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.
  • an "active share" threshold
    Hi Guys,
    Professor Snowball is spot on-target with respect to the sensitivity of Active Share percentages to a selected benchmark. It makes a difference, sometimes a huge enough difference to compromise its predictive power for excess returns (Alpha).
    The selection of a proper benchmark is an open issue without any industry standard to provide guidance. Overall, the investment industry has accepted Active Shares as an addition to an investor’s toolkit, yet the benchmark determination remains an unresolved matter that is problematic.
    Researchers Cremers and Petajisto introduced the Active Shares concept to the investment community in the mid-2000s. It was welcomed as another way to identify and choose winning active mutual fund managers. That’s excellent; we need all the tools we can get since the odds of selecting a winning manager are not high. Antti Petajisto followed that original work with an examination of mutual fund performance as a function of the Active Share parameter. He concluded that higher Active Share percentages produced superior Alpha, excess returns.
    That outcome is logical since an active fund manager can only generate excess returns if he deviates from the benchmark portfolio. But therein lies a risk. If the manager does not choose his favored stocks or preferred sector weightings wisely, he is exposed to underperformance outcomes. Choosing an inappropriate benchmark can easily distort any evaluation.
    In an earlier posting, I referenced a Vanguard study that used a different set of benchmarks. For convenience, I repeat the Link as follows:
    https://pressroom.vanguard.com/nonindexed/active_management.pdf
    Using its own set of benchmarks, the Vanguard study conclusions dramatically depart from those of Petajisto. On average, Vanguard finds few excess returns from the higher level of Active Share managers. Why? Perhaps it was the study timeframe used by Vanguard ( 2001-2011). I suspect that the selected benchmarks are a major contributor to the disparate findings. Details matter.
    I recognize that all you guys are under time constraints, so asking that you read a technical report is burdensome. So allow me to focus your attention on several of the pertinent Vanguard tables and graphs that illustrate the difficulties with Active Shares, at least from the Vanguard perspective.
    In Figure 4, Vanguard shows the correlation coefficient between Active Shares and Excess Returns during the Performance Period test. The correlation coefficient was 0.08, almost nonexistent at the zero level. That’s almost a random relationship, something like a fair coin toss. This finding directly contradicts the Petajisto conclusion.
    In Figure 6, Vanguard presents Excess Returns for various groupings of active funds as a function of time including both the evaluation and performance periods of the study. Excess Returns for the most successful grouping (the concentrated style) degrades with time while the others are nearly constant. The overarching takeaway from this plot is that the strong pull of the reversion-to-the-mean investing axiom is fully operational here. Performance persistence is a myth in most instances.
    In Figure 7, Vanguard illustrates Excess Returns as a function of Active Share. The plot pictures a widening wedge that demonstrates that outcome risk is increasing with an increasing Active Share component. Note that there are as many data points in negative Excess Returns quadrant as there are in the positive Alpha section. These data do not inspire a high confidence level.
    In Figure 11, Vanguard ranks the funds by quartile on both an Active Share and cost basis. As a general observation, the Vanguard study only finds that high Active Shares produce positive Alpha when they are combined with low costs. Also, these positive Alpha zones, in terms of absolute gains, are greatly outweighed by the many negative zones with substantially higher absolute negative Alphas. Buyer beware.
    I have only summarized some of the Vanguard study highlights in the hope of lessening your burden. The Vanguard report offers other investor insights.
    I believe both Petajisto and Vanguard conducted honest studies. The disparate results are likely timeframe and/or benchmark related. This is not a simple problem. Newspaper legion H.L. Mencken fully captured the dangers inherent in modeling nonlinear systems with his pity observation that “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” I sure don’t know who is right in this instance. Perhaps both are.
    I do believe that Active Share is yet another tool to assess active management performance. But it is not a magic elixir; it should not be used in isolation. It should be merged with other discriminating signals. The ultimate utility of the Active Share measure is an unsettled issue. Whenever using it, please be sure to understand the appropriateness of its benchmark, and please use it as a part of other decision making inputs.
    So, I’m coupled to Professor David’s hip on the determination of Active Share benchmark selection.
