Yeah, lots of the active equity mutual funds at Vanguard show cap gains hits (eg., VGENX). But the related index mutual funds (eg., VENAX) do not. Nor do the ETFs with same share class (eg., VDE). Presumably this benefit is because of the concept of in-kind exchange.
But as these indices become more sophisticated and tailored, they are essentially becoming a formulated "active" trade...but without the cap gain penalty.
If this advantage is bankable, got to believe it increases favor of ETFs. 'Cause, nobody likes paying cap gains, especially on down years.

Hi Mona. Right, I used the 2014 distributions to show that equity ETFs don't seem to pay cap gains. In case of Vanguard, some of their ETFs are actually share classes of the mutual funds, so portfolio is essentially same (eg., VHT and VCVLX). Now, perhaps it's just because these mutual funds and ETFs are index funds. But, I believe the active EtF folks are touting they enjoy capital gain advantages that traditional mutual funds do not.

Only bond ETFs, which are hard to get around. No cap gains on any of the equity ETFs, looks like, even though some are literally another share class of their mutual funds. Correct?

Charles,
To my understanding, Vanguard has not announced any of their 2015 year-end capital gains distributions yet.
Mona

Only bond ETFs, which are hard to get around. No cap gains on any of the equity ETFs, looks like, even though some are literally another share class of their mutual funds. Correct?

No Capital Gains on the ETFs!

It looks like they've just rolled this page forward for 2015... the link you have shows Q3 2015 distributions. Actually, Vanguard paid out on a number of their ETFs last year (see the bottom of the page for the estimates here: https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/update-prelimcapgains-112014).
They've even already paid out on one of their ETFs (BND) in 2015! See the April distribution for the Total Bond Market fund.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0928&FundIntExt=INT#tab=4

No Capital Gains on the ETFs!

Below is link to 2014 distributions (dividend and capital gains) on Vanguard ETFs...notice anything interesting?
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/etf/all?sortorder=asc&sortorder=asc&sortorder=asc&sortorder=asc&sort=name&sort=name&sort=name&sort=name#upperTB=distTBI&lowerTB=overTBI
Here is same for the Vanguard Mutual Funds...
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/all-vanguard-funds#tab=overview

Nothing jumps out... what are you seeing Charles?

More Blackstone ( BX )
By LISA BEILFUSS WSJ
Updated Oct. 8, 2015 8:36 a.m. ET
0 COMMENTS
Blackstone Group L.P. will acquire BioMed Realty Trust in an $4.84 billion cash deal, adding more office buildings and laboratory-capable facilities to its real estate portfolio.
The $23.75 per share price tag represents a 10% premium over Wednesday’s closing price. Blackstone valued the deal at $8 billion, which may include debt. A representative wasn’t immediately available for comment.
Shares in Biomed Realty gained 8.6% in premarket trading. Blackstone shares were inactive.
Blackstone, the world’s largest private-equity firm, has been raising cash to make deals in the space, last quarter closing a $15.8 billion distressed and opportunistic real-estate funds
http://www.wsj.com/articles/blackstone-to-buy-biomed-realty-trust-for-4-84-billion-1444300840
More on @Scott mentioned stocks here:(Blackstone,Starwood Capital, Brookfield Asset
Management )(This ain't "Mainstreet "finance! )
3Q15
CAPITAL MARKETS REPORT
FOR THE INTELLIGENT INVESTOR
Overview
►
International capital
has accounted
for nearly
16.0%
of all United States sales activity, year to date, up from 10.0% from 2011-2014.
►
Capital investment from China to the United States has exceeded $5 billion in 2015, yet United States investment to China has been cut to $1.5 billion, year to date.
►
Of the ten foreign countries that have invested the most capital in the United States in the past 12 months, all have
purchased assets in Manhattan.
Canada and Singapore have invested in each of the 11 largest United States markets over the past 12 months.
►
Per square foot averages of institutional quality office buildings in major markets have exceeded the prior peak in 2008.

New York City sale prices are currently 14.6%
above the 2Q08 previous high, averaging $973 per square foot.

