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.
  • Debate Over 60/40 Allocation Continues …
    @FD1000. Question for you sir
    Would you say it's harder now and going forward as the market dynamics have changed. Meaning markets are driven more by flow, folks putting money in every month via 401k, company share buy backs, small investors using options more, central bank intervention, less capital intensive companies out there, meaning software based etc....
    Best regards
    Baseball fan
  • Capital Groups ETF's CGUS and CGDV
    Regarding PARWX...
    Jerome Dodson managed PARWX from inception (04/29/2005) until he retired on 12/31/2020.
    Billy Hwan became a PARWX comanager on 05/01/2018 and the sole manager in 2021.
    Mr. Dodson took a contrarian approach which resulted in an elevated risk profile.
    Mr. Hwan takes a relative value approach and stated that he wanted to reduce the fund's beta vs. the S&P 500.
    Past PARWX performance may not be very indicative of future performance.
    Turnover is also a lot lower under Hwan than it often was under Dodson. I held it for a while in the early 2010's and got rid of it due to the high turnover. I probably should have held my nose. Whatever replaced PARWX in my portfolio probably didn't do as well.
    IIRC they didn't even market it as a value fund until they started thinking about the transition. It was just Dodson's project.
    I think Hwan gets some credit for the three year alpha of 4.53. Eight of the top ten holdings were bought under his watch, as were most of the top 25.
    OTOH, they are no longer fully independent since their partnership with AMG. And their funds after PARWX and PRBLX are run of the mill.
    Buying actively managed funds requires a lot more leg work, that's for sure. Given the OP's comments, he could also look at funds like DODGX and VEIRX as alternatives in the active space that would take him in different directions from growth.
    For etf's I would add SCHD and RWL if they haven't been mentioned before.
  • Capital Groups ETF's CGUS and CGDV
    Regarding PARWX...
    Jerome Dodson managed PARWX from inception (04/29/2005) until he retired on 12/31/2020.
    Billy Hwan became a PARWX comanager on 05/01/2018 and the sole manager in 2021.
    Mr. Dodson took a contrarian approach which resulted in an elevated risk profile.
    Mr. Hwan takes a relative value approach and stated that he wanted to reduce the fund's beta vs. the S&P 500.
    Past PARWX performance may not be very indicative of future performance.
  • Reorganization at Grandeur Peak Global Advisors (similar to Rondure post)
    Received this email today from GP:
    June 20, 2023
    Dear Fellow Shareholder,
    Thank you for your assistance with our recent proxy vote. The Grandeur Peak Funds proxy proposal easily passed, and we are now able to move the Funds’ back office service provider from SS&C (formerly ALPS) to Ultimus Fund Solutions.The date of this conversion has been changed to the weekend of July 22-23, 2023.
    Below is important information that affects Grandeur Peak Funds’ direct shareholder accounts after this transition:
    -Your existing account number(s) will remain the same.
    -For those utilizing online account access, the online account system will be changing. --To continue to access your account online following the transfer agency conversion, visit grandeurpeakglobal.com and click “LOG IN” as you normally would. This will take you to the new Grandeur Peak Funds account access site where you will need to register as a new user by selecting “Sign up for Online Access.” You will need your account number, date of birth, email address, and social security number to re-establish your online account through the new system. If you have any trouble, please call us at the Shareholder Services number below. NOTE: As part of the transition, online account access will be unavailable during the weekend of the transition (July 22-23).
    -Our Shareholder Services telephone number will remain the same, but the service hours will change slightly:
    1-855-377-PEAK (7325)
    7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. MT Monday - Friday
    -Our shareholder mailing addresses will change to:
    Overnight:
    Grandeur Peak Funds
    c/o Ultimus Fund Solutions, LLC.
    4221 N 203rd St., Suite 100
    Elkhorn, NE 68022
    US Mail:
    Grandeur Peak Funds
    c/o Ultimus Fund Solutions, LLC
    P.O. Box 541150
    Omaha, NE 68154-9150
    -Instructions for automatic investments into the Funds and systematic withdrawals out of the Funds will be transferred and will continue as normal.