    I’ll close with a Will Rogers quote that always appealed to me: “It isn’t what you don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.”
    Best Wishes.
  • Scott Burns: Hedge Funds: Big on Buns, Short On Beef
    His Coffeehouse Portfolio sucked last year relative to S&P, so he has to find a target to feel good about himself. A bit of class bashing to appeal to the masses will surely help. Those dumb rich deserve to lose.
    Never mind that these lazy portfolio peddlers used a bad benchmark of beating S&P to promote them even though they added riskier assets than S&P that over performed over S&P to give them bragging rights. That fallacy came home to roost last year.
    Never mind that they confused the volatility reduction benefits of diversification to imply higher risk-adjusted performance. This fallacy was shown up last year.
    Never mind that the world of hedge funds is a very wide one from capital preservation strategies to absolute returns to focused multi year bets to ... to make an average over all of them meaningless. Why not compare the average returns over ALL mutual funds to average returns over all hedge funds.
    Opium for the masses.
  • Putnam Equity Spectrum Fund PYSAX
    Does anyone has an opinion about this unusual fund, investing in leveraged companies? It has load 5.75%, but it is waived at Fidelity, see https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/74676P169
    image Red line-midcap value, green line- S&P500
    The fund was launched on 05/18/2009, and then it was growing fast and steady. In part, it was because of 22% in health care, but this alone probably cannot account for its success and stability. The manager, David Glancy, was managing Fidelity Leveraged Company fund FLVCX 12/19/2000 — 07/01/2003, outperforming midcap stocks by 60% during that short time. These 60% played the main role in the historical outperformance of FLVCX since inception to the present time.
    In 2003, David Glancy started a hedge fund, "with mixed results", and then he returned to the mutual fund business in 2009. Now he is outperforming his previous charge FLVCX with smaller volatility. His other fund, Putnam Capital Spectrum A PVSAX (larger companies), also does well. For a discussion, see also http://files.parsintl.com/eprints/80013.pdf
  • WSJ: (Week In Review) Shaky Data Can't Stop Stock Rally ... Closing Major Indexes ... P/E Ratios
    Reply to @Ted:
    How so?
    I had net gains for the week ... and, actually made money! And, you must have like wise.
    And, even for today all my "risk on" and "risk off" proxies were all green. Go figure.
    And, Ted, I could neve replace the "Linkmaster" which is you.
    Skeet
  • Mr. Berkowitz's January 2014 Fairholme Fund Report
    Reply to @Shostakovich: I think Berkowitz has a tremendous track record. I've disagreed on Sears for a while. The AIG/BAC combo are more the annoyance of labeling a company "too big to fail", which effectively gives them the ability to play the armageddon card whenever anyone attempts to dismantle/regulate/do anything the company may not agree with.
    I respect his record and think he's an excellent investor. However, just because I think he's a tremendous investor doesn't mean I can't strongly disagree on a few things, Sears being the primary one. I actually think Sears is undervalued, but again, I think there's a road between here-and-value that is not without potential problems. I also think $150 is wildly optimistic. Additionally, hedge fund Bronte Capital's article on the whole thing summarizes some of my broader views on the Sears situation, and I agree with a fair amount of the detailed comments under the article.
    But that's just me.
  • 12 legendary investors on what to do with your money now
    Reply to @catch22: Hi Catch. Re: Brandes' (3 year) comment and your request for possible interpretations.
    ---
    First, What's wrong with "speculation" within the larger context of some overall plan? To me, the term implies taking a calculated near-term risk in pursuit of an out-sized near-term gain (which can than be rolled into one's more diversified holdings). Suspect this happens all the time in most markets, with the highly volatile ones like venture capital, emerging markets and commodities among the most commonly used.
