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.
  • Discussion with a Portfolio Manager
    Hello,
    Although my above comment was brief ... I've done a little more kicking of the tires on the fund.
    For me, I like this fund because it actively engages the market with a turnover ratio of 318%. In addition, it seems even with the fast trading (so-to-speak) it has been able to build unrealized gains inspite of frequently trading. I'm thinking this is because the flash crowd through electronic trading has shortened the holding period for stocks and this has filtered through to many dynmanic and adaptive funds. And, it's forward P/E Ratio is listed at 17.3 which indicates to me it also is looking for some value positions as well as those with momentum.
    The fund reminds me a lot of Ivy Asset Strategy in its early days when I invested in it along with Marketfield. When these funds became bloated (from my perspective) they lost their ability to position rather timely in the ever changing markets. I'm thinking this fund still has some time to run before it becomes bloated. With this, I am looking for a spot somewhere in the growth area of my portfolio. But, inorder to do this something needs to go. By the way I no longer own Ivy Asset Strategy and Marketfield as (for me) they lost their luster.
    The acid test ... I'd put some of my money to work in it right away if it was available for me to invest in through my broker's platform. Currently, it is not. So, that is something my broker neeeds to find a work around on and/or I could also split some money off to another shop where it can be bought.
    So, with Morningstar's five stars (*****) for me it has earned them over the past twelve months. Now, let's just see if the fund can maintain this rating as money (no doubt) pours in as investors discover it. Anyway, I'm thinking it to be a good ride in the current up market and with its hedging strategies will fair better than most in a downdraft.
    Old_Skeet
  • Buy, Sell and Ponder October 2017
    @carew388 "Two ntf alternatives to GABCX are MERFX ARBFX."
    I looked at all three, having owned MERFX for a long time. GABCX is not avaliable for new accounts at either Fido, Schwab or Vanguard ( I can't stand Mario anyway so I would have to hold my nose) The other two are similar but ARBFX has a smaller asset base and has done a little better long term. Don't expect rocketships but it has produced a relatively modest return without a lot of downside. They do better in years when there is a lot of merger activity
    I have to be put into the bearish camp, near retirement and more worried about "the return of my capital than the return on my capital". I have left my long term funds alone but have ratcheted down equity exposure over the year to about 30% to 35% and emphasizing short duration bonds
  • Discussion with a Portfolio Manager
    @MFO Members: Just received an E-Mail from Parker Binion, Co- Manager, KCM Macro Trends Fund.
    Regards,
    Ted
    Kerns Capital Website:
    http://kernscapital.com/kcm-macro-trends-fund/
    M* Snapshot KCMTX
    http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/KCMTX/quote.html
  • Buy, Sell and Ponder October 2017
    Just watching paint dry and reading over the many comments. Thought I’d attempt to gain a better market perspective by grouping a few of the responses. Apologies in advance for the likely inaccuracies and/or omissions. Not scientific. Feel welcome to fill-in the blanks. Thanks to the Pudd for the thread.
    Bullish Sentiment
    “I have been DCA into PRGTX - TRP Global Technology since it was a new fund and the price has doubled since then. Hopefully the fund continues to run wild” ...Jafink63
    “Ah, yes....new funds. They are great. Big up side potential as you get the P.M.'s. Best picks with all the money coming in. Yep, been there done that. Looks like you hit a homer, big guy! If I were you, I'd ride on. Tech is only going to get bigger as time rolls on.” Puddnhead
    “On the equity front: May add a tad to certain REITS (VTR). Possibly also small positions in GE & GIS (TBD). Just re-entered small position in AMZN and a position in UTG on the price-weakness surrounding the rights-offering. Bought a small, starter position GBTC (the bitcoin trust) --as a pure speculation.” Edmond
    -
    Bearish Sentiment
    “In a bit of good fortune, the nice little run-up has bumped two of my funds in the IRA to hit the dollar threshold for a haircut... I'm happy to take some profits off the table before that decision is announced”. PressumUP
    “I remain in the cash build mode within my mutual fund portfolio due to a richly priced market.
    ... More pondering to do while I await the next pullback.” Old Skeet
    “I remain invested, but at the high end of my allowable cash position.” hank
    “With the bull ongoing, am thinking of selling a little even in roth accounts and letting it sit as cash, or in, like, GABCX”. davidrmoran
    “I'm looking to sell some equities & take some risk off the table too”. expatsp
    ”... lowering equity exposure while allowing room to run still”. jlev
    “The stock market is historically overpriced, and becoming more so by the day.”
