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.
I studied both of these funds because you presented them to the board.
IRNIX is an interesting fund as it seems to hold a good number of mutual funds and I counted at least 24 of them within its portfolio. Therefore, for me, it is a fund of funds from my thinking and carries a Four Star rating by M*.
IRONX is another interesting fund (Four Stars) and it seems to be currently holding only Stock Futures at this time and is classified a long/short fund by M*.
I have linked the M* reports on these two fund for those that would want to look at them in more detail.
I looked at IRNIX and what really glared at me when I researched the underlying funds it holds, they all had an expense ratios well under 1% but this fund charges 1.49%. Seems why have so many bond funds, and pay a fee on top of a fee when one to three bond funds should do. Even though I have a CFA, I keep most of my bonds and bond funds seperate for the very same reason.
I have been doing the same thing. American Century made it easy for me by opening a new fund ASDVX. Short duration of less than 3 years. Investment grade and high yield instruments from anywhere including emerging markets. Preferred stocks. I had been looking at Schwab but since this was in a rollover account the paperwork was a consideration.
I was 80/20 stocks to fixed, now after a couple of moves including the above I am about 65/35.
IRNIX is very interesting. A bunch of interesting mutual funds in the portfolio. The one issue with fund of funds: expense ratio, since there are 2 layers of expenses instead of one. This fund has an expense ratio of 1.49%, quite high for a fixed income fund.
I must say, I've never seen such a large pack of high yield bond funds in one place before!
Perhaps I am ignorant but what would be the benefit of such a fund structure?
It certainly seems that in its present incarnation, just having one low cost high yield bond index fund would accomplish about the same thing as that pack of high yield funds, with much lower expenses.
I've not read the prospectus or visited the website. It's called Strategic Income Fund, but one wonders if this is a "tactical income fund". You would suspect it is. I'm sure VF knows, and can address JohnChisum's question.
Perhaps I am ignorant but what would be the benefit of such a fund structure?
It certainly seems that in its present incarnation, just having one low cost high yield bond index fund would accomplish about the same thing as that pack of high yield funds, with much lower expenses.
I've not read the prospectus or visited the website. It's called Strategic Income Fund, but one wonders if this is a "tactical income fund". You would suspect it is. I'm sure VF knows, and can JohnChisum's question.
I am actually surprised it holds so many high yield funds. I mean not all high yield funds are of the RPHYX variety. I am perplexed. How is fund achieving its mandate with such a bunch of aggressive bond holdings?
I thought I’d comment on a few things. They follow.
Item 1) In reviewing IRNIX which was presented by the Vintage Freak although it is a fund of funds it does carry a four star M* rating and has a duration on 3.35 years. So with this it appears good performance can be had form a fund of funds just as good performance can be had form my sleeve system that holds a number of funds … usually three to six. I expect this fund to continue to perform well and if one or even a few of the funds that it holds falters then there are the others that can still propel the fund. Its turnover ratio is 43% so it appears some active trading and positioning occurs. In 2008 it lost about one half of what other funds in its category lost.
Item 2) Some say I have way too many funds … perhaps so, perhaps not! In comparing my portfolio’s performance to Morningstars Moderate Target Risk as a benchmark … well I have handily bettered the benchmark. The results follow listed by period with the portfolio being listed first within the results and then the benchmark for a market close of August 1, 2014 in its current configuration.
Closing comment: With this, there seems to be some added value by using the sleeve system along with selecting only quality funds and when one of them does falter replacing it with another. Seems this is what IRNIX might be doing and it seems to be doing it just fine. After all, it caught the Vintage Freaks attention and carries a four star rating by M* ... and, it only lost about half of what other strategic income funds lost in 2008.
Have a good day … and, most of all I wish all … “Good Investing.”
The first thing I usually do if looking at a fund someone has suggested is compare performance to a similar one I may already own, in this case I compared OSTIX. So I have no further interest in IRNIX
Good point ron, I do the same. I compared it to existing strategic income funds that I own ... NEFZX, LBNDX and TSIAX. In 2008 it did lose less than the ones I own.
It also appears there is money movement within the portfolio of funds as some positions are being reduced while others are being increased. Wonder why?
Why in heaven's name is OSTIX 2* fund? Oh wait, WTF did I look at M* rating for?
The star rating is simply based on math. It's based on the risk adjusted return versus its category.
Look below to see why it only has 2 stars. Compare the performance to the high yield bond category.
The star rating is not Morningstar's opinion of the fund, just the mathematical results. Morningstar's opinion of the fund is seen in their Analyst Rating of the fund. They like the fund quite a bit, as evidenced by the fact that they have given it a Bronze medal.
Their forward looking opinion of a fund is expressed in their Analyst rating of Gold, Silver, Bronze, Neutral or Negative
Item 2) Some say I have way too many funds … perhaps so, perhaps not! In comparing my portfolio’s performance to Morningstars Moderate Target Risk as a benchmark … well I have handily bettered the benchmark. Old_Skeet
Congratulations Old_Skeet. You've done a great job, and most importantly, you've done it 'your way.' You've navigated the investment landscape and come up with a system that works for you.
Goes to show that there is more than one way to find success in investing. My portfolio centers around five accounts (401k, self directed IRA, health savings, profit sharing plan, and a taxable investment account plus two bank accounts). And, the sleeve system is what I came up to manage the whole package of the five invstment accounts which combined consisits of about fifty funds.
OSTIX and its current 2* relative to the HY sector; to the best of my recall is related that OSTIX was not or was not ever fully a high yield bond fund, but that is where the fund is postioned now. I can only suspect that that M* does not have a proper "math" method to rank a fund as the holdings rotate. PIMIX (one of our holdings) is a multi-sector bond fund that has continued to move holdings as the manager(s) deem proper. I would think it very difficult to attempt to place a "pure" ranking on such funds. M* rankings may be of some value to a more "pure" index fund; but I do not place a lot of value in attempting to rank an actively managed fund. In such a case, one may be more comfortable with observing the skills of manager(