    The mutual fund industry is well aware of speculative investing by fund holders and has gone to great measures in recent years to prevent "skimming" of funds' gains by savvy investors willing to buy low and than dump a fund after short term gains (a reason behind early redemption fees, prohibitions against selling and repurchasing within 30 days, fair value pricing, etc.). Actually, these same fund sponsors deserve much of the blame for investor short-sightedness when they design and promote such narrow geographic and sector offerings as "Africa and the Middle East" or "3-D Printing". (I assume the second will be available in both color and B&W:-)
    The actual preferred holding period for longer term investments (which I'd agree should comprise the bulk of most people's holdings) is subject to debate. No one has a crystal ball in that regard. Buffett has commented that "forever" is the best time-frame. Looking at some of our board discussions, I'd say anything longer than 18 months may qualify. In many cases, brokerage fees and tax considerations affect that decision. (One of the nice things about no-load funds held at a fund house within a tax-shelter is these constraints do not normally apply.) The IRS currently considers cap gains on investments held longer than one year to be "long term" gains - at variance from Brande's three-year assessment of a long term investment.
    Like many here, I adhere to a long-standing (and probably overly complex) plan with different branches, sleeves, legs, components (or whatever else one prefers to call them) allotted set percentages within the overall portfolio and rebalanced occasionally. So, the task for me is to find good low cost funds that fit these various components. If I find such a fund - say perhaps a natural resource fund that fits that area - than I'm very loath to sell it unless the fund changes significantly or management proves inept at execution. Some of my funds now date back to around 20 years ago when I abandoned my plan-appointed advisor and started doing my own research and planning.
    Hope this provides one answer to the question that Mr. Brandes (and you) proffer.
    Regards
  • 12 legendary investors on what to do with your money now
    From the article some interesting comments quoted here:
    Peter Schiff: "I am a 50-year-old guy with a family, but I would go with all equities, precious metals and little bonds. I’d buy more gold stocks and bullion because of how cheap they are. Also, buy dividend-paying foreign equities and get into emerging markets."
    Charles Brandes: "I don’t know if your readers would believe this, but if you have a period of time for your investments shorter than three to five years, you’re not an investor. You’re a speculator."
    Satish Rai: "People haven’t figured out that they need to take on a different risk profile. They believe that, as you get closer to retirement, you should shift money from equities to fixed income. That’s all based on the 30-year bull market in bonds we’ve been through, not looking forward. In this environment—in which interest rates are low—fixed income is going to give you 0% capital appreciation."
    James O'Shaughnessy: "Extrapolating the bond market’s fantastic performance since 1981 into the future. We think long-term bonds will be going into a multidecade bear market, and we’re urging investors to invest only in short-term bonds. My entire adult life has been lived in a bull market for bonds. But bonds can be very risky, especially over long periods. If you’d started investing in 20-year bonds in 1940, by 1981, you would have had about a 63% real total loss on the portfolio. I’m not saying don’t buy bonds; I’m saying be careful which bonds you buy."
  • RSIVX - yield
    Reply to @Vert: I see ! thanks Vert.
    Regards,
    Ted
    Gains Distributions RSIVX
    Distribution
    Total
    01/31/2014 10.21 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0423 0.0423
    12/30/2013 10.18 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0321 0.0321
    12/12/2013 10.18 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004
    11/29/2013 10.15 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0122 0.0122
    10/31/2013 10.08 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0230 0.0230
  • SEEDX Shareholder Letter
    A little humble pie,tax efficiency,and value perspective.
    "Although most fund
    managers, ourselves included, prefer to be evaluated using a time frame longer than one year,
    and ideally over a full market cycle,
    we know our ultimate
    goal is to both minimize capital loss
    as well as provide competitive returns, i.e. outperform peer funds and benchmarks, a goal we did
    not achieve in 2013"
    SEEDX annual shareholder letter.
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13183794/Shareholder Letters/Oakseed Opportunity Fund Shareholder Letter.pdf
  • RSIVX - yield
    The yield is strongly affected by asset growth. A few months ago the fund was small. It invested cash into securities. Those securities may be generating a large income stream, but that stream is now being divided among many more shareholders. Morty argues that means that you see more low-tax capital gains than high tax income gains, so long as the investor base continues to grow.
    If you haven't done so, you might listen to his explanation of yield in the conference call.
    For what that's worth,
    David
  • For Investors, A 'Lazy Portfolio' May Be A Tonic For Uncertain 2014
    These one tonic for all investors is too simplistic because it doesn't customize for individual goals and risk profiles. One can do a better job than this.
