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.
I think I've commented on this particular writer before. So many writers come in with a cliche point of view but fail to martial their facts.
"The expenses are higher (and returns lower) for other share classes of the [PIMCO] Total Return fund, such as B-share class (PTTCX)"
He's writing about something that doesn't exist (anymore). PTTBX (not PTTCX) vanished around the end of 2014, when the last of the B shares automatically converted to A shares. (Nov. 2009 prospectus closed this share class, and the shares purchased in the years preceding that closure converted 5 years from purchase. That's why Shadow won't - I think - find any explicit termination of PTTBX.)
"Looking at performance, ABNDX loses to the index in the one-, three-, five-, 10-, and 15-year returns.
"Furthermore, the holdings for ABNDX average out to be intermediate-term bonds with an A credit rating. This type of bond fund fills the space of a core holding, which is the same for VBMFX.
"Why not just hold a bond index fund?
Perhaps because looking at performance, VBMFX loses to ABNDX in the YTD-, three-, and five-year returns? Or perhaps because, as John Bogle points out, bond index funds hold too much in treasuries?
I'm not saying that one couldn't reach the same conclusions in spite of the amended facts I provided. Just that there are lots of financial "writers" who seem more intent on making points (or filling space) than backing them up with accurate facts.
"there are lots of financial "writers" who seem more intent on making points (or filling space) than backing them up with accurate facts."
Not just "financial" writers, by a long shot. Just hold your nose and check out the editorial and commentary pages of the WSJ on any given day. There's times when the pontification there is even in disagreement with the usually decent reporting in the main sections.
That is for sure with the declining quality of journalism. Both WSJ and Barrons have been reducing their senior editor headcount and one have to select what to read (and forget the rest). I no longer keep my subscription to Barrons years ago.
Comments
"The expenses are higher (and returns lower) for other share classes of the [PIMCO] Total Return fund, such as B-share class (PTTCX)"
He's writing about something that doesn't exist (anymore). PTTBX (not PTTCX) vanished around the end of 2014, when the last of the B shares automatically converted to A shares. (Nov. 2009 prospectus closed this share class, and the shares purchased in the years preceding that closure converted 5 years from purchase. That's why Shadow won't - I think - find any explicit termination of PTTBX.)
"Looking at performance, ABNDX loses to the index in the one-, three-, five-, 10-, and 15-year returns.
"Furthermore, the holdings for ABNDX average out to be intermediate-term bonds with an A credit rating. This type of bond fund fills the space of a core holding, which is the same for VBMFX.
"Why not just hold a bond index fund?
Perhaps because looking at performance, VBMFX loses to ABNDX in the YTD-, three-, and five-year returns? Or perhaps because, as John Bogle points out, bond index funds hold too much in treasuries?
I'm not saying that one couldn't reach the same conclusions in spite of the amended facts I provided. Just that there are lots of financial "writers" who seem more intent on making points (or filling space) than backing them up with accurate facts.
Not just "financial" writers, by a long shot. Just hold your nose and check out the editorial and commentary pages of the WSJ on any given day. There's times when the pontification there is even in disagreement with the usually decent reporting in the main sections.