Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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.
  • Is there a printing feature on MFO?
    I suspect that Accipiter will, when he next drops by, weigh in on this question. A. has done a huge amount of custom programming for the board and is the person most able (and most likely) to say what's possible and how. You might just need to be a bit patient.
    David
  • market at 5 yrs high - question for the board
    Reply to @Accipiter: Hi there... your point is really well taken, as for example I reported our highest four mutual fund positions as approximately 16/16/16/10%, but our entire mutual fund position is actually 36% equities and 18% bonds, with a remaining cash position of about 45%. As I recall, he asked for the three highest fund positions, so that's what I tried to supply, ignoring the cash position entirely
    In the past I tried a couple of times posting somewhat similiar to Catch 22, but I quickly realized that almost all of us have a different method of categorizing our assets. For instance, my calculated return so far this year on our "investments" is 4.7%, but that calculation would actually be only 1.9% if we look at the entire asset base, including cash. I keep track of both figures because of that difference.
    A professional would surely give me a whole bunch of reasons why my perspective is flawed, but it works well for us, so that's why I do it that way. Makes it impossible to compare our return to the nest guy, though, so why bother?
    .
  • market at 5 yrs high - question for the board
    Reply to @Accipiter:
    32% is bonds, cash and other. Cash and other are really small.
    The percentages are the percent allocation in my total retirement portfolio (multiple accounts, includes spouse funds) and yes 100% includes cash.
    The percentages are calculated the same way. They are different as I said I sold other funds and bought into these funds so that increased the percentages since Art's poll. I was busy recently with this repositioning.
  • Portfolios-Your top 3 holdings?
    Reply to @Accipiter: Thanks man. I've noticed that too...the poll response is typically light on MFO. I wonder if it's because we're a more jaded community =)...in gentler terms, we all have a healthy dose of skepticism influencing our behavior? Or, perhaps we are more enlightened than the average Joes (Ha! Would be nice...) and enjoy a more nuanced perspective than the black-and-white tallies? I remember getting questionnaires from sub-contractors asking to give feedback on their performance, but I rarely completed them. I guess at some level I thought they were imposing. Ditto for polls? In any case, let's keep giving the polls a whirl...see if we can make work for our community. Hey, very much appreciate all you do with MFO.
  • looking for recommendations: new monthly feature
    Dear friends,
    A fair number of small fund managers write each month, asking if we'd write about their funds. Very often these are guys with a fair track record at another fund. Some left in frustration with their previous employer's single-minded focus on asset gathering, some were victims of downsizing, and some were pursuing a passion for running their own fund. Some folks have good success in getting noticed (Seafarer is over $30 million in nine months) and others have great success (Grandeur Peak rolled over a half billion in about a year). Many struggle to get any notice or to reach sustainable asset levels.
    Chip, Accipiter & co. do remarkable work, and a remarkable amount of it, in making MFO run. I do almost all of the editorial content (Chip handles all the manager changes, Junior used to do funds in registration but is out of commission now) and I'm stretched a bit thin, which would make it hard to keep up with all the "could you check us out, please" requests.
    That's background. I was imagining a new feature called "The Elevator Speech" in which I offered small fund managers 150 words. That is, about the amount you could say if one, slightly-manic minute in an elevator.
    The feature might look like this:
    --------------------------------
    Tom Kerr's Elevator Talk
    Mr. Kerr manages the Rocky Peak Small Cap Value Fund (RPSCX), which launched on April 2, 2012. He co-managed RCB's Small Cap Value strategy and the CNI Charter RCB Small Cap Value Fund (formerly RCBAX, now CSCSX) fund. Tom offers these 150 words on why folks should check in:
    Unedited text, not to exceed 150 words, follows
    The fund's minimum inital invest is $10,000, reduced to $1,000 for IRAs and accounts set up with AIPs. The fund's website is Rocky Peak Funds . Tom's most-recent discussion of the fund appears in his September 2012 Semi-Annual Report.
    -------------------------------
    Since the feature would be short, we would be able to do two or three a month if folks asked or we might limit ourselves to one.
    Back at FundAlarm, we did a longer but related feature called "The Fund Manager's Corner" in which I sent a fund manager three questions suggested by folks on the board (what would you be doing if you weren't managing mutual funds? what did you learn from your biggest investing mistake? if there was one thing you could tell a young person choosing between funds and ETFs, what would it be?) and asked that s/he answer two. That might be an option. I suppose a feature called "launching a new mutual: three things that surprised me and two that might surprise you" would be possible.
    It's a really hard time, even for folks with great experience and a sensible strategy. I'd like to help.
    Any thoughts about what strikes you as most interesting or useful?
    Curious, as ever,
    David
  • The burning leaves of the equity market place......
    Reply to @Old_Joe: LOL - But, I didn't think that one was too bad (coming from Ted). Would however suggest that should Chip or Accipiter invite him to dinner ... he might think twice. (-:
  • Looking to add some balanced and income oriented funds
    Reply to @slick: Slick! It's so good to hear from you.
    I'd love to take credit for the site's cool technical features but that's all the doing of friend Accipiter (the artist formerly known as Falcon) and chip (our technical director. They're the reason I can continue to view a website as an act of magic. Cool stuff just happens, whereupon I blink and smile.
