It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
New Principal Investment Strategies of M&P Growth Fund: [Why bother? It is the same, verbatim.]The Fund invests primarily in U.S. common stocks. In selecting securities for the Fund, the Fund’s investment adviser, Mairs & Power, Inc. (the Adviser), gives preference to companies that
exhibit the potential for above-average growth and durable competitive advantages at
reasonable valuations. In the Adviser’s experience, these securities typically have strong returns on invested capital. The Adviser follows a multi-cap approach and the Fund invests in stocks of small-cap, mid-cap and large-cap companies. The Adviser focuses generally on companies located in Minnesota and other states in the Upper Midwest region of the U.S. (which the Adviser considers to be the states of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin).
NYTimes, Free Options for Filing Your Taxes, February 25, 2022The I.R.S. Free File program offers no-cost online tax programs to people who earn $73,000 or less. The program began in 2003 as a way to offer do-it-yourself tax software to the public, through a pact between the I.R.S. and the Free File Alliance, a collection of commercial vendors.
But the program was not widely used, in part because the I.R.S. lacked money to promote it. While 70 percent of filers were eligible to use it, just 2.4 percent did, according to a federal review. H&R Block dropped out of the federal program in 2020, and last year Intuit, which makes the popular TurboTax program, said it was leaving as well. In its regulatory filings, Intuit said it had left because the Free File agreement was changed in 2019 to “eliminate the pledge by the I.R.S.” that the agency wouldn’t offer a competing service.
Still, eight software providers are participating this year, including TaxAct and TaxSlayer.
Count me in as perhaps one of the few who would agree with Wood. Expecting Wood to be responsible for risk management would be like expecting a high growth tech or biotech fund or an actively managed aggressive mid cap or small cap growth fund to have risk management (maybe some do, but having to hold stocks in those categories I would not expect too much alleviation of risk). Ark funds should be thought of as sector funds in the innovative growth category, and should understandably live or die by how innovative growth stocks are performing. That should be why someone is choosing to invest in ark funds, to gain exposure to that category (and for me personally if I chose to invest in that category I would not want the manager to deviate from that style). If an investor has an outsized degree of exposure to such an aggressive growth type fund, that is the investor’s fault. If an investor is concerned about risk, ark funds should only be held on the periphery compared to the core of the portfolio. It is up to the investor to have at least some degree of knowledge what they are investing in (and some degree of knowledge about investing in general), particularly if deciding to venture outside conventional passively managed index funds. It is up to individuals to understand asset allocation and that various investments should only serve as part of the greater whole, and if they don’t understand that then maybe they should not be making their own investing decisions.I feel bad for the people who bought near the top. This graph near the end is particularly interesting:That is a rather interesting managerial attitude towards risk that seems to me to emerge more from the trader ETF world than the older more paternalistic mutual fund one. But I think it is also unrealistic to think investors who pay for active management don't also expect risk management. It's one thing to buy an index ETF which just tracks a benchmark and getting in and out of it is on the investor, as the fund is unmanaged. It's another to entrust one's money to a manager as a steward of capital long-term. To me, such an attitude is a big caveat emptor. I wonder how many investors in this ETF realized it was really meant more as a trading vehicle than a long-term investment.Wood has suggested that risk management lies not with her but with those who invest in ARK’s funds. It’s tough to see why that should be so. ARK could do more to avert severe drawdowns of wealth, and its carelessness on the topic has hurt many investors of late. It could hurt more in the future.
That is a rather interesting managerial attitude towards risk that seems to me to emerge more from the trader ETF world than the older more paternalistic mutual fund one. But I think it is also unrealistic to think investors who pay for active management don't also expect risk management. It's one thing to buy an index ETF which just tracks a benchmark and getting in and out of it is on the investor, as the fund is unmanaged. It's another to entrust one's money to a manager as a steward of capital long-term. To me, such an attitude is a big caveat emptor. I wonder how many investors in this ETF realized it was really meant more as a trading vehicle than a long-term investment.Wood has suggested that risk management lies not with her but with those who invest in ARK’s funds. It’s tough to see why that should be so. ARK could do more to avert severe drawdowns of wealth, and its carelessness on the topic has hurt many investors of late. It could hurt more in the future.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1086987/why-weve-downgraded-ark-innovationManager Cathie Wood has since doubled down on her perilous approach in hopes of a repeat of 2020 ... [nearly halving the number of holdings]. ...
[No successor with prior management experience; high analyst turnover.]
The firm has no risk-management personnel. ... Wood has suggested that risk management lies not with her but with those who invest in ARK’s funds.
https://www.nuveen.com/en-us/insights/municipal-bond-investing/municipal-market-updatePuerto Rico’s direct debt will be reduced to $7.4 billion from $34.3 billion. General obligation (GO) and public building authority (PBA) bondholders will receive $7.4 billion in new GO bonds and a $7 billion cash consideration. An additional contingent value instrument (CVI) will allow creditors to benefit from a portion of the outperformance in sales tax collections as well. Annual debt service (inclusive of COFINA sales tax bonds) will be reduced to $1.15 billion from $4.2 billion, an over 70% reduction.
I was aware of the issues with Dondero and reviewed articles about them in the past as well as concerns raised by board members at this discussion site. But, NexPoint Advisors' real estate/REIT and BDC focus were a plus in my mind given the small cap focus of HMEZX. In the end, the 5 1/2 year performance record of HMEZX outweighed the concerns raised about the Highland Capital issues. So, I was comfortable to invest 3.2% of my invest portfolio in this fund.....but will remain on the watch for new developments related to Dondero's problems.@davfor, I also watch HMEZX, looks really interesting, but I am confused by mixed record of its manager James D. Dondero, e.g. at HSZAX, HHCZX, etc., see also https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1l0wrph2lc0j6/Nothing-Can-Stop-This-Hedge-Fund-Soap-Opera
Did you check it?
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla