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.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
The Paradox Of Choice: Can You Have Too Many Investment Options?
Several years ago (2009-2010 period) a discussion with a couple in their late-60's came into place. They were frugal with their expenses, had modest pension income, receiving SS and had been investors otherwise for many years. They were nominally smart about choices for their investment side of life, and had a good understanding of market movements. They had decided to smooth the ride with the investment side and downsize the portfolio. They were not trying the "shoot out the lights" with oversized gains in the marketplace, but enough gains to offset inflation and have a decent return after taxation. The plus for them was ease of monitoring. At the time, the discussion mostly revolved around the point at the time, that "economies" were still very much in a damaged zone from the market melt of 2007 & 2008. The likelyhood that low interest rates (central bank stimulus) would have to remain in place for an extended period of time, in particular from the damage done to the private sector budgets; the regular wage earners and their ability to spend into the economy. The choice was made to maintain a U.S. centered, simple portfolio. One could place this portfolio into the consevative or moderate allocation, depending upon one's view of such a mix (50/50). At the very least, one can not argue that the E.R.'s are too high (.05%/.08%). The results are listed below using VTI and BND; which will find this portfolio at age 5 years, this July.
From my perspective it takes the lot to make the whole. Lets take a six fund sleeve and in this case my large/mid cap sleeve in the growth area of the portfolio. In this sleeve I subscribe to the five percent min held but ideally place it more towards ten percent.
Since, I can not access my portfolio through Morningstar, at this time, I am not able to provide exact details. However, the largest holding within the sleeve is SPECX at about 25% followed by AGTHX and then all the way down to BWLAX which is the newest and smallest holding and currently represents about eight percent of the sleeve. The advantage of the sleeve is that when one fund falters then there are the others that are able to provide support and to continue to propel the sleeve as a whole. The large/mid cap sleeve itself represents about forty percent of the growth area and about eight percent of the overall portfolio. While the growth area as a whole current represents a little better than twenty percent of the overall portfolio. The global growth sleeve represents a little better than thirty percent, and both the small/mid cap sleeve and the specialty sleeve represent about fifteen percent each where these minority two sleeves only represent about three percent each of the overall portfolio they are a part of the lot of both the growth area and the portfolio as a whole.
If it got to the point that I was to start eliminating funds the small produces and those with the least amount of capital gains within each sleeve would go first.
Thanks for your comment. I too, look often to see what a 50% bond/50% stock portfolio does.
After all, by best friend attempts to take only two fund (a bond fund and a stock fund) portfolio and tweak its allocation and better me. But, his portfolio only generates a yield of about two percent where mine is more than doubble that. At times, he will add a third deminsion and that is cash.
Bottom line, he has to do a little selling form time-to-time to make distributions to support his life style where I do not.
Since, I can not reference my portfolio at this time I am unable to report my five year return number from Morningstar. However, my brokerage reports are reflecting my total return including which includes my trading active at north of sixteen percent.
OS - I'm taking that your brokerage report total return number is a combination of mutual funds and possibly any number of equities, CD's, etc., etc.. Is that correct? No need to break it down, just a yes/no answer here.
With respect to your mutual fund holdings (and believe me I really don't care how many mf's you have) you have talked about this sleeve method. Again, without a whole lot of detail would you tell me how many sleeves you have and what those sleeves are? I see in a prior post that you mentioned a domestic large/midcap growth sleeve for example so I assume that this is one. If you have done this in a previous post I apologize and hope that you can direct me to that posting.
Q 2) Although it was posted in the front part of this thread ... I have provided it again below.
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of four sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve and a specialty sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and the amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole monthly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my 401k, profit sharing, and health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to cash the cash area builds cash within the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash distribution needs with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle from, or settle to, the cash area.
Here is how I have my asset allocation currently broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral targets are cash 15%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, and growth 20%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio monthly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assesment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Currently, I am neutral in the cash area, light in the income area and heavy in the equity area. I am thinking that once year end mutual fund capital gain distributions are paid out this will somewhat reduce the equity area and raise the cash area.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 5% to 25%) Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual) Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 20% to 40%) Fixed Income Sleeve: EVBAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX Hybrid Income Sleeve: AZNAX, CAPAX, FKINX, ISFAX, PASAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 45%) Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, EADIX & PGUAX Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, IGPAX & TIBAX Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, CFLGX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 30%) Global Sleeve: ANWPX, PGROX, THOAX, DEMAX, NEWFX & THDAX Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, BWLAX, HWAAX, IACLX, SPECX & VADAX Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AJVAX, IIVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX Specialty Sleeve: CCMAX, JCRAX, LPEFX, SGGDX & TOLLX
Well OS, thank you for your time. I know in the past that you have mentioned constructing a measure (a pieced together index or benchmark if I recall) by which you judge/rate/rank your portfolio against and that you always felt that you were outperforming in this regard and thus satisfied with your methods and results.
The reason for my question was related, in that I was wondering if there was some mutual fund or ETF Index which you could rate your, for example, Large/Mid Cap Sleeve against. Given your category (sleeve) compositions it looks like those benchmarks would also need to be a pieced together. It was just a thought.
The Large/Mid Cap Sleeve in the Growth Area uses the S&P 500 (SPY) as its benchmark. Year-to-date the Index trails and has returned 2.77% while the sleeve has returned 3.87%. For 2014 the Index bettered the sleeve 13.46% to 11.82% while in 2013 the sleeve bettered the index 34.97% to 32.31% and for 2012 the sleeve again bettered the Index 19.64% to 15.99%. Data from Morningstar.
Old Skeet - well that's interesting because for the funds that you hold in that particular sleeve, M* uses the Russell 1000 as a benchmark instead of the S&P 500 except for HWAAX where they use the Russell Mid Cap Value Index. Two of your funds (BWLAX & VADAX) have over a 40% allocation to Mid Cap stocks so it is not totally a surprise that you've managed to best SPY during certain time periods. However, over the trailing 10-year time period, RUI as a proxy for the Russell 1000 has bested SPY for whatever value that information holds and RUI is also more in tune with the general composition of your funds than is SPY.
Maybe your comparisons work for you but if I was going to perform such an exercise I'd like mine to be closer to on the money. We're all just different I guess. No need to explain your reasoning.
I thought that your question was what was the Large/Mid Cap Sleeve benchmarked against? My answer was and still is the S&P 500 Index for you see the sleeve Xrays out from a style orientation at 38% LCG, 22% LVB, 18% LCV, 7% MCG, 6% MCB, 6% MCV, 1% SCG, 1% SCB & 1% SCV. SPY Xrays out at 30% LCG, 30% LCB, 29% LCV, 3% MCG, 4% MCB & 5% MCV.
Yep, I think I’ll continue to stick with the S&P 500 as the benchmark as from my perspective you have to look at the whole sleeve and not each fund as you site reference to.
That brings the question. Do you know why most church's have stain glass windows? It is because the different colors of glass represent the different perspectives and views of its members. Much the same here on the board ... We all, at times, have different thoughs, perspectives and see things in different colors.
... for you see the sleeve Xrays out from a style orientation at 38% LCG, 22% LVB, 18% LCV, 7% MCG, 6% MCB, 6% MCV, 1% SCG, 1% SCB & 1% SCV. SPY Xrays out at 30% LCG, 30% LCB, 29% LCV, 3% MCG, 4% MCB & 5% MCV.
OS...since these funds are actively managed do you find that your xray data acts to tell you more of where you've been (rear view mirror) rather than where the fund is positioned for the future?
I would trust xray data for index funds, but is that really possible with actively manage funds?
It is true four are actively managed AGTHX, BWLAX, HWAAX & SPECX while two are index type funds IACLX (S&P 100 Equal Weight) & VADAX (S&P 500 Equal Weight). With this there indeed could be some drift. Using Xray does indeed help to follow the funds within the sleeve and after a while one begins to recognize an investment rhythm in relation to the funds positioning with the market.
For example, looking back to my Xray reports ending around December the Growth Area within the portfolio held close to 13% in energy. Today about half that. So where did repositioning flow to? I find it interesting to follow my portfolio and study how fund mangers are moving money from one sector to another with happenings within the markets, etc. And, market movement can be detected by monitoring index funds where as actively manage fund positioning can be followed as well.
Interesting that, and how, you manage to manage it. A kind of reactive rebalancing. It is the very essence of counterproductivity, but must be fun! Is your thinking to add, subtract, or hold as is? Or just play along?
looking back to my Xray reports ending around December the Growth Area within the portfolio held close to 13% in energy. Today about half that. So where did repositioning flow to?
@Old_Skeet Ummm, I think you're reading waaay too much into your x-ray results, perhaps because you'd like to imagine you can do so. When you see sector data as a percentage, and that percentage declines by about half between pt x and pt y, you cannot say it is because your PMs decided to shift/reposition half of the composite $ value of that sector's stock holdings into other slices of the pie. You simply do not have the information to make that conclusion. Given the hit the energy sector just took, it is just as possible that your PMs were invested in some really shitty mo-mo SC energy stocks that declined in $ value by about half (in which case there would have been no "flow" whatsoever). But you don't have the information to conclude that either. All you can say is that, as of pt y, the $ value of energy sector holdings, as a percentage of the $ value of your entire Growth Area in your portfolio, is about half the $ value it was at pt x (Dec).
I’ll try to answer each of you through the below comment.
Although, I did nothing myself to reduce energy holdings I thought it was interesting just how much my portfolio lost percentage wise in the energy sector. No doubt some was lost to revaluation due to reduced price of securities held and some came from fund managers reducing holdings in the energy sector.
To me this creates opportunity for now I feel the energy sector has become oversold. To support my thinking let us look to see what Morningstar’s Market Valuation Graph is reflecting for this sector.
In looking at energy for the past one year period it looks as energy has gone form fair value around mid summer last year and continued to drop to somewhere around December and January. Now in February it seems to be gaining some traction.
And, yes I have been nibbling, of late, and buying in funds that have a good presence in energy. It seems, form review of my Growth & Income Area through Xray it has a value tilt and there is a good overweight to the energy sector. In the Growth Area of my portfolio which has a growth tilt there is less of a presence in energy. From my thinking this would be expected.
For me, I tend to look for out of favor things to invest in. With this, I will continue to explore and buy funds that are favoring energy until I have built an overweight in the sector. One of the funds I have been buying is PGUAX. It seems utilities have now pulled back to where they are now close to fair value and this funds has a good representation in both the utility and energy sectors.
I have linked its Morningstar report for those that might wish to have a look.
In looking at energy for the past one year period it looks as energy has gone form fair value around mid summer last year and continued to drop to somewhere around December and January. Now in February it seems to be gaining some traction.
And, yes I have been nibbling, of late, and buying in funds that have a good presence in energy. It seems, form review of my Growth & Income Area through Xray it has a value tilt and there is a good overweight to the energy sector. In the Growth Area of my portfolio which has a growth tilt there is less of a presence in energy. From my thinking this would be expected.
For me, I tend to look for out of favor things to invest in. With this, I will continue to explore and buy funds that are favoring energy until I have built an overweight in the sector. One of the funds I have been buying is PGUAX. There are others.
Old_Skeet
OS, Have you given some thought to using etfs to serve as way to gain exposure to these sectors rather than adding an additional mutual fund?
Incorporating these etf sector bets...energy (VDE or XLE), PM (GDX or GDXJ), etc...would probably amplify risk /reward and might allow you to more simply control their impact. When these sector bets either meet their goal or don't work out you simply sell the etf.
No doubt, for some the etf route might be the better route while for others the mutual fund route might be the best. However, I still favor mutual funds as a good number of them can be purchased, by me, at nav or at reduced commissions.
Comments
They had decided to smooth the ride with the investment side and downsize the portfolio. They were not trying the "shoot out the lights" with oversized gains in the marketplace, but enough gains to offset inflation and have a decent return after taxation. The plus for them was ease of monitoring.
At the time, the discussion mostly revolved around the point at the time, that "economies" were still very much in a damaged zone from the market melt of 2007 & 2008. The likelyhood that low interest rates (central bank stimulus) would have to remain in place for an extended period of time, in particular from the damage done to the private sector budgets; the regular wage earners and their ability to spend into the economy.
The choice was made to maintain a U.S. centered, simple portfolio. One could place this portfolio into the consevative or moderate allocation, depending upon one's view of such a mix (50/50). At the very least, one can not argue that the E.R.'s are too high (.05%/.08%).