    -Account statements and tax forms: As part of the service provider change, statements and tax forms from January 1, 2020 to present will be migrated and remain available for online access. If you would like to retain copies for prior periods, you may download them from the current shareholder portal prior to the conversion date. Otherwise, documents prior to 2020 can be requested by contacting Shareholder Services.
    -Confirmation of non-taxable reorganization: The transaction and transfer of your account(s) will not be taxable, nor will it impact the number of shares you own, the market value of your account, or the cost basis of your shares. You can expect to receive a transaction confirmation reflecting the transfer, which will be processed after the close of business on the conversion date.
    Thank you for the trust you place in us. We are undertaking this transition because we believe it will better align with our goal of providing you with outstanding shareholder servicing. We will work with Ultimus to ensure the transition is as seamless and easy for you as possible.
    Questions or comments?
    Call us:
    1-855-377-PEAK (7325) 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. MT Monday - Friday
    or
    Email us:
    [email protected]
    Best Regards,
    Eric Huefner
  • Interest Income on US Treasury Obligations - Form 1099
    I was just looking at my 2022 Fidelity Form 1099 and noticed that Fidelity has included the "Accrued Interest Paid on Purchases" on secondary market purchases in the interest I earned for 2022. e.g.; I bought UNITED STATES TREAS NTS NOTE 2.75000% 11/15/2023 (CUSIP: 912828WE6) in the secondary market on 10/15/2022 and paid five months of the accrued interest to the seller. Coupon is paid every six months on Nov 15 and on May 15. I was expecting Fidelity to report on my 2022 Form 1099 a one month interest (i.e., six month coupon I received on 11/15/2022 minus the five months of accrued interest I paid to the seller) but Fidelity reported the full coupon I received on 11/15/2022 as "Interest on U.S. Savings Bonds and Treas. Obligations" on line 3 of my 2022 Form 1099-INT. Worse case, I would have been fine Fidelity accruing and reporting 2.5 months of the interest income (10/15 -12/31/2022) on my Form 1099.
    (The Note is not an OID bond and I did not make any elections w/r/t market discounts and premiums with Fidelity.)
    I would appreciate forum members sharing their experience of how their brokerage reported on their Form 1099-INT w/r/t Treasury Obligations with coupons purchased on the secondary market. (I plan to dispute Fidelity's reporting but wanted to check with you guys about your experience.)
    Also, if anybody had purchased Treasury notes / bonds (not Bills) with market discount mature in 2022, please share with us if Fidelity reported the receipt of the par amount minus the principal you paid to purchase the Treasuries as an additional interest income or as capital gain. (Capital gains can be subject to State income tax while interest income on Treasury obligations is exempt from State income tax.)
    (I am assuming Fidelity is reporting interest income correctly on (zero coupon) Treasury Bills.)
    Thank you.
    A
  • Buy Sell Why: ad infinitum.
    @WABAC - I’m with ya on that front. It’s challenging to part with 5%+ in mmkt and t-bills, with Mad Magazine’s “what, me worry?” investing tactic.
    I don't even have to think about taking dividends or cap gains from the taxable, or drawing down the IRA's. What to do with wife's TIAA? Time to think about that too.
    I keep thinking it's going to be rough for equities. That's what people used to say.
  • Capital Groups ETF's CGUS and CGDV
    Also posted on Big-Bang.
    As I mentioned in another thread, I am looking for a "compliment" to FXAIX (Taxable acct.) and PRILX (IRA), to take a little edge off of my portfolios growth tilt, in particular these two LCB funds lean growth these days.
    Although CGDV (div. value) is classified by M* as LCV, it's short life has been as a LCB (equity income), whereas CGUS (core equity) is classified as a LCB (growth and income) but has a strong growth lean. There appears to be some overlap but from what I can tell, nothing too crazy. Correct me if I am wrong, please.
    From what I have read about Capital Group and their venture into the ETF world, is that they do not adhere religiously to the M* categories and are free to go where the best ideas are (actively managed). I'm considering CGDV because I like that it leans Value although it resides in the M* LCB category. Will this be the case going forward; I certainly do not know. A fund like this seems to better fit my goal, but I am torn.
    Any suggestions, recommendations, insights, or thoughts on these or similar funds will be greatly appreciated!
    Thank you, Matt
  • Debate Over 60/40 Allocation Continues …
    Investors keen to keep an eye on their own investment portfolio can still rely on the basic wisdom of a 60/40 weighting to equities and bonds despite the recent souring of sentiment towards it, industry participants say. BlackRock warned at the end of April that, despite the recent rebound for this classic investment approach, investors should now buy a wider range of assets, but its biggest rival provider of exchange traded funds insists the traditional portfolio still has good long-term prospects.
    “Research from Vanguard dating back to 1977 shows last year was a historical anomaly for the 60/40 portfolio in that it was the only year in which both equities and bonds sank in value — delivering double-digit losses.In every other year, either both were in positive territory or gains in one offset losses in another. Roger Aliaga-Diaz, Vanguard’s chief economist for the Americas and head of portfolio construction, maintains that knee-jerk responses to market upsets are unwise. He points out that over the 10 years to the end of December a classic 60/40 portfolio would have delivered an annualised return of 6 per cent. Over the past four years that figure would still have been 5.9 per cent and the Vanguard Capital Markets Model projection for the next 10 years as of the end of December was for returns of 6.1 per cent.”

    Above excerpted from The Financial Times - June 17, 2023
    https://www-ft-com.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/content/8b6221f8-daa4-4cd9-8c76-58c8e0f7fff0
    (May require subscription to access)
    I checked the recent performance of three funds sometimes viewed as “safer” alternatives to a traditional 60/40 mix. (I’ve owned each of these in the past.) Returns going back to 3 years aren’t encouraging:
    TMSRX 3-year annualized +1.22% / YTD +1.49%
    BAMBX 3-year annualized +0.42% / YTD -0.31%
    CCOR 3-year annualized +0.91% / YTD -10.51%
    (Numbers from M*)
    Three years could be viewed as ”short-term”, but we live in a world where many view it as ”longer-term” - for better or worse. Did not check for 60/40 balanced funds. Would not expect near-term results to be much better. Balanced funds pretty much got “clocked” in 2022. More questions than answers here for conservative investors designing a portfolio with both growth potential and a risk profile they can cope with.
  • Low-Road Capitalism 5: Private Equity Edition
    In December 2021, the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group (A.A.E.M.P.G.), part of an association of doctors, residents and medical students, filed a lawsuit accusing Envision Healthcare, a private-equity-backed provider, of violating a California statute that prohibits nonmedical corporations from controlling the delivery of health services. Private-equity firms often circumvent these restrictions by transferring ownership, on paper, to doctors, even as the companies retain control over everything, including the terms of the physicians’ employment and the rates that patients are charged for care, according to the lawsuit. A.A.E.M.P.G.’s aim in bringing the suit is not to punish one company but rather to prohibit such arrangements altogether.
    From Envision's recent (May 15) press release:
    Envision Healthcare Corp. (“Envision”) today announced it and certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries have filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Envision has entered into a Restructuring Support Agreement (RSA) with its key stakeholders supported by more than 60 percent of the company’s approximately $7.7 billion in debt obligations and expects that support will continue to grow in the coming days. The terms of the RSA establish the framework for a consensual and comprehensive restructuring that will position Envision and AMSURG for future growth as two separate businesses.
    ...
    Under the terms of the RSA, the AMSURG and Envision Physician Services businesses will be separately owned by certain of their respective lenders. AMSURG will purchase the surgery centers held by Envision for $300 million plus a waiver of intercompany loans held by AMSURG LLC. All of Envision’s debt, with the exception of a revolving credit facility for working capital, will be equitized or cancelled, deleveraging approximately $5.6 billion.
    ...
    2018 acquisition by KKR & Co.,
    https://www.envisionhealth.com/news/2023/envision-healthcare-reaches-restructuring-agreement
    It looks like that restructuring will create problems for the suit: who are the defendants now?