    David Snowball - October 1, 2017 Commentary https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2017/10/
    “I have to be put into the bearish camp, near retirement and more worried about "the return of my capital than the return on my capital". I have left my long term funds alone but have ratcheted down equity exposure over the year to about 30% to 35% and emphasizing short duration bonds.” sma3
    Undetermined
    “Opened a small position in TUHYX ...” carew388
  • M*: Q&A With John Bogle: Text & Video Presentation
    Maybe I missed it, but does John Bogle discuss what impact stock buybacks have had on equities returns and dividend yields? This is especially important when a company finances these stock buybacks with a bond offering. Do we as investors own the bonds that buyback the stock or the now higher priced stock that now has taken on the debt to service these buybacks? Any then there is the hope of repatriating corporate earning into stock buybacks and it's implication of the markets.
    From a Forbes article:
    “There has been only one major driving force during the market rise of the past eight years: stock buybacks!”
    Link (2017):
    stock-buybacks-the-greatest-deception
    and,
    It’s an incredible thought that the driving force of the bull market in stocks may have been these buybacks. It has important implications for investors.
    Link (2013):
    why-are-stocks-rising
    As we move away from a low interest rate environment and less and less QE, many of these financially engineered strategies could negatively impact future investor returns. Are these issues on the radar of smart guys like Mr. Bogle?
    Everyone is hoping for a beautiful unwind as the Fed removes QE while at the same time raises interest rates. Not everyone will have chair when the music stops and the cost of capital returns to normal.
  • anyone have thoughts about PDI slumping?
    A different take on the mini-selloff, focusing on PCI: the thesis is that slight ticks down in the rate of NAV appreciation were the trigger. (Could apply to most Pimco CEFs.) The author traces the phenom back a few months.
    Imho, it's a little hard to believe all the sellers noticed the slight, short-term leveling off of NAV gains, which were easy to miss and still beat the distribution rate; maybe a few got the ball rolling and general selling followed (?).
    Hat tip to Aalan on M* for the link.
  • Target return of RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX / RPHIX)?
    @msf: Thanks for the fact-checking. Sloppy work on my part. I guessed at the 1.5% figure by discounting the reported 30-day SEC yield of 1.73% for TRBUX somewhat. What I overlooked was that it’s much harder nowadays for managers to play games with their consumer level money market funds (ala Dick Strong / Mercury Capital) with those new reforms in place. Have corrected my numbers in the above post.
    Something I might have added is that the SEC reforms forced money market funds to drop some higher tier corporate debt that the ultra shorts were all too happy to pick up. So, indirectly, the reforms aided the ultra shorts’ relative performance. That’s the point where I moved all my cash with TRP from money market to ultra short.
  • Target return of RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX / RPHIX)?
    I searched the fund and found volumes of discussions dating way back to July, 2011.
    Hear’s one of the earliest - Riverpark Short-Term High Yield Fund Looks Like A Great Place to Park Money: https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/748/riverpark-short-term-high-yield-fund-rphyx-looks-like-a-great-place-to-park-money
    Another early discussion - Riverpark Short-Term High Yield Fund - What Role in Your Portfolio?: https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/3384/rphyx-riverpark-short-term-high-yield-what-role-in-your-portfolio
    With the proviso that I’ve never owned this fund and have only a limited understanding of the methodology employed, I’ll nonetheless venture a few thoughts:
    - Short term rates have risen since 2011 - albeit not by much. Compared to a half-percent back in 2011, the near 1%* available in money market funds today makes them appear better in comparison than in 2011. (*near 1.5% corrected to near 1%)
    - New SEC rules governing money market funds have made them safer in comparison with RPHYX than they might have appeared back in 2011.
    - Both equities and high yield bonds have appreciated greatly since than. I haven’t heard a knowledgeable observer dispute for months that spreads between investment grade debt and high yield are about as narrow today as they’ve ever been.
    Re #3 above - A manager in a distressed debt fund likely has been confronted with two choices since 2011: (1) reach for yield and compromise portfolio quality, or (2) settle for lower (relative) returns while maintaining portfolio quality. Some of the comments regarding “underperformance” of RPHYX suggest to me, anyway, that the fund’s managers have elected the second choice in order to preserve investor capital.
    While I don’t follow RPHYX closely, I periodically compare returns against TRBUX (investment grade ultra short) which I own. RPHYX has consistently outperformed my fund (though with a higher risk profile).