    For example, if you are passive type of investor (not to be confused with passive funds) that just want to rebalance once in a while:
    In the accumulation phase with 25+ years of horizon and small portfolio, up to 80% in equities, high beta bonds most in indexed funds with a. Allocation customized to your risk profile (via wealthfront. betterment, competent advisor who is not a fund pusher etc).
    In the growth phase with 15-20 years horizon and a non-trivial portfolio ($200k+), up to 60% in indexed equities, 20% in low beta indexed bonds, 20% in specialty funds such as allocation funds and sector funds with funds chosen for high beta exposure NOT minimum volatility but with a proven record of consistent performance.
    In the preservation/drawdown phase with little or no new money coming in relative to the portfio size, up to 20% in indexed equities, 20% in indexed bonds, 40% in specialty funds with funds chosen amongst actively managed for low volatity/drawdowns/preservation, 20% for income producing instruments actively managed capital preservation.
    The above are just milestones with some transition plan between them.
    If you have the aptitude for active investing (not to be confused with actively managed funds and fundaholics who just depend on internet suggestions) and the time to actively monitor the portfolio
    If you only have time for changes 3 or 4 times a year since each change requires some research, split the indexed equities above with a mix of high beta (more concentrated) actively managed funds and non-cyclical sector index funds - health sector, tech, utilities, industrials, etc. Have a buy and sell plan for these if any of them were to head down from normal.
    If you have time and aptitude for learning quantitative stuff and can monitor and buy/sell at any time (not to be confused with frequent trading), read up all you can on some basis TA such as momentum and trends and use the concentrated funds allocation above to buy/sell with sector rotation.
    Obviously, everyone is different and falls in between so interpolate between them. If you are an outlier that marches to your own drumbeat, devise your own portfolio strategy.
  • our February 2014 issue is up
    OK, Charles, I think I give up. I tried to review my monthly reports from TDA on-line and found my original investment in 2012 of $7.5K. My "gain/loss" report on TDA is negative a few cents a share, which I thought represented my historical investment. As far as I can tell, my cost basis has been increased with each yearly dividend/cap gains distribution. While I thought I had added a $500 contribution sometime along the line, I can't find it; and my total holdings are a bit over $8K, so I made some small amount of money, even if TDA says I am currently negative. Guess I'd better learn to construct my own spreadsheets, but I really don't have the time to go back up to 10 years and enter data..
  • best low risk portfolio
    If your goal for a certain % of your portfolio was absolute returns with almost zero probability of loss, how would you construct that portfolio?
    Treasuries held to maturity is about the only asset class that can provide a return without capitol loss assuming political stability of the US.
    What is the goal of such a portfolio? Capital preservation? Lower volatility? There are extremely few goals where such a portfolio or part of makes sense. And then there is the issue of how much to allocate. If you allocate just a tiny bit, it makes no difference relative to cash but OK for indulging in fund collection as a hobby. If you allocate a lot then the portfolio returns would be severely affected. Just trying to understand the goals.
  • Hey, about that balancing act; err; Balanced Fund.....
    Reply to @Crash: M* World Allocation Fund definition:
    "World Allocation: World-allocation portfolios seek to provide both capital appreciation and income by investing in three major areas: stocks, bonds, and cash. While these portfolios do explore the whole world, most of them focus on the U.S., Canada, Japan, and the larger markets in Europe. It is rare for such portfolios to invest more than 10% of their assets in emerging markets. These portfolios typically have at least 10% of assets in bonds, less than 70% of assets in stocks, and at least 40% of assets in non-U.S. stocks or bonds." (emphasis added)
    Though they don't say what the cutoff is, there is usually a percentage boundary between similar categories, and it's apparently above 20% for non-U.S. stocks to differentiate between world and moderate allocation. Best to remember that any categorization is at least somewhat arbitrary, and the trick is to use the category ratings only as the first point of analysis and dig into the details from there.
    There's a pretty thorough description of categories on M* under the glossary entry "Morningstar Category."
  • Open Thread: What Are You Buying/Selling/Pondering (HFIB Edition)
    If you already have a position in FBIOX and have significant gains and you are convinced of longer term fundamentals, it might be worth holding with a stop limit.