    The private-equity backer is KKR, best known for its RJR Nabisco leveraged buyout. (See Barbarians at the Gate.)
    The bankruptcy wipes out private equity firm KKR’s investment in Envision. In 2018, the PE firm shelled out over $5 billion in 2018 to take Envision private, in a deal valued at $9.9 billion including debt. Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that an Envision bankruptcy filing would be one of the steepest losses in KKR’s history.
    https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/envision-chapter-11-bankruptcy/650277/
    Interesting that these two deals serve as KKR bookends, with cofounders Henry Kravis and George Roberts having stepped down not too long ago.
    Repeating the Gretchen Morgenson quote in my earlier post:"Private equity firms are what used to be called leveraged buyout funds and firms."
  • Low-Road Capitalism 5: Private Equity Edition
    Good article: https://nytimes.com/2023/06/15/magazine/doctors-moral-crises.html
    An excerpt:
    Because doctors are highly skilled professionals who are not so easy to replace, I assumed that they would not be as reluctant to discuss the distressing conditions at their jobs as the low-wage workers I’d interviewed. But the physicians I contacted were afraid to talk openly. “I have since reconsidered this and do not feel this is something I can do right now,” one doctor wrote to me. Another texted, “Will need to be anon.” Some sources I tried to reach had signed nondisclosure agreements that prohibited them from speaking to the media without permission. Others worried they could be disciplined or fired if they angered their employers, a concern that seems particularly well founded in the growing swath of the health care system that has been taken over by private-equity firms. In March 2020, an emergency-room doctor named Ming Lin was removed from the rotation at his hospital after airing concerns about its Covid-19 safety protocols. Lin worked at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. — but his actual employer was TeamHealth, a company owned by the Blackstone Group.
    E.R. doctors have found themselves at the forefront of these trends as more and more hospitals have outsourced the staffing in emergency departments in order to cut costs. A 2013 study by Robert McNamara, the chairman of the emergency-medicine department at Temple University in Philadelphia, found that 62 percent of emergency physicians in the United States could be fired without due process. Nearly 20 percent of the 389 E.R. doctors surveyed said they had been threatened for raising quality-of-care concerns, and pressured to make decisions based on financial considerations that could be detrimental to the people in their care, like being pushed to discharge Medicare and Medicaid patients or being encouraged to order more testing than necessary. In another study, more than 70 percent of emergency physicians agreed that the corporatization of their field has had a negative or strongly negative impact on the quality of care and on their own job satisfaction.
    There are, of course, plenty of doctors who like what they do and feel no need to speak out. Clinicians in high-paying specialties like orthopedics and plastic surgery “are doing just fine, thank you,” one physician I know joked. But more and more doctors are coming to believe that the pandemic merely worsened the strain on a health care system that was already failing because it prioritizes profits over patient care. They are noticing how the emphasis on the bottom line routinely puts them in moral binds, and young doctors in particular are contemplating how to resist. Some are mulling whether the sacrifices — and compromises — are even worth it. “I think a lot of doctors are feeling like something is troubling them, something deep in their core that they committed themselves to,” Dean says. She notes that the term moral injury was originally coined by the psychiatrist Jonathan Shay to describe the wound that forms when a person’s sense of what is right is betrayed by leaders in high-stakes situations. “Not only are clinicians feeling betrayed by their leadership,” she says, “but when they allow these barriers to get in the way, they are part of the betrayal. They’re the instruments of betrayal.”