    Is RPHYX still a good investment? As @msf and others have noted, it all depends on your overall investment aporoach and time horizon. How much additional risk are you willing to take on in your cash / cash alternative sleeve in pursuit of incrementally higher yield on that portion of your investments? Personally, I could construct a portfolio in which RPHYX would meet a need. Presently it doesn’t fit.
  • Cash Alternatives
    For me cash is cash ... and, there are few subsitutes for it. I also consider CD's as a form of cash and pehaps some short term treasuries as well. In a low interest rate environment I have barbelled an equal amount of cash on one side and growth funds on the other. When the two are averaged my return year-to-date on the barbell is about 13%. So as a stand alone asset, not counting what my mutual funds hold in cash, my cash position is about 15% of my overall portfolio ... and, like wise my growth area is about the same. For 2017 it is estimated that capital gain distributions on the growth side of the barbell will be somewhere between four to seven percent while the cash side will yield a little better than one percent. With this, form my perspective, this makes the barbell a good income generator with an anticipated payout of somewhere between 2.5% to 4% range. And, a thirteen percent year-to-date return is not too shabby on a 50/50 mix. In addition, this return (and yield) compares favorablely to some of my better performing hybrid funds found in the income and growth & income areas of my portfolio. Year-to-date my mutual fund portfolio (as a whole) has returned about 12% according to Morningstar's Portfolio Manager.
    Morningstar's Instant Xray analysis reflects overall that I am currently at about 19% cash including what my mutual funds hold.
  • Will These New Retirement Funds Catch On?
    @MikeM, In the article the author mentioned that the "newness" of TRLAX will rely upon the rolling average of TRRBX to determine its 5% payout. At least that is how I read it.
    Quote:
    Since the fund is new, it initially will base payouts on the five-year NAV history of T. Rowe Price Retirement 2020 Fund, a 15-year-old target-date fund that uses the same underlying strategy.
  • Consuelo Mack's WealthTrack: Guest: Richard Bookstaber, University Of California Pension
    FYI:
    Regards,
    Ted
    October 12, 2017
    Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
    This week marked the 30th anniversary of the October 19th, 1987 market crash when the blue chip Dow plummeted nearly 25%, behaving like the shakiest of emerging markets. It’s a stark contrast to the market’s current behavior which is eerily subdued and trading at record highs.
    What caused the Dow to drop 508 points on that single day, now forever known as Black Monday? As Ben Levisohn wrote in his excellent article in Barron’s titled Black Monday 2.O: The Next Machine-Driven Meltdown:
    “…experts found a culprit: so-called portfolio insurance, a quantitative tool designed to use futures contracts to protect against market losses. Instead, it created a poisonous feedback loop, as automated selling begat more of the same.”
    Fast forward 30 years, and that type of automated trading program seems almost quaint. Quantitative, rules-based systems known as algorithms, computer- based trading programs and strategies have grown exponentially in number, trading volume and complexity since then. And as Barron’s Levisohn wrote: “…bear a resemblance to those blamed for Black Monday.”
    How risky are the markets now?
    That is the focus of this week’s WEALTHTRACK and our guest, a leading expert on risk. We’ll be joined by Richard Bookstaber, Chief Risk Officer in the Office of the Chief Investment Officer for the $110 billion University of California Pension and Endowment portfolios. Bookstaber has had chief risk officer roles at major investment firms ranging from hedge funds Bridgewater and Moore Capital to investment banks Morgan Stanley and Salomon Brothers. From 2009 to 2015 he switched to the public sector, working at the SEC and U.S. Treasury. Among his projects was helping build out the risk management structure for the Financial Stability Oversight Council and drafting the Volcker Rule which restricts proprietary trading by banks.
    Bookstaber is also an author of two highly regarded books on financial risk. His most recent is The End of Theory: Financial Crises, The Failure of Economics, and the Sweep of Human Interaction. His first, A Demon of Our Own Design: Markets, Hedge Funds and the Perils of Financial Innovation, published in 2007 presciently warned of the perils of the explosion of financial derivatives, some of which he helped create.
    In a 2007 WEALTHTRACK appearance he alerted us about the twin risks of high leverage and complex financial instruments. How right he was. On this week’s show we will discuss the new risks he sees in the markets now, some created by regulations created to solve the old ones!
    If you’d like to see the show before it airs, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Bookstaber about his new book, which can be seen exclusively on our website. Also, a reminder that WEALTHTRACK is available as a YouTube Channel, so if you are unable to join us for the show on television, you can watch it on our website, WealthTrack.com, or by subscribing to our YouTube Channel.
    Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one.