The results are listed below using VTI and BND; which will find this portfolio at age 5 years, this July.
--- 2010 averaged return = 11.89%
--- 2011 averaged return = 4.39% equity market melt in July
--- 2012 averaged return = 10.23%
--- 2013 averaged return = 15.69%
--- 2014 averaged return = 9.25%
--- 2015 averaged YTD = 1.76%
M* 5 year anualized to date = 10.31%
They remained pleased.
Take care,
Catch
Thanks for the question.
From my perspective it takes the lot to make the whole. Lets take a six fund sleeve and in this case my large/mid cap sleeve in the growth area of the portfolio. In this sleeve I subscribe to the five percent min held but ideally place it more towards ten percent.
Since, I can not access my portfolio through Morningstar, at this time, I am not able to provide exact details. However, the largest holding within the sleeve is SPECX at about 25% followed by AGTHX and then all the way down to BWLAX which is the newest and smallest holding and currently represents about eight percent of the sleeve. The advantage of the sleeve is that when one fund falters then there are the others that are able to provide support and to continue to propel the sleeve as a whole. The large/mid cap sleeve itself represents about forty percent of the growth area and about eight percent of the overall portfolio. While the growth area as a whole current represents a little better than twenty percent of the overall portfolio. The global growth sleeve represents a little better than thirty percent, and both the small/mid cap sleeve and the specialty sleeve represent about fifteen percent each where these minority two sleeves only represent about three percent each of the overall portfolio they are a part of the lot of both the growth area and the portfolio as a whole.
If it got to the point that I was to start eliminating funds the small produces and those with the least amount of capital gains within each sleeve would go first.
I hope this helps answer your question.
Thanks for your comment. I too, look often to see what a 50% bond/50% stock portfolio does.
After all, by best friend attempts to take only two fund (a bond fund and a stock fund) portfolio and tweak its allocation and better me. But, his portfolio only generates a yield of about two percent where mine is more than doubble that. At times, he will add a third deminsion and that is cash.
Bottom line, he has to do a little selling form time-to-time to make distributions to support his life style where I do not.
Since, I can not reference my portfolio at this time I am unable to report my five year return number from Morningstar. However, my brokerage reports are reflecting my total return including which includes my trading active at north of sixteen percent.
My best to you ... and, thanks for stopping by.
Old_Skeet
With respect to your mutual fund holdings (and believe me I really don't care how many mf's you have) you have talked about this sleeve method. Again, without a whole lot of detail would you tell me how many sleeves you have and what those sleeves are? I see in a prior post that you mentioned a domestic large/midcap growth sleeve for example so I assume that this is one. If you have done this in a previous post I apologize and hope that you can direct me to that posting.
Thanks for the questions.
Q 1) Yes (taxable & self directed ira accounts)
Q 2) Although it was posted in the front part of this thread ... I have provided it again below.
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of four sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve and a specialty sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and the amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole monthly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my 401k, profit sharing, and health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to cash the cash area builds cash within the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash distribution needs with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle from, or settle to, the cash area.
Here is how I have my asset allocation currently broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral targets are cash 15%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, and growth 20%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio monthly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assesment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Currently, I am neutral in the cash area, light in the income area and heavy in the equity area. I am thinking that once year end mutual fund capital gain distributions are paid out this will somewhat reduce the equity area and raise the cash area.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 5% to 25%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 20% to 40%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: EVBAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: AZNAX, CAPAX, FKINX, ISFAX, PASAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 45%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, EADIX & PGUAX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, IGPAX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, CFLGX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 30%)
Global Sleeve: ANWPX, PGROX, THOAX, DEMAX, NEWFX & THDAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, BWLAX, HWAAX, IACLX, SPECX & VADAX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AJVAX, IIVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty Sleeve: CCMAX, JCRAX, LPEFX, SGGDX & TOLLX
Old_Skeet
The reason for my question was related, in that I was wondering if there was some mutual fund or ETF Index which you could rate your, for example, Large/Mid Cap Sleeve against. Given your category (sleeve) compositions it looks like those benchmarks would also need to be a pieced together. It was just a thought.
The Large/Mid Cap Sleeve in the Growth Area uses the S&P 500 (SPY) as its benchmark.