    Not long ago, I spoke to an emergency physician, whom I’ll call A., about her experience. (She did not want her name used, explaining that she knew several doctors who had been fired for voicing concerns about unsatisfactory working conditions or patient-safety issues.) A soft-spoken woman with a gentle manner, A. referred to the emergency room as a “sacred space,” a place she loved working because of the profound impact she could have on patients’ lives, even those who weren’t going to pull through. During her training, a patient with a terminal condition somberly informed her that his daughter couldn’t make it to the hospital to be with him in his final hours. A. promised the patient that he wouldn’t die alone and then held his hand until he passed away. Interactions like that one would not be possible today, she told me, because of the new emphasis on speed, efficiency and relative value units (R.V.U.), a metric used to measure physician reimbursement that some feel rewards doctors for doing tests and procedures and discourages them from spending too much time on less remunerative functions, like listening and talking to patients. “It’s all about R.V.U.s and going faster,” she said of the ethos that permeated the practice where she’d been working. “Your door-to-doctor time, your room-to-doctor time, your time from initial evaluation to discharge.”……
    Forming unions is just one way that patient advocates are finding to push back against such inequities. Critics of private equity’s growing role in the health care system are also closely watching a California lawsuit that could have a major impact. In December 2021, the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group (A.A.E.M.P.G.), part of an association of doctors, residents and medical students, filed a lawsuit accusing Envision Healthcare, a private-equity-backed provider, of violating a California statute that prohibits nonmedical corporations from controlling the delivery of health services. Private-equity firms often circumvent these restrictions by transferring ownership, on paper, to doctors, even as the companies retain control over everything, including the terms of the physicians’ employment and the rates that patients are charged for care, according to the lawsuit. A.A.E.M.P.G.’s aim in bringing the suit is not to punish one company but rather to prohibit such arrangements altogether. “We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” David Millstein, a lawyer for the A.A.E.M.P.G. has said of the suit. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.” In May 2022, a judge rejected Envision’s motion to dismiss the case, raising hopes that such a ban may take effect
  • Floating rate funds in rising, flat, and falling rate environments
    BTW, the volatility table per category is deceiving. We have learned since 2020 that volatility is unpredictable in market meltdowns. Sometimes the indexes which trade during the day show more volatility.
    I had a look at the text explanation of those FI categories. The "floating rate bond" category, showing annualized volatility of 1.6%, consists of investment grade fare, not generalizable to FR/BL junk.
  • TCAF, an ETF Cousin of Closed Price PRWCX
    @BenWP +1. Looks highly concentrated with the same stuff as any LC index.
    Agreed. I'm still inclined to go with Capital Group's CGDV versus TCAF, though I may throw some $$ at this pup as a diversifier -- their holdings don't overlap much.
    The initial holdings feels somewhat LCB-oriented .... almost PRBLX-like maybe?
  • TCAF, an ETF Cousin of Closed Price PRWCX
    https://www.etftrends.com/active-etf-channel/t-rowe-prices-new-etf-tcaf-worthy-of-appreciation/
    "The newly launched T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Equity ETF (TCAF) is not a clone strategy of PRCWX. Giroux’s mutual fund uses a blend of equities and fixed income securities, but TCAF will only own equities and nearly double the number found in PRWCX.
    According to the ETF’s prospectus, TCAF will own approximately 100 stocks.
    TCAF will disclose its holdings daily."
  • Floating rate funds in rising, flat, and falling rate environments
    "The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady Wednesday, but officials signaled they are prepared to raise rates again this year to tame stubborn inflation."
    The second part intends to be hawkish to cover their a$$. What matters is actual which was NO CHANGE.
    Looking at the 10 year treasury chart for 7 months shows that several times it got to around 3.8-4% and backed off.
    BTW, the volatility table per category is deceiving. We have learned since 2020 that volatility is unpredictable in market meltdowns. Sometimes the indexes which trade during the day show more volatility.
  • Mid-Year MFO Ratings Posted ... New Navigation Bar
    @Charles, check out Barron's,
    TRADER. Stocks rose as the wall of worry faded away. The RALLY broadened beyond large-caps to small/mid-caps and cyclicals (financials, industrials). The SP500 was in a bear market for 248 days (Edit - the longest since 1948) and it may reach a new high that is +10% away. Of course, there are economic data, the FOMC meeting(s), and a possible recession along the way. Enjoy the rally while it lasts.
    https://www.barrons.com/articles/stock-market-gains-as-wall-of-worry-crumbles-what-happens-next-75e1dc1e?mod=past_editions
    You may be thinking of the time it took for the SP500 to recover fully, and that was about 5 years after the GFC; however, the allocation funds recovered much faster.