    Best regards,
    Consuelo

  • anyone have thoughts about PDI slumping?
    Something to add to the reading list: a good article from Alpha Gen Cap on Pimco CEFs: see the part about GAAP accounting's limited applicability to funds that are more total return-oriented/positioned, e.g., with big slugs of non-agency mortgages ... which dovetails with the point above about Pimco NAV gains.
    Hat tip to HiddenPointe on the M* forum for the catch; I'd given up on Alpha GC based on what seemed to be mostly advertising articles (for a paid service they offer) without a lot of substance - I've signed back up now to receive their pieces again.
  • TD Ameritrade's Expanded Commission-Free ETF Program
    @MSF I see your point, but it's $6.95 to sell an ETF outside the NTF platform, not $50, as shares are treated as stocks for commission purposes. Instead of selling, probably the best strategy would be to find a reasonable substitute in the new list to existing ETF positions and just add to your position with that ETF while holding onto the old one--an annoyance for record keeping admittedly, but you wouldn't have to realize any additional capital gains too soon. I agree there is a bit of marketing shenanigans here, but I also think there are some interesting new options on this list and it is true that costs have declined for a number of broad bread and butter index style SPDR ETFs such as total market, emerging, agg bond, small cap, etc that are now transaction free. I don't see it nearly as negatively as the Financial Buff does.
    Transfer your taxable assets to Robinhood and you're all set.
  • T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation & Income Fund Summary prospectus
    A couple of key elements are missing from this so far, like equity/bond weighting, if strictly domestic and what equity cap size. It does talk a lot about investments in more risky bond types fwiw. Anything TRP is worth watching in my opinion.
    MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE FUND’S PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND ITS PRINCIPAL RISKS
    Consider your investment goals, your time horizon for achieving them, and your tolerance for risk.
    The fund seeks to balance the potential capital appreciation of equity securities with the income and relative stability of bonds and fixed income instruments over the long term. The fund’s focus on risk-adjusted returns is intended to reduce the fund’s overall risk profile and volatility relative to that of the broader stock market. In addition, the fund’s ability to seek income opportunities outside the stock market may also aid performance when stocks are declining. While there is no guarantee, spreading investments across different types of assets could reduce the fund’s overall volatility since prices of stocks and bonds may respond differently to changes in economic conditions and interest rate levels. A rise in bond prices, for example, could help offset a fall in stock prices.
    The addition of high yield bonds, bank loans, foreign securities, and derivatives provides the opportunity for capital appreciation and higher income and the ability to better adapt to changing market conditions when compared to funds with less flexible investment programs. The fund’s investments in high yield securities may include securities that are unrated but deemed to be below investment grade by T. Rowe Price. In addition, bank loans with floating interest rates and certain other holdings could help to moderate the fund’s price decline when interest rates rise because they may be less sensitive to interest rate movements. As with all funds, the fund’s share price can fall because of weakness in the broad stock or bond markets, a particular industry, or specific holdings.
    While high yield corporate bonds are typically issued with a fixed interest rate, bank loans have floating interest rates that reset periodically (typically quarterly or monthly). Bank loans represent amounts borrowed by companies or other entities from banks and other lenders. In many cases, the borrowing companies have significantly more debt than equity and the loans have been issued in connection with recapitalizations, acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, or refinancings. The loans held by the fund may be senior or subordinate obligations of the borrower, and may or may not be secured by collateral. The fund will primarily acquire bank loans as an assignment from another lender who holds a floating rate loan, but the fund has flexibility to also acquire bank loans directly from a lender or through the agent, or as a participation interest in another lender’s floating rate loan or portion thereof.
    In addition to investing in a wide array of bonds and other debt instruments, the fund also uses interest rate futures; interest rate, credit default, and currency swaps; and forward currency exchange contracts as part of its principal investment strategies. Interest rate futures and interest rate swaps are typically used to manage the fund’s duration and overall interest rate exposure, but futures may also be used as a tool to help manage significant cash flows into and out of the fund. Currency swaps and forward currency exchange contracts are used to protect the fund’s non-U.S. dollar-denominated holdings from adverse currency movements by hedging the fund’s foreign currency exposure back to the U.S. dollar, as well as to gain exposure to a currency believed to be appreciating in value versus other currencies. Credit default swaps are used to protect against a negative credit event (such as a bankruptcy or downgrade) or an expected decline in the creditworthiness of an issuer, to hedge the portfolio’s overall credit risk, or to efficiently gain exposure to certain sectors or asset classes (such as high yield bonds or bank loans).