    David
  • Report Bugs and Problems Here
    Reply to @Accipiter: Well there are positives and negatives. I think it will be beneficial to me. I think I would not change iPhone version much. It works well in a narrow screen without side bar and other space inefficient enhancements. However home link on iPhone version of blue menu bar would be nice. There is a link to full version of the forum and I believe it set a cookie but I could not easily switch back to iPhone version without deleting cookies.
  • Report Bugs and Problems Here
    Reply to @Accipiter: I guess it is ok as it is. I am new to iPhone. Finally upgraded from 7 years old Motorola razr flip phone last week.
  • Report Bugs and Problems Here
    Reply to @Accipiter: ARTKX above now works again. Let's see one from the end of alphabet soup: WAIOX
    Update: That works as well.
  • Gross's Burning Bond Market Fails To Frighter Investors
    Reply to @Accipiter: actually all credit levered closed end funds are burning for the second day. they have been up in geometrical progression recently and traded at record premiums to NAV. if this downward spiral continues, it will make for a much better entry point -- closer to NAV. if it continues for much longer, i'll be in a poor house though. :)
  • GMO: cash will outperform bonds over the next 5-7 years
    Hi David, Hi Accipiter
    Thanks for reading my post; thank you again for taking time to respond.
    My analysis assumes that a Normal distribution of annual real returns was postulated. That means that the future expected average real return per GMO projections for the Inflation linked Bond category is -2.7 % with a one standard deviation of 1.5 %.
    Since a Normal Bell curve distribution was postulated, GMO anticipates that a negative return of -1.2% to -4.2% will be generated about 68 % of the annual data periods; that’s the area under a Bell curve from minus one sigma to plus one sigma. It does not include all possible return outcomes nor outliers.
    By looking at a cumulative Normal distribution table (available in any statistical handbook), a zero or positive return at the 1.8 sigma level (that’s 2.7/1.5), is achieved 3.6 % of the time. The 3.6 % estimate is the likelihood of all positive real returns, not a guesstimate of an exact annual return.
    That is the value I cited in my original posting. It is NOT any expected return; it is the probability that a positive return of any magnitude will be realized given the GMO analysis.
    Accipiter, a plus 3.6 real return is hugely unlikely. Again, given the GMO forecasts, that high a return would represent a plus 4.2 standard deviation (sigma) outcome. From the cumulative Normal probability table, one would expect that to happen only 0.00133 % of the time. As a recovered Mid-Atlantic state resident, I recommend you “forgetaboutit”.
    At that extreme Sigma (standard deviation) value, a Normal distribution is likely not a reliable modeling of the data or any worthwhile prediction. This is the “fat-tails” issue with most investment modeling. Avoid it whenever possible.
    This exchange further demonstrates the need to read and interpret statistical analysis with extra care. The devil is indeed in the details.
    I hope this clarifies my submittal.
    Best Wishes.
  • Donate button & Amazon link in side bar
    Accipiter's been tinkering behind the scenes, again. His new effort has been to create a plugin that displays our donate button and Amazon link in the sidebar of the discussion area. He thinks the Amazon link, especially, will be more convenient for those who spend a fair amount of time here. David asked me to let the board decide, so I'm posting a quick poll, here. Please take a moment to vote, and also to leave any comments, questions or concerns.
    Thanks,
    chip
  • New User's Guide posted.
    Reply to @Accipiter: Just proves the one drawback of democracy. 3, I mean 4 people are right but 997 have their way. Now imagine if you could see my tongue sticking out in this post :-P.
  • New User's Guide posted.
    Reply to @Accipiter: Thanks for answering. A lot of times people don't realize someone is joking. We just need a few, smiley, grin, sad. Don't need to have "kiss", angry or anything like that.
  • Remarkable Track Record: David Winters And The Wintergreen Fund
    Reply to @Accipiter: The former Mutual Discovery managers went to Pimco EQS Pathfinder.
  • Remarkable Track Record: David Winters And The Wintergreen Fund
    Reply to @Accipiter: Didn't she go to PIMCO? As I recall, it was right after Uncle Bill announced "The Death of Equities" or some such.
  • New User's Guide posted.
    Please take a moment to check out the new User's Guide, posted under Resources, or linked here.
    The User's Guide is full of tips for making the most of your time here at MFO. It's also got quite a few tricks for making your posts just a bit snazzier. Take a moment to take a look at it. Then, take another moment to thank @Old_Joe for all his time and effort creating such a great guide. He revised and edited countless times, while Accipiter and I were adding and removing features and plugins. We're grateful for his skill and dedication.
    Thanks, OJ!
  • Latest Presentation From Gundlach: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall
    Reply to @Accipiter: Yeah, I finally figured that out. Haven't finished my coffee yet, so am not up to full speed. Works fine now, boss.
  • Latest Presentation From Gundlach: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall
    Reply to @Accipiter: Not sure where you want us to click?
    Oh, OK. You mean "here" as in "above". Yessir- works fine now without going to new tab. You be smart fellah!
    I'd forgotten all about this... must have been bugging you a little, though. :-))
    BTW- The sub-par response time that I was experiencing seems to have been associated with a larger-than usual number of open tabs on this browser. Now it's down to the 8 or so I normally keep open, and everything seems to be OK.
    Accipiter, thanks once again for your technical help on this site. I honestly don't know how it could function without your continuing help.