Asking rents in Manhattan remain 6.9% below the market peak in 2008, and 14.3% below the Midtown 2008 peak.
►
Investors
are seeking higher yields in secondary markets and nontraditional property types as gateway cities have become over saturated.
►
Current commercial and multihousing yields remain significantly higher than the 10
year treasury.
►
C M B S debt has experienced the most growth in 2015, expanding from 12.6% to 19.9% of all outstanding debt.
Concurrently, banks have cut their outstanding debt by 25.8% since 2014
http://www.ngkf.com/Uploads/FileManager/3Q15-Capital-Markets-Report.pdf

Below is link to 2014 distributions (dividend and capital gains) on Vanguard ETFs...notice anything interesting?
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/etf/all?sortorder=asc&sortorder=asc&sortorder=asc&sortorder=asc&sort=name&sort=name&sort=name&sort=name#upperTB=distTBI&lowerTB=overTBI
Here is same for the Vanguard Mutual Funds...
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/all-vanguard-funds#tab=overview

Hmmmmm. Higher yield has made less money in PREMX vs. DLENX. Curious.

Yeah, more capital loss in PREMX. That's what those risk ratings reflect.
I've owned both at different times, don't have either now; only EM bonds now are in the etf PCY, but that's more of a tactical buy/sell deal.

Hi proman:
Not familiar with AC's current lineup - though I did once invest with them and found them OK. Keep in mind that funds like the one you own (Aggressive is the tip-off here) are typically very volatile. Losses of 15-25% in a year followed by similarily large gains are not uncommon. Comes with the territory.
My sense is you'd be more at ease in some type of moderate allocation fund or a target date fund based on anticipated retirement year. And shucks ... There's nothing on your list along that line that I recognize or could recommend.
The one (more aggressive) choice that leaps to mind is T.Rowe Price's Growth Stock Fund (PRGFX). They're a great client-friendly house. And Lipper gives the fund its highest ratings. Another I've owned and liked is Oppenheimer's Global Growth (OPPAX). It also scores well at Lipper. R-Class would allow you to own Class A equivalent at Oppenheimer without paying the customary (near 5%) load. But be wary of many of Oppenheimer's other funds. You can lose a lot of money fast in some of them. And their allocation funds actually tack-on an extra "allocation fee", making them overly costly to own.
Please keep in mind that the two I mentioned specifically (at Price and Oppenheimer) are aggressive funds designed for long-term investors able to tolerate large swings in NAV.

Hi All,
I am new to the investing world and am hoping for some advice on funds to invest in for my 401K portfolio. I am currently invested in one fund ( American Century Strategic Allocation: Aggressive ). This fund doesn't seem to perform as well as our advisor assumed. I would appreciate any advice anyone may have oh what I can do with these funds:
Percent
Invesco Stable Asset Fund
Putnam American Government Income Fund - Class R
PIMCO Total Return Fund - Class R
Oppenheimer Global Strategic Income Fund - Class R
Ivy High Income Fund - Class R
PIMCO Real Return Fund - Class R
AB Global Bond Fund - Class R
American Century One Choice In Retirement Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2020 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2025 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2030 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2035 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2040 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2045 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2050 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2055 Portfolio - Class R
American Century Strategic Allocation: Conservative Fund - Class R
American Century Strategic Allocation: Moderate Fund - Class R
BlackRock Global Allocation Fund, Inc. - Class R
AB Equity Income Fund - Class R
BlackRock Equity Dividend Fund - Class R
Franklin Rising Dividends Fund - Class R
SSgA S&P 500 Index Securities Lending Series Fund - Class IX
BlackRock Capital Appreciation Fund, Inc. - Class R
Neuberger Berman Socially Responsive Fund - Class R3
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund - Class R
BlackRock Mid Cap Value Opportunities Fund - Class R
Oppenheimer Main Street Mid Cap Fund - Class R
SSgA S&P MidCap Index Non-Lending Series Fund - Class J
Eagle Mid Cap Growth Fund - Class R3
Nuveen Mid Cap Growth Opportunities Fund - Class R3
Delaware Small Cap Value Fund - Class R
JPMorgan US Small Company Fund - Class R2
SSgA Russell Small Cap Index Securities Lending Series Fund - Class VIII
Lord Abbett Alpha Strategy Fund - Class R3
Nuveen Small Cap Select Fund - Class R3
MFS International Value Fund - Class R2
MFS Research International Fund - Class R2
Neuberger Berman International Select Fund - Class R3
SSgA International Index Securities Lending Series Fund - Class VIII
Oppenheimer International Diversified Fund - Class R
MFS International New Discovery Fund - Class R2
Oppenheimer Global Fund - Class R
RS Emerging Markets Fund - Class K
The Hartford Healthcare Fund - Class R3
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals Fund - Class R
Deutsche Real Estate Securities Fund - Class R
Columbia Seligman Communications and Information Fund - Class R
I am 30 and just starting to invest so I need to catch up and willing to go aggressive for now. Any help or advice would be very much appreciated. I was planning on reallocating at least 90% of my current funds.
Thank you in advance