  • anyone have thoughts about PDI slumping?
    @davidmoran, two things:
    (1) Some investors have had Pim multisector CEFs in general close to hair trigger for a few months now, because the monthly UNII/earnings reports have been showing lower distribution coverage - and this month's (which came out on Monday) was somewhat more brutal, with UNII falling quite a bit for several funds. PCI's been one that's been hit the hardest on that score. There's been a nice runup since the first very short-lived selling bout earlier that was an apparent response to one of those earlier data disclosures, so there'd prob'ly been some short-term valuation concern building after the recent runup.
    (2) There was a really silly article on Seeking Alpha (which if I recall right, also came out on Monday) by some "advisor" who demonstrated in the piece that he doesn't understand CEFs or Pimco's strategies. It cast a shadow on PCI specifically. Appeared it was widely read, so it may have had an influence.
    So the selloff started w/PCI but has since spread most of the way across the Pimco multi landscape, presumably because most have had lower distro coverage from income lately. (The average CEF investor is an individual investor who's in 'em for the income, so selloffs based on fears of income cuts are common.)
    However, given the continuing, large NAV gains of '17, quite a bit higher than the sum of the distributions, there shouldn't be much doubt that most or all of the funds can meet the stated distributions for quite a while before there's a real question about it. They've likely got good cap gains on non-agency mortgages and other assets they can bring into the distribution stream if and when they want.
    A lot of this stuff gets discussed on the M* CEF board.
    -- AJ
    P.S. The selloff started in the only Pimco multisector then trading at a discount.
  • RNDLX
    Yeah - If that shown 1.74% ER at Lipper is accurate, that’s a whale of an ER biting into your returns. Only way it could possibly be justified (perhaps in part) would be if this is some type of exotic fund which utilizes short selling and/or foreign currencies. Those types of income funds would be expected to cost a little more. I don’t know enough about this one to determine that.
    As others have suggested, many fine income funds have ERs far below 1.74%. I happen to like DODIX, which had an ER of around .43% last time I checked. If you’re a bit more aggressive, their DODLX has a higher, but still competitive ER. You won’t see the ER reflected on your statement. It’s mostly hidden from view, but still detracts from fund returns. Worse, some managers will take undue risk with a high ER fund in an effort to compensate for the high ER.
    Interestingly, Lipper scores your fund favorably, giving it 4 (out of 5) for total return, consistent return and preservation of capital (but knocks it on expense). Possibly, Lipper knows something I don’t. MaxFunds, on the other hand, rates the fund 32% (poor). Max suggests a best case for the fund in the next year to be +9% and worst case -12%. Consider those to be educated guesses, at best. I’m not telling you to sell it, but think you are correct in looking at similar funds having lower ERs and also questioning whether this kind of fund best meets your needs.
  • TD Ameritrade's Expanded Commission-Free ETF Program
    @MSF I see your point, but it's $6.95 to sell an ETF outside the NTF platform, not $50, as shares are treated as stocks for commission purposes. Instead of selling, probably the best strategy would be to find a reasonable substitute in the new list to existing ETF positions and just add to your position with that ETF while holding onto the old one--an annoyance for record keeping admittedly, but you wouldn't have to realize any additional capital gains too soon. I agree there is a bit of marketing shenanigans here, but I also think there are some interesting new options on this list and it is true that costs have declined for a number of broad bread and butter index style SPDR ETFs such as total market, emerging, agg bond, small cap, etc that are now transaction free. I don't see it nearly as negatively as the Financial Buff does.
  • TD Ameritrade's Expanded Commission-Free ETF Program
    My issue isn't with the State Street changes, but with TDA promoting a new and improved, expanded list, when in fact it had nothing to do with the State Street improvements and dropped funds (not only Vanguard but iShares (what's the excuse there?).
    It's the age old claim of "new and improved", where the changes are minimal and potentially harmful to existing customers. At $50 to sell existing ETF shares and possible taxable gains in the process, it could take years or decades for current customers to "benefit" from a drop of a few basis points.
  • TD Ameritrade's Expanded Commission-Free ETF Program
    The first link says that State Street switched indexes on existing ETFs (potential albeit small cap gains for existing shareholders), renamed the funds, and gave them new tickers. This happened on Oct 16th, before the TDA switch.
    That explains why the new tickers (e.g. SPDM for THRK) already appeared on the old TDA list. The new list is effective today, Oct. 17.
    You're getting hoodwinked into thinking that TDA did anything to bring down prices, at least based on the SPDR changes.