    What am I missing here? The 2008/09 bear market, the 73/74 bear market were much longer and deeper than the one in 2022. And what about 2000-02?
  • Irrational Exuberance: AI Edition
    As for water:
    Irrigated agriculture is the largest user of water in Arizona, consuming about 74 percent of the available water supply.
    In Maricopa county agriculture uses 61.7% of the water.

    What is the county getting out of that use of water
    ?
    Maricopa County is a livestock-dominant county, with 61% of agricultural cash receipts originating from livestock and its products and 39% from sales of crops. Maricopa County is a major agricultural producer ranking in the top 1% of counties in the U.S. for sales of milk, other crops and hay, and vegetables and melons. Major agricultural commodities by sales includemilk from cows ($487.7 million), vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes ($163.1 million), other crops and hay ($129.5 million), and nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod ($123.7 million)
    Just a reminder that hay is alfalfa. one of the most water-intensive crops on the planet. Any of you folks think Maricopa should be spending water resources on hay production that generated some part of 129.5 million bucks in 2020?
  • Anybody Investing in bond funds? Part II
    @yogibb, I have made the switch already since January this year to increase allocation to intermediate term bonds since. First started on treasury and then corporate bonds using both active and passive managed funds/ETFs. Though I have limited choices in my 401(k) plan. Also invested in a multi sector fund, PIMIX, and ST HY bond, OSTIX based on previously experience with these managers. My bank loan/floating rate bond exposure are limited to PRWCX, but I am watching closely as Giruox makes his moves quickly.
    I continue to maintain a decent exposure to cash equivalents as long as the yield curve is inverted. Given this year’s inflation running near 5%, these cash equivalent is barely able to keep up AFTER factoring out inflation. Nevertheless, there are still better than the past near zero yield with money market. So rotating to the intermediate term bonds is necessary for the bond price appreciation as you noted that Fed’s rate hike is near the end.
    During the March 2020 drawdown, BL/FL funds fell like HY corporate funds, averaging over 10%, and they took close to 6 months to recover. Treasury’s, in contrast, barely dropped at all and end ed the year up several percents as the FED cut the rate to 0.25%.
    A mid-year review from Schwab’s Kathy Jones is enclosed for your enjoyment.
    https://schwab.com/learn/story/mid-year-outlook-fixed-income
  • Anybody Investing in bond funds?
    @yogibb, I have made the switch already since January this year to increase allocation to intermediate term bonds since. First started on treasury and then corporate bonds using both active and passive managed funds/ETFs. Though I have limited choices in my 401(k) plan. Also invested in a multi sector fund, PIMIX, and ST HY bond, OSTIX based on previously experience with these managers. My bank loan/floating rate bond exposure are limited to PRWCX, but I am watching closely as Giruox makes his moves quickly.
    I continue to maintain a decent exposure to cash equivalents as long as the yield curve is inverted. Given this year’s inflation running near 5%, these cash equivalent is barely able to keep up AFTER factoring out inflation. Nevertheless, there are still better than the past near zero yield with money market. So rotating to the intermediate term bonds is necessary for the bond price appreciation as you noted that Fed’s rate hike is near the end.
    During the March 2020 drawdown, BL/FL funds fell like HY corporate funds, averaging over 10%, and they took close to 6 months to recover. Treasury’s, in contrast, barely dropped at all and end ed the year up several percents as the FED cut the rate to 0.25%.
    A mid-year review from Schwab’s Kathy Jones is enclosed for your enjoyment.
    https://schwab.com/learn/story/mid-year-outlook-fixed-income
  • Anybody Investing in bond funds?
    PRWCX is really a capital appreciation fund and its bonds are riskier and of lower quality.
    In lots of pieces in Barron's and elsewhere, the recommendations now are for investment-grade, short-term bonds with some HY and EM as spices. But this shouldn't distract you from holding PRWCX so long as it isn't your only fund.
    FR/BL are lower-quality bonds and they are good for rising rate environment. The flipside is that when the rates are flat or declining, they just act like risky short-term HY.