Thank you for clearly enumerating some of the issues with ETFs. (Though the hidden cost of NTF platforms is orthogonal - that's a problem with the platform regardless of the vehicle, ETF or OEF - and one that doesn't plague most ETFs.)
A couple of smaller downsides of ETFs:
4. Non-commission trading costs - the bid/ask spread and the (petty) SEC Section 31 fee (currently 0.184 basis points, usually passed through to investors by brokerages).
5. Tracking error - this is the "mini" version of your #2 - structural pricing issues. Even when the market isn't in free fall, there is a divergence between NAV and trading price, due in part to liquidity costs (and I guess also due to the fees that authorized participants pay to the sponsor to buy and sell creation units). This is different from the tracking error of the fund with respect to its benchmark index, which is inherent in all index funds.
On the plus side, ETFs may be more tax-efficient than their OEF counterparts. Only "maybe" for a couple of reasons. One is that well run cap weighted index funds rarely distribute capital gains, regardless of the funds' structure. The other is that Vanguard OEFs share the same advantage as their sibling ETFs, because they are merely different share classes of the same portfolios, not clones.
I completely agree with you regarding S&P indexes (not so for Russell, Wilshire, FTSE). This has been obvious since 2000, when S&P methodically swapped out "old economy" stocks for "new economy" stocks, just in time to see its index (supposedly a measure of market performance) underperform the market by several percent.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10029393/1/the-sp-500-is-a-mutual-fund--and-a-bad-one-at-that.html
Finally, a note on the CNBC link - Usually, when an article is written saying how wonderfully cheap ETFs are, it gives an "average" equity OEF ER of somewhere around 1.3%. That's an unweighted average and a rather silly figure. Since the purpose of this article is to show how expensive (some) ETFs are, it did the opposite, and gave the dollar weighted average ER of 0.70%. A much better figure IMHO, but without labeling, it seems chosen more to support the thesis than to be objective. (Since no one really cares what numbers mean, let's just pick the "best" one for our point.)

Here is a little more info about Polen Capital:
"This is a sign not of laziness but of fussiness among Polen's seven-person investment team, which manages $5.9 billion for institutions, independent advisers and high-net-worth investors, a rapid rise from less than $300 million in 2008. The Boca Raton, Florida-based firm runs separately managed accounts (SMAs) as well as U.S.- and European-registered mutual funds. Nearly all of Polen's assets are in its Focus Growth strategy, which invests in U.S. stocks; it launched a global fund this year."
From: Polen Capital Article Link

