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.
Been looking at this fund for a few days now, reading lots. Find it quite intriguing. Sadly the $100k minimum just won't cut it for me, was hoping Schwab would have the lower $100 minimum since it's OneSource. Any ideas where to get it at a lower minimum, even with a fee?
Can't find readily appealing reasons for me to own ... except to note that from 1/28 to 2/8 VT had this whopping drop but IQDAX had a big and so-far lasting jump. Wonder what accounts for that.
This certainly is not my cup of tea, but why don't you try calling the fund company direct? I did that once with a fund and they lowered the entry if you bought direct from the fund company.
@MFO Members: For the past three years IQDAX has been the top dog in the multialternatve fund category world. Now if we can figure out how to get around the $100,000 minimum, its a winner winner chicken dinner. Regards, Ted Average Multialternative Fund: YTD: -(1.45)% 1yr. 2.19% 3yr. 0.39%
This is a fund that charges 2.27%, has never proven itself in a bear market, and has underperformed the S&P since inception. I fail to see the appeal. Then again, I fail to see the appeal of multialternative funds in general as opposed to say, holding more cash if you're concerned about volatility. @rosorden What have you read that makes it so appealing? Despite my skepticism, I'm very willing to learn & change my mind.
I'm in the same place as expatsp. Just a quick look at yearly returns, it appears this fund held up well in 'down' markets like '15 and this year to date and under performs in good years '16 and '17. I believe a well managed balanced fund will return more over a market cycle than (most) any alternative fund. Bottom line for me, 'timing the market funds' are tough to sustain, both in total return and investors sticking with it long term.
a year by year comparison; this fund versus the Vanguard 60:40 balanced fund versus Pimco Income fund.
Yup. The next celebrity manager is just around the corner. Just wait till March end 2019 when 10 year performance numbers start getting published. Deja vu all over again. So many managers making their name in a bull market, and now instead of having "value" (sic) managers like Bill Miller take the microphone, we will have L/S and Alternative managers who somehow would have spectacular returns with their own definition of what it L/S and Alternative.
Just a matter of time.
In any case, did anyone try putting in order at Schwab? I thought minimums waived.
Managers do own their own cooking FWIW. However Annual reports have diddly in them. You would think funds like these would have some fund commentary.
To quote VF - "You would think funds like these would have some fund commentary." I wonder if it's because the managers of these funds have no idea what's going on either.
Anyway, my thinking is aligned with expatsp as well. Where's the attraction?
This is a fund that charges 2.27%, has never proven itself in a bear market, and has underperformed the S&P since inception. I fail to see the appeal. Then again, I fail to see the appeal of multialternative funds in general as opposed to say, holding more cash if you're concerned about volatility. @rosorden What have you read that makes it so appealing? Despite my skepticism, I'm very willing to learn & change my mind.
Why does everybody insist on benchmarking everything to the S&P?
For anyone who is interested in getting down in the dirt with 'alt-type or quant' investments the attached link will take you to the 'investingforaliving' blog where Paul has done a great deal deal of digging in the various strategies. I include it only as a source of further info for those who may be curious.
@JoJo@Maurice. I should have explained my logic better. IMHO, unless a fund has demonstrated downside protection in one (and preferably more than one) full-on bear market, or unless it has a straightforward strategy that is proven to do so (e.g. hold a bunch of cash or short-term treasuries, not "hedge exposure based on our proprietary risk model"), I'm not going to take its managers' word that they'll do so. Therefore I consider such a fund risky and will compare it to a risk-on benchmark, such as the S&P 500.
Over a full market cycle, sure, I'd compare to a balanced index fund, such as VBINX. But it has to be over a full market cycle. In the recent bull market, more risk has generally made any fund look good.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
Average Multialternative Fund:
YTD: -(1.45)%
1yr. 2.19%
3yr. 0.39%
IQDAX:
YTD: 7.03%
1yr. 9.31%
3yr. 6.82%
a year by year comparison; this fund versus the Vanguard 60:40 balanced fund versus Pimco Income fund.
year '15 '16 '17 '18
IQDAX 7.7 0.2 7.0 7.6
VBIAX 0.5 8.8 13.9 -0.9
PONAX 2.2 8.3 8.2 -0.4
Just a matter of time.
In any case, did anyone try putting in order at Schwab? I thought minimums waived.
Managers do own their own cooking FWIW. However Annual reports have diddly in them. You would think funds like these would have some fund commentary.
http://www.infinityqfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Infinity-Q-Diversified-Alpha-SAI.pdf
Anyway, my thinking is aligned with expatsp as well. Where's the attraction?
https://investingforaliving.us/2018/04/09/quant-strategies-q1-2018-performance/
Over a full market cycle, sure, I'd compare to a balanced index fund, such as VBINX. But it has to be over a full market cycle. In the recent bull market, more risk has generally made any fund look good.
https://player.fm/series/oc-talk-radio-2159080/ep-4th-annual-liquid-alternative-strategies-summit-infinity-q-james-velessaris