    Assets sometimes go up and down on fundamentals and sometimes on technicals. Biotech is purely trading on technicals at the moment because of all the momentum trading and performance chasing.
    If you are a trading, strongly recommend putting a stop limit a bit below 200 as people trading on technicals will run at that point expecting a retracement to 185. This is the likely scenario if the markets continue their correction.
    For people buying on "dips", for something this volatile, 3-5% dips arent really dips. Consider the 5% upside potential vs 15%+ downside potential in the short term. If the market keeps heading down, don't chase it down at every dip. Better to wait for the market to stabilize or the resistance to hold around 185 for this fund.
    There is no way to accurately predict what might happen but when an asset is this stretched, the risk/reward ratio becomes lopsided. Just some suggestions to do with it as you wish.
    FBIOX is a good fund in a promising sector for active investors, not for passive buy and hold investors given its volatility and concentration. I agree with the suggestions above of holding broader funds in health care sector as a satellite fund to your core portfolio.
  • (Should we) Give PAUIX Third Pillar strategy more time?
    Why does everything we hold have to produce great returns all the time? There are reasons to own funds like PAUIX, if for nothing else than to have a contrarian position to reduce losses in selloffs. As I look at its YTD numbers, the S&P 500 is down about 4%. PAUIX is down 0.5%. Yes, holding it over the last 5 years would have been a drag on gains. But most investors I know have found that downside protection is a heck of a lot more important than matching or beating the market in good times. And the last 5 years, PAUIX has averaged better than 8.6%. I do not see that as bad for a fund that is run to beat the CPI by 6.5% over a market cycle. Manager Rob Arnott has been successful, but unfortunately some people do not read fund prospectuses, and then become disillusioned when it does not beat some crazy asset class in which M* has decided (wrongly) it belongs. Read the prospectus! Read the annual reports! The fund is not supposed to look like VWELX or any other so-called balanced fund. Ted, I respect you a lot. But I disagree with your take on this one.
    Am I thrilled with 2013 returns for PAUIX? Of course not, but I also understand what the fund is trying to do. Look at 2008 and understand how this fund would have reduced volatility and loss in a portfolio. THAT is why I would own this fund. Yeah, 2013 was a stinker of a year for it, but given the crazy bull market for domestic stocks, it was also not totally surprising. We expect the manager to do what he says the fund will do, nothing more, nothing less. So far, it has done just that. Diversification works, sometimes whether we like it or not.
    Just MHO.
  • Artisan Global Value Fund closing to new investors
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312514024568/d665373d497.htm
    497 1 d665373d497.htm ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS, INC.
    ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS, INC.
    SUPPLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2014
    TO THE PROSPECTUS OF ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS, INC.
    DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2014
    Artisan Global Value Fund is closing to most new investors effective as of the close of business on February 14, 2014. Until that time, the fund will remain open. The following replaces the text under the heading “Who Is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Artisan Fund?” on pages 61 – 62 in Artisan Funds’ prospectus in its entirety through February 14, 2014:
    Artisan International Small Cap Fund, Artisan International Value Fund, Artisan Mid Cap Fund, Artisan Mid Cap Value Fund, Artisan Small Cap Fund and Artisan Small Cap Value Fund are closed to most new investors. The Funds do not permit investors to pool their investments in order to meet the eligibility requirements, except as otherwise noted below. Unless specified below, each individual in a pooled vehicle must meet one of the eligibility requirements set forth below.
    If you have been a shareholder in a Fund continuously since it closed, you may make additional investments in that Fund and reinvest your dividends and capital gain distributions in that Fund, even though the Fund has closed, unless Artisan Partners considers such additional purchases to be not in the best interests of the Fund and its other shareholders. An employee benefit plan that is a Fund shareholder may continue to buy shares in the ordinary course of the plan’s operations, even for new plan participants.