A section from blog of Steve Blumenthal, CEO of CGM Capital Management Group, Oct 2
On My Radar: Defaults Will Breach the Historical High Next Year – The Fed is the “Wild Card”
http://www.cmgwealth.com/ri/on-my-radar-defaults-will-breach-the-historical-high-next-year-the-fed-is-the-wild-card/
High Yield – Rising Defaults
Edward Altman, the New York University professor who developed the Z-Score method for predicting bankruptcies, says “defaults will breach the historical high next year and the Fed is the “wild card” that has the power to determine how quickly the current credit cycle ends.” (Bloomberg)
“We have blamed the wider Junk Bond spreads on Energy issuers, but last week there was a buyer’s strike. If this continues, you can say goodbye to easy financing for M&A which will remove one large pillar of support from stock prices”. (361 Capital)
* Altice on Friday sold $4.8 billion of junk bonds to fund its $10 billion purchase of Cablevision Systems Corp., according to S&P Capital IQ LCD. When the deal was shopped earlier this month, Altice expected to sell $6.3 billion of debt, investors said. A 10-year bond was priced to yield 10.875%, compared with yields as low as 9.75% that were suggested by bankers initially, according to S&P Capital IQ.
* Olin on Friday sold $1.2 billion of bonds to pay for its pending acquisition of Dow Chemical Co.’s chlorine-products unit. Earlier in the month, Olin was expected to sell $1.5 billion of bonds, fund managers and analysts said. The annual interest rate on Olin’s 10-year bonds sold Friday was 10%, up from 7% expected earlier in the month, according to S&P Capital IQ.
* Companies have announced $3.2 trillion of M&A this year, according to Dealogic, emboldened to merge by cheap debt and the long stock rally that began after the financial crisis. That puts 2015 on pace to rival 2007 as the biggest year ever for takeovers. Issuance of junk bonds backing M&A deals hit a year-to-date record of $77 billion through Friday, according to data from Dealogic.
* A souring of investors on junk bonds could limit the availability of financing for deals that require a lot of borrowing. Banks have been under pressure from federal regulators to reduce their loans to such companies, and a pinch in the bond market could leave those deals struggling for financing. (WSJ)
* After investors snapped up more than $37.5 billion of bonds issued by junk-rated energy companies in the first six months of 2015, just $5.9 billion has been raised since then, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. (Bloomberg)
* Junk-bond investors are bracing for a surge in corporate defaults that would exceed the most pessimistic forecast from credit raters as the Federal Reserve contemplates its first interest-rate increase since 2006.
* A measure of distress in the market is suggesting investors have priced in a default rate of 4.8 percent during the next 12 months, according to Martin Fridson, a money manager at Lehmann Livian Fridson Advisors LLC. That’s almost two percentage points higher than the pace being projected for June next year by Standard & Poor’s, the world’s biggest credit rater, as concern mounts that energy companies that loaded up on cheap debt are going to struggle to refinance. “Unless there is a miraculous turnaround in oil prices there is likely to be a lot of defaults,” Fridson said. “The rating agencies’ approach isn’t capturing the fact that a large part of the economy is far out of step with the overall picture of the mark” (Bloomberg)
* On HY fair valuation from Martin Fridson this week: Now that the sector has sold off sharply, it’s finally at fair value, finds Fridson, chief investment officer at Lehmann Livian Fridson Advisors. He uses a model that includes current economic and market conditions to judge valuations. (Barrons)
* Note that fair value can move to significantly undervalued as happened in 1991, 2002 and 2008. Recessions are a bear (no pun intended).
* The S&P U.S. High-Yield Corporate Bond Index posted a yield to maturity of 7.51% on Tuesday, up from a recent low of 6.21% in late February. Morningstar data shows that the iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG) has lost 3.6% in the past six months.

Remain tactical with your HY exposure. We are seeing liquidity issues in the market. [...] Corrections create the next great opportunity. As prices decline, yields move higher. Defaults are only a bad thing if you sit on the bus as it falls over the ledge. It will be higher defaults and declining prices and higher yields that will bring us returns like those achieved after the prior crisis.
@AndyJ @Edmond
Well, I hope you two get your signals straight this year about who is going to send the memo re. positive "Oct-Dec seasonality." Last year, Q4, Mr. Junk Bond Market didn't get it. :)

At first glance, I was skeptical of the article. --- And I find the writer very self-serving in only interviewing high-yield managers -- what are they gonna say but "great time to buy". The writer COULD have interviewed some go-anywhere bond managers to see if THEY think there is value in junk. But he didn't do that. Very amateurish.
That said, junk has a general seasonal tendency to do well from early Oct through December. Moreover, the sectors of greatest concern in junk, energy & materials/mining, have had their problems well-advertised. If capital markets function in a manner to anticipate and discount future probabilities & outcomes, then presumably, energy and materials/mining obligations have realized the lion's share of their declines. IF the declines in those sectors is largely complete, then the risk of widening spreads for junk may be minimal. -- Keep in mind, while Carl Icahn recently expressed concerns about junk generally, he has a major equity position, recently established in Freeport McMoran. Would he lay on such a position if he felt the commodities decline had a lot further to go...?
Then too, it looks like the lousy commodity pricing (which has harmed the prospects of energy and materials/mining), means no inflation to speak of, and "lower, longer" rates -- which would tend to be supportive of yieldy instruments like junk.
I've virtually nothing in dedicated junk-vehicles here. But I think I will lay on partial positions in the coming week in VWEHX (in IRA) and PHIYX (in 401k). -- Nothing too big at first. But if the seasonal strength begins to assert itself, I would then quickly add to the positions. -- The seasonals tend to pivot rather sharply in junk -- wait too long and you've missed the move.

