It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
First, a clarification on funds. The fund you're referring to was (and is) Vanguard Developed Markets Fund. As you wrote, it used to hold two index funds. In late 2008/early 2009 it switched to investing directly in stocks. Earlier this year, Vanguard merged it into its Tax-Managed International fund, and called the resulting fund Developed Markets Index Fund.
Years ago, the Vanguard International Index Fund started out as a fund-of-funds, holding shares of the European Index and Pacific Index Funds.
At some point, it, too, converted to a structure in which the fund held foreign shares directly.
Does anyone recall whether or not investors in Vanguard's International Index fund incurred capital gains distributions? If not, how did Vanguard do it? Clever timing (i.e., conversions incurred at a time when there was a loss), or something else? Thanks.
So that's part of the answer to your question.The change ... is not expected to result in capital gains distributions to shareholders.
Ted provided this link to other referenced articles.Hi bee,
I am not familiar with Isralesen, so appreciate if you can share some reference point of credibility.

I personally have no problem substituting "cash" with short term bonds or similar vehicles.Then there is the 8.3% in cash. Is this for planned withdrawals? If not, perhaps a ultra-short bond fund would be a more prudent option. Perhaps it would be better just to invest in a mix of 5-6 'dynamic allocation funds' like FPACX, TIBIX, MALOX, PRWCX, OAKBX, etc. In the end, there is no perfect allocation. The ideal allocation is one that an investor can live with when times are bad. I am not sure about this one.

We really REALLY appreciate the hard work you put into these things Charles. I'm sure you have so many other things to do and at the risk of stating the obvious, all of those managing MFO are true treasures.@VintageFreak.
Me too. My very first screening criteria was to look at min return over any rolling 3 year period.
But I think you are right that 5 and perhaps even 7 may better capture cycle for more patient investors.
Perhaps could start making available in screening tools max and min 3, 5, 7 rolling returns for all funds.
Will work on that!

Sorry, I don't generally pay too much attention to closed end funds - haven't found a use for stock funds, and most bond funds are leveraged. (There's additional risk with leveraged funds, especially in a rising interest rate environment, and while I don't necessarily like my bond funds too boring, that's one factor I prefer to take out of the equation.)Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.
@msf, I guess that makes sense about PDI, but I'm not sure it makes me feel better -- it gives the manager an extra motive to lever up, though he's got a ton his own money in the fund that I presume he believes what he's doing. Is that common for CEF expenses?
I haven't read the prospectus/offering, I'm not planning to invest in it unless there's a major dip (I like my bond funds boring), though I sure regret not having bought it a year ago. Anything striking in the prospectus?
Me too. My very first screening criteria was to look at min return over any rolling 3 year period.Actually I think lower numbers are useful.
3 would show how fund does across typical 50% declines
5 would show investor patience justified or not (all those people lamenting investor returns don't match fund returns need to get a reality check)
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla