it is easy to get within 1, 2 or 3 days of your desired time frame."
>>>At the 200day slider below the graph area, yes; one may "left click" and hold to move the entire 200 day time from to the left and move backwards in time, or; "left click" and hold only the left end of the slider and move left to travel backwards as far as a fund inception date may allow. NOTE: I have not checked to find whether there is a limit as to how far backwards in time that stockcharts allows.
Also, as two examples: one may drag the left side of the 200 day slider to the left to 1256 days, which is about 5 years time.....or 2518 days which is about 10 years of a backward look. Another: is to leave the slider at the 1256 (5 year period) just mentioned and then left click onto the slider and hold, then drag the slider around to different time frames of a 5 year period.
At the bottom right corner of the graph, one will find the corner filled with several small diagonal lines. Holding the mouse here will allow you to shrink the size of the graph as you move towards the upper, left corner. I have to do this; as I can't fit the entire image with dates at the top and still see all of the other info a the bottom of the area where the slider and tickers symbols are placed.
Lastly, I find that getting close (within a few days of data) is more than accurate for my needs. I also like to use the "red and green" graphing icon at the far left edge, after having viewed the line chart. Especially when viewing up to ten symbols. Additionally, when a line chart is displayed, the mouse pointer may be placed upon the line to find a date and dollar value represented by the graph.
Ok, my eyes sting from painting all day long and so pillow time for me soon.
Catch

Howdy @rjb112 and @Charles, et al
The recent thread regarding doom and gloom in September morphed into a "how in the heck do I find real and total return numbers for funds, etc."
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/43537/#Comment_43537
Lastly, it is my understanding that Smartmoney.com includes all distributions for total return numbers. I have not used their site for this purpose.
Catch

@catch22: Thanks for starting this thread. I think the subject of finding accurate performance data for mutual funds is very important. I'm going to spend some time on the website you referenced and try to get a feel for its accuracy.
I an still in the process of evaluating the website below as a tool to obtain performance data, but so far it seems like an amazing tool and super easy to use. Of course with any website/tool, such as the one you referenced and the one below, the key issue is whether or not it is accurate.
http://longrundata.com/longrundata/index.php
With regards to smartmoney.com and it including distributions for total return data: Morningstar does include distributions in their total return data. I am extremely impressed with the accuracy of Morningstar's data. The only thing I don't like about it is that the data they provide is limited.
They provide calendar year data from 2004 thru present, but not prior to 2004.
And they don't provide data for any begin and end date that you might be interested in.
That's why I am so interested in the site you referenced, and the one I referenced as well. If they are accurate, we are in business. The site I referenced is more user friendly, in that stockcharts.com, as you mentioned, cannot often easily accept any start and end date you wish......although apparently it is easy to get within 1, 2 or 3 days of your desired time frame.

@VintageFreak.
...rolling returns over X years...
What is highest X you think is of interest?
10, 15...20?
Let me know.
Thanks, c

Using this rule an applying it today for the S&P 500 Index ... by my math ... If stocks are at a TTM P/E Ratio of 19.2 plus 2% for inflation (Both Trailing Numbers) then this puts the combined number at 21.2. With this, stocks would be about six percent above their fair value and puts the fair value number for the S&P 500 Index somewhere around 1880.
Currently, M* is reporting stocks, in general, are about three percent overvalued.
So, it seems this Rule of Thumb will be close to perhaps the real number if you were to accept M*'s number as the gospel.
Old_Skeet

@Old_Skeet : Just a bit of apples plus oranges in the mixture.
Why? Because the number you report as the TTM P/E, 19.2, is for the S&P 500.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3021-peyield.html
The number you report for M*, 3% overvalued, is global stocks. It's for the universe of all stocks that M* analyzes, which is US plus foreign stocks. Foreign stocks currently generally have significantly lower P/E ratios than US stocks.
Having said that, I owe you a debt of gratitude, because you are the one who 'turned me on to' both the WSJ location of their index P/E values, as well as M*'s fair market value graph
http://www.morningstar.com/market-valuation/market-fair-value-graph.aspx
So my friend, I can only say a big Thank You to you.

Hi ibartman,
I think the Morningstar article on hidden quality in dividend ETFs makes a lot of sense with some caveats. The author rightly points readers not just to dividend paying ETFs but ones that emphasize sustainable dividends as high dividends by themselves can be from junky low-quality companies. When I interviewed the folks at State Street about their quality mix ETFs they said that dividends were a hybrid factor of both quality and value. A high dividend yield indicates value as the lower the price goes on a stock the higher the yield on its existing dividend will be. Meanwhile a company that has the wherewithal to pay a consistent dividend can indicate quality.
That said, not all quality companies are dividend payers and not all dividend payers are quality companies. So if you buy a dividend oriented quality ETF like QDF you will be leaving out those growth-oriented quality companies that choose to invest in R&D, debt reduction or share buybacks instead of paying dividends. Think of how many years Apple and Microsoft went without paying dividends yet had rock solid balance sheets and were high quality companies.
As for finding an ETF that combines all of the FF factors, quality and dividends, I'm not sure on that. There is a way certainly to do it with two ETFs, but maybe not one. The new State Street quality mix ETFs combine value, low vol and quality but without dividends and without small caps, another FF factor. Perhaps more intriguing for you though might be the new "actively managed" or "enhanced" ETFs from iShares. The iShares Enhanced U.S. Large-Cap ETF (IELG) says it is managed with a focus on " quality,
value and size factors." And its expense ratio is just 0.18%. Since it is actively managed, it wouldn't surprise me if its managers are looking at dividends. But combining it with a dividend ETF or the excellent VDIGX which you already own might work well. ishares.com/us/products/239529/ishares-enhanced-us-largecap-etf
Check out State Streets SPDRS as well: https://spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=QWLD