Year-to-date the Index trails and has returned 2.77% while the sleeve has returned 3.87%. For 2014 the Index bettered the sleeve 13.46% to 11.82% while in 2013 the sleeve bettered the index 34.97% to 32.31% and for 2012 the sleeve again bettered the Index 19.64% to 15.99%. Data from Morningstar.
Old_Skeet
Maybe your comparisons work for you but if I was going to perform such an exercise I'd like mine to be closer to on the money. We're all just different I guess. No need to explain your reasoning.
I thought that your question was what was the Large/Mid Cap Sleeve benchmarked against? My answer was and still is the S&P 500 Index for you see the sleeve Xrays out from a style orientation at 38% LCG, 22% LVB, 18% LCV, 7% MCG, 6% MCB, 6% MCV, 1% SCG, 1% SCB & 1% SCV. SPY Xrays out at 30% LCG, 30% LCB, 29% LCV, 3% MCG, 4% MCB & 5% MCV.
Yep, I think I’ll continue to stick with the S&P 500 as the benchmark as from my perspective you have to look at the whole sleeve and not each fund as you site reference to.
That brings the question. Do you know why most church's have stain glass windows? It is because the different colors of glass represent the different perspectives and views of its members. Much the same here on the board ... We all, at times, have different thoughs, perspectives and see things in different colors.
Peace,
Old_Skeet
I would trust xray data for index funds, but is that really possible with actively manage funds?
It is true four are actively managed AGTHX, BWLAX, HWAAX & SPECX while two are index type funds IACLX (S&P 100 Equal Weight) & VADAX (S&P 500 Equal Weight). With this there indeed could be some drift. Using Xray does indeed help to follow the funds within the sleeve and after a while one begins to recognize an investment rhythm in relation to the funds positioning with the market.
For example, looking back to my Xray reports ending around December the Growth Area within the portfolio held close to 13% in energy. Today about half that. So where did repositioning flow to? I find it interesting to follow my portfolio and study how fund mangers are moving money from one sector to another with happenings within the markets, etc. And, market movement can be detected by monitoring index funds where as actively manage fund positioning can be followed as well.
I hope this somewhat answers your question.
Old_Skeet
Is your thinking to add, subtract, or hold as is? Or just play along?
Thank you stopping by.
I’ll try to answer each of you through the below comment.
Although, I did nothing myself to reduce energy holdings I thought it was interesting just how much my portfolio lost percentage wise in the energy sector. No doubt some was lost to revaluation due to reduced price of securities held and some came from fund managers reducing holdings in the energy sector.
To me this creates opportunity for now I feel the energy sector has become oversold. To support my thinking let us look to see what Morningstar’s Market Valuation Graph is reflecting for this sector.
http://www.morningstar.com/market-valuation/market-fair-value-graph.aspx
In looking at energy for the past one year period it looks as energy has gone form fair value around mid summer last year and continued to drop to somewhere around December and January. Now in February it seems to be gaining some traction.
And, yes I have been nibbling, of late, and buying in funds that have a good presence in energy. It seems, form review of my Growth & Income Area through Xray it has a value tilt and there is a good overweight to the energy sector. In the Growth Area of my portfolio which has a growth tilt there is less of a presence in energy. From my thinking this would be expected.
For me, I tend to look for out of favor things to invest in. With this, I will continue to explore and buy funds that are favoring energy until I have built an overweight in the sector. One of the funds I have been buying is PGUAX. It seems utilities have now pulled back to where they are now close to fair value and this funds has a good representation in both the utility and energy sectors.
I have linked its Morningstar report for those that might wish to have a look.
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/pguax/f?t=PGUAX
Notice the nice dividend yield of about 4.7%.
Seems opportunity is knocking … Got’a Get! And, have a good one.
Old_Skeet
Incorporating these etf sector bets...energy (VDE or XLE), PM (GDX or GDXJ), etc...would probably amplify risk /reward and might allow you to more simply control their impact. When these sector bets either meet their goal or don't work out you simply sell the etf.
Maybe a EFT sector opportunity sleeve?
Yes, I have thought of it.
No doubt, for some the etf route might be the better route while for others the mutual fund route might be the best. However, I still favor mutual funds as a good number of them can be purchased, by me, at nav or at reduced commissions.
Old_Skeet