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.
Have you looked at GOBAX and LROAX? I don't like that they are associated with Legg Mason but the subadvisor seems pretty legit. Fidelity has some, but other than John Carlson being one of the advisors on their Global High income fund I don't see anything to compelling from them.
I'll soon be buying IVSIX. It's run as a conservative global bond fund with a relatively short duration. On the considerably more aggressive side, I just bought a closed-end global bond fund VGI from Virtus. The discount's opened up to over 9% and it's run by Newfleet, which has a good record and isn't very big. Leveraged, though. These are both highly diversified.
IVSIX is a very good option. Co-manager Dan Vrabac retired earlier this year. But remaining manager Mark Beischel has been managing Ivy's global bond offerings for at least 10 years. Ivy has a very deep global analyst team and the fund is managed very cautiously.
LSGBX has a team, but David Rolley is the lead. He is as smart as anyone, and this fund, too, has always been pretty cautious. Even though LSBDX has always had a global footprint, its risk profile has been much more aggressive than LSGBX.
since you stated that "TEGBX" is closed to you right now, why wouldn't you use its sister fund, TEI, no leverage, run by the same manager, often trades at premium and currenty at a small discount. also, by hasenstab, GIM - a tamer version - also currently at a discount.
Reply to @fundalarm: Hey FA...any thoughts on TTRZX? This Global Total Return fund has outperformed TEGBX over most timeframes. Here are these two funds along with LSBDX and IVSIX over the last 5 years:
Actually, LSGBX strikes me as rather risky compared to TEGBX. Seems like it has has very high downside capture relative to the benchmark (which surprised me when I first saw that statistic). Is it meant to be an aggressive fund?
Reply to @fundalarm: Those are both CEFs, which I'd have to hold in a brokerage account. Also, I'm never sure of what to make of the discounts on CEFs.
Reply to @bee: hi bee, unfortunately i don't follow funds generally, except for those few available to me in my 401K and a couple of others. "total return' in the name sounds better and have been more popular recently. it is safer than to concentrate on yield only and should provide manager with more flexibility. but the due diligence and decision is all yours.
As I recall, a principal difference between Templeton Global Total Return and Global Bond is that the former can (and does) invest in corporates as well as sovereign bonds. There are at least a couple of portfolio differences that seem to be a direct consequence of this:
- Global Total Return's average credit rating is consistently lower than Global Bond's - the former ensconced in the junk bond tier, while the latter spends its time with midgrade (lower investment grade) bonds;
- There are no US bonds to be found in Global Bond's portfolio, while they constitute a significant portion of Global Total Return's (you wouldn't expect to find low-yielding Treasuries in either of these funds, and Total Bond doesn't invest in corporates)
So one may be taking on significantly more (credit) risk with Global Total Return.
Regarding bee's comparison chart - while Total Global Return still outperformed, the chart isn't apples to apples - it is comparing a load share (0.65% each year in trailing fees to the broker/advisor) vs. a share class with no 12b-1 fees. A fair comparison would be TTRZX with TGBAX.
Finally, regarding LSGBX - I have wondered why it gets so little discussion (it seems to be a fine fund) - thanks to BobC for his observations. A difficulty with it is access - either high cost (N shares - LSGLX), or a high min ($100K) that I haven't yet found a way around.
Comments
LSGBX has a team, but David Rolley is the lead. He is as smart as anyone, and this fund, too, has always been pretty cautious. Even though LSBDX has always had a global footprint, its risk profile has been much more aggressive than LSGBX.
Hey FA...any thoughts on TTRZX? This Global Total Return fund has outperformed TEGBX over most timeframes. Here are these two funds along with LSBDX and IVSIX over the last 5 years:
- Global Total Return's average credit rating is consistently lower than Global Bond's - the former ensconced in the junk bond tier, while the latter spends its time with midgrade (lower investment grade) bonds;
- There are no US bonds to be found in Global Bond's portfolio, while they constitute a significant portion of Global Total Return's (you wouldn't expect to find low-yielding Treasuries in either of these funds, and Total Bond doesn't invest in corporates)
So one may be taking on significantly more (credit) risk with Global Total Return.
Regarding bee's comparison chart - while Total Global Return still outperformed, the chart isn't apples to apples - it is comparing a load share (0.65% each year in trailing fees to the broker/advisor) vs. a share class with no 12b-1 fees. A fair comparison would be TTRZX with TGBAX.
Finally, regarding LSGBX - I have wondered why it gets so little discussion (it seems to be a fine fund) - thanks to BobC for his observations. A difficulty with it is access - either high cost (N shares - LSGLX), or a high min ($100K) that I haven't yet found a way around.