https://mutualfundinvestorguide.com/blog/market-perspective-for-august-29-2014/
http://news.investors.com/investing-mutual-funds/082914-715511-week-in-funds-stock-funds-rise-again.htm
fund fees can hurt ur returns
http://canadanews.center/item/230_how-mutual-fund-fees-can-hurt-your-returns
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/emerging-market-at-3-year-high-3-etfs-worth-a-look-etf-news-and-commentary-cm385435
gold rally?
http://www.mining.com/gold-should-be-trading-at-1400oz-global-investorss-holmes-63187/

What I really need is a website that calculates rolling returns over X years. How many times have we "waited" long enough for a fund to get a good 5 year record because we do not want to simply buy on 1 year numbers? Only to find 2 years later the 5 year number stinks, but then again becomes respectable 3 years later. It would be so nice to see rolling returns over X years for ever fund out there, for every month of existence taken 5 years out.
And Catch. If you have "how to fix 1 ft x 1 ft hole in ceiling drywall by yourself" tips for me I would appreciate it. I can fix any electronics but water, dust, paint gives me the heebeejeebees.

My "alternative" (sic) fund owns: Stocks, Bonds, Options, Derivatives (in various forms), Preferred Stocks, Debentures, Swaps....and that is quite enough because if I knew more I would be managing my own money.
During the dot com boom did most people knew WTF their mutual funds were investing in? How about during the financial crisis? How about EVER? When it comes to most people they don't know what they are doing OR their day job is not managing money. Where were you Jaffe on 2000 or in 2007? Did you warn people about Tech stocks / Financial stocks? Now after a few people have come and written articles about how "alternative investments" are not what they are cracked up to me, you come and write a "me too" article? What a job. What a F****** job!
Over the years I have learnt enough to know a certain word in the fund name means nothing. M* categorization sucks to boot regardless of whether the word "alternative" is in the name of the fund. I give you Legg Mason VALUE trust. VALUE? Purified Bovine Waste.
To me, someone like Steve Romick is an "Alternative Fund Manager". Someone who invests with lower co-relation to S&P 500 just like "bonds" are supposed to do. Since I'm no 007 I go with Romick. I can say the same about John Deysher who ids 50% in cash. Or even Hussman, who I admit needs to look at "alternative" (pun intended) ways to hedge.
Finally, he is taking a page out of MY book. Diversify manager risk away by owning multiple alternative funds? That's all you got Chuck? Remember, how investors should not own too many funds?

Ted: Thank you for link. Here is info on publication and author.
Barrons - How ETFs Define Quality
By LEWIS BRAHAM, Aug. 30, 2014
[Subscription Required]
Comments to the following post included additional 'Quality' links:
Jeremy Grantham/GMO Asset Class Performance Forecasts [rjb12]
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/45441/

There is an old saw, Rule of Thumb, about the P/E Ratio Rule of Twenty that says if inflation plus the price earnings ratio of stocks in general when combined are below 20 then stocks are undervalued. Using this rule an applying it today for the S&P 500 Index ... by my math ... If stocks are at a TTM P/E Ratio of 19.2 plus 2% for inflation (Both Trailing Numbers) then this puts the combined number at 21.2. With this, stocks would be about six percent above their fair value and puts the fair value number for the S&P 500 Index somewhere around 1880.
Currently, M* is reporting stocks, in general, are about three percent overvalued.
So, it seems this Rule of Thumb will be close to perhaps the real number if you were to accept M*'s number as the gospel.
Old_Skeet

Howdy @rjb112 and @Charles, et al
The recent thread regarding doom and gloom in September morphed into a "how in the heck do I find real and total return numbers for funds, etc."
Several years ago I wandered from site to site in search of the "easy", for discovering total returns. I don't have enough time in my day now, to do math calculations and related; and continue to use Stockcharts.com to do all of the work for me. No subscription is required for this basic use. NOTE: newer funds may not be found for reference. I don't know what time frame is used by the site for inclusion.
The link below is a reply to "rick" just two months ago about using Stockcharts.com. This link is to the entire thread, but you will find my reply to "rick" regarding Stockcharts, a tiny bit down the page. Use the "chart link" in the first reply to "rick" to take you to the Stockchart page; which is an active page that you may use.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/43537/#Comment_43537
This link is a short video regarding Stockcharts and their inclusion of dividends in calculations. You may find something of value with this.
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/01/how-can-i-plot-dividend-adjusted-data-and-unadjusted-data.html
Lastly, it is my understanding that Smartmoney.com includes all distributions for total return numbers. I have not used their site for this purpose.
Okay, I am away to finish walls and paint before the carpet folks arrive in a few days.
Have a good one.....
Catch