    You may open a new account in a closed Fund only if that account meets the Fund’s other criteria (for example, minimum initial investment) and:
    • you are already a shareholder in the closed Fund (in your own name or as beneficial owner of shares held in someone else’s name) (for example, a nominee, custodian or omnibus account holding shares for the benefit of an investor would not be eligible to open a new account for its own benefit or for the benefit of another customer, but the investor would be eligible to open a new account in that Fund);
    • you are a shareholder with combined balances of $100,000 in any of the Artisan Funds (in your own name or as beneficial owner of shares held in someone else’s name);
    • you receive shares of the closed Fund as a gift from an existing shareholder of the Fund (additional investments generally are not permitted unless you are otherwise eligible to open an account under one of the other criteria listed);
    • you are transferring or “rolling over” into a Fund IRA account from an employee benefit plan through which you held shares of the Fund (if your plan doesn’t qualify for rollovers you may still open a new account with all or part of the proceeds of a distribution from the plan);
    • you are purchasing Fund shares through a sponsored fee-based program and shares of the Fund are made available to that program pursuant to an agreement with Artisan Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC and Artisan Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified the sponsor of that program, in writing, that shares may be offered through such program and has not withdrawn that notification;
    • you are an employee benefit plan or other type of corporate or charitable account sponsored by or affiliated with an organization that also sponsors or is affiliated with (or is related to an organization that sponsors or is affiliated with) another employee benefit plan or corporate or charitable account that is a shareholder of the Fund;
    • you are a client (other than an employee benefit plan) of an institutional consultant and Artisan Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified that consultant in writing that you may invest in the Fund;
    • you are an employee benefit plan that is a client of an institutional consultant that has an existing business relationship with Artisan Partners or Artisan Funds and Artisan Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified that consultant in writing that the plan may invest in the Fund (only available for investments in Artisan Mid Cap Fund, Artisan Mid Cap Value Fund, Artisan Small Cap Fund and Artisan Small Cap Value Fund);
    • you are a client (other than an employee benefit plan) of a financial advisor or a financial planner, or an affiliate of a financial advisor or financial planner, who has at least $500,000 of client assets invested with the Fund or at least $1,000,000 of client assets invested with Artisan Funds at the time of your application;
    • you are a client of Artisan Partners or you have an existing business relationship with Artisan Partners and, in the judgment of Artisan Partners, your investment in a closed Fund would not adversely affect Artisan Partners’ ability to manage the Fund effectively; or
    • you are a director or officer of Artisan Funds, or a partner or employee of Artisan Partners or its affiliates, or a member of the immediate family of any of those persons.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A Fund may ask you to verify that you meet one of the guidelines above prior to permitting you to open a new account in a closed Fund. A Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. A Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these guidelines.
    The Funds’ ability to impose the guidelines above with respect to accounts held by financial intermediaries may vary depending on the systems capabilities of those intermediaries, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those intermediaries.
    Call us at 800.344.1770 if you have questions about your ability to invest in a closed Fund.
    Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference
  • World Allocation Fund With Low Risk
    Reply to @willmatt72: With risk / reward as a consideration I would tilt my Roth towards your riskiest / rewardiest (is this a word cman?) investments. If you are lucky enough to reap the reward of the risk it will also be on a tax free basis (a 10-45% bonus based on your tax rate).
    Of course, potential losses (risk) are best managed in a taxable account where you can harvest tax losses and I haven't figured out a way to move my Roth losses back into my taxable accounts other than during the Roth conversion period by recharacterizing Roth conversion accounts that produce losses rather than gains.
  • World Allocation Fund With Low Risk
    Dear willmatt72 What World Allocation means. Is this what your looking for.
    World Allocation
    World-allocation portfolios seek to provide both capital appreciation and income by investing in three major areas: stocks, bonds, and cash. While these portfolios do explore the whole world, most of them focus on the U.S., Canada, Japan, and the larger markets in Europe. It is rare for such portfolios to invest more than 10% of their assets in emerging markets. These portfolios typically have at least 10% of assets in bonds, less than 70% of assets in stocks, and at least 40% of assets in non-U.S. stocks or bonds. Morningstar
    Regards,
    Ted
    List Of World Allocation Funds:
    http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/world-allocation?int=af9256
  • World Allocation Fund With Low Risk
    I recently sold MAPIX because I did not want to give up all my gains from the past year. In addition, I haven't been happy with the fund's performance since Madsen left in 2012. Anyway, I'm looking for something less volatile/lower risk that is more of a World Allocation fund with some exposure to Asia/Japan. Any suggestions?