"Total Return" is its name. Yes its a mortgage fund. Its managed "for" total return (i.e. not necessarily to maximize yield at the expense of capital preservation).
Gundlach was asked to compare/contrast these when they opened the 2 funds. DLFNX has a broader palette of choices (corps, sovereigns, etc). Supposedly, DLFNX provided a (paraphrasing Jeff) a more fuller expression of Doubleline's outlook on various fixed income sectors. Whereas DBLTX (again, paraphrasing) would be a less volatile fund which would focus on mortgages.
Keep in mind, Gundlach's history is with mortgages. That was his charge at TCW,when he managed TGLMX. That is where his deepest expertise is. DBLTX (like many bond managers) consciously employs a "barbell" strategy with DBLTX ---owning non-agency (higher yield, higher-risk) paper for income, but also agency paper -- the prices of which often run counter to the non-agency stuff. The former provides "credit" exposure; the latter interest-rate exposure. He then changes the weightings of these based on his assessment of risk vs. price/value. The active changing of the weightings mean that DBLTX, limited though it is, to mortgages, seems to work in most environments -- as well or better than most more diversified "core" bond funds.
Yes, DLFNX has more options. But more options doesn't necessarily mean better performance. -- Take a look at PAAIX as an example of a fund with essentially unlimited choices, whose performance continually stinks. Or PTTRX, which is the PIMCO fund most analogous to DLFNX. --- DBLTX, "handicapped" as it is by being limited to mortgages, has trounced PTTRX. What DBLTX has demonstrated, is that for a skilled manager, the "handicap" of being limited to mortgages, can in fact be a virtue Too many choices, for many (not all) professional bond managers may have the effect of impairing alpha.

I sold Ms. Gaffney's fund (EVBAX) a good while back; but, I still own her old boss's (Dan Fuss) fund (NEFZX). Both these funds follow a similar path with her fund (I think) now positioned more aggressively than his. If I were to repurchase this fund I'd put it in the specialty sleeve of my portfolio rather than my income sleeve as it seems, to me, to be a fund that is more of a global tactial allocation fund that generates a good amount of income (just short of four percent). Even at that, I'd much rather own BAICX (which pays out about better than five percent) or AZNAX (which pays out about six percent combined of both income and capital gains distributions) over EVBAX.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
First Pacific Advisors LLC’s decision to change the investing strategy of its FPA Perennial Fund has walloped the mutual fund’s shareholders with a massive capital-gains distribution that could boost their taxes.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Mutual+Fund’s+Overhaul+Hits+Investors+With+Big+Tax+Bill+wsj

Hi, Press.
The firm is supported by several minority owners:
From today"s news: "Lovell Minnick Partners is almost home after a trip through Asia. The firm agreed to sell a portion of its stake in investment management firm Matthews International Capital Management LLC to Japan’s Mizuho Financial Group. Matthews International, also known as Matthews Asia, invests solely in Asia and serves as the investment adviser for the Matthews Asia Funds, a group of 16 open-ended equity and fixed-income mutual funds organized in the U.S. and 11 SIVACs registered in Luxembourg."
The earlier stories are linked below. There is some concern from friends of the firm that the outsiders may have fostered a culture change of sorts, which might account for some of the manager departures and the launch of newer, narrow funds (their newest funds are Value, ESG, Emerging, Focus). As with all stories of institutional change, it's impossible for outsiders (and almost impossible even for insiders) to know quite why things transpired as they did.
For what that's worth,
David
http://matthewsasia.com/matthews-news/press-releases/article-342/default.fs
https://www.pehub.com/2015/09/lovell-minnick-sells-part-of-matthews-asia-stake/