Global - The New Core
Franklin Templeton has confirmed that they hope to launch their Global Allocation Fund by year-end.
Here's the SEC filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/876441/000137949111000617/filing1478.htm"Under normal market conditions, the Fund seeks to achieve its investment goal by (1) investing in a diversified core portfolio of equity and fixed income investments, and (2) tactically adjusting the Fund's exposure to certain asset classes, regions, currencies and sectors independent of the investment processes of the investment strategies that comprise the core portfolio.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund’s baseline allocation between broad asset classes is:
50% Global Equity (U.S. / International / Emerging)
35% Global Fixed Income (U.S. /International / Emerging)
5% Commodity-linked Instruments
10% Cash and Derivative Instruments
The Fund is structured as a multi-manager fund, with the investment manager responsible for monitoring the Fund's overall investment performance, managing portions of the Fund's core portfolio, managing the Fund's tactical asset allocation, and re-balancing the Fund’s portfolio to maintain the baseline allocation to various asset classes and investment strategies. The baseline allocation also may change from time to time, at the discretion of the investment manager."
Comments
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/916488/000137949111000705/filing1928.htm
Responding to Maurice's comments on the Templeton C shares expenses, I agree. YIKES! But then, almost all fund companies' C shares are outrageously expensive. The way share classes have evolved - as a way to market to a specific business model of salespeople - is very disappointing. Some companies have done away with class B shares (which are expensive, but at least converted to class A shares after a few years). But they have maintained class C shares, which are usually even more expensive and NEVER convert to class A. Unfortunately they are often marketed as "no-load" or non-commission funds, which is simply a lie. So-called advisors may tell clients (and themselves) that they receive no commissions on class C shares, only "fees" from the fund company. While it is true that there are no up-front commissions, the 12b-1 "fees" are in fact trail commissions that go on forever and ever. The salesperson's broker-dealer receives the 12b-1 fees from the fund, then pays the agreed-upon percentage to the salesperson. Both parties benefit from this, at the expense of the consumer. I don't see an end to 12b-1 fees (the SEC essentially caved to FINRA on this), but I would urge investors to avoid funds where these fees are more than 0.25%. Ideally, there would be no 12b-1 fees.
Occasionally I've come across the argument that if one's bond sleeve is used to dampen volatility and "store cash" to be reallocated during market dips, the bond sleeve should be largely sovereigns (rather than HY or corporates).
So, I'd be interested to hear your (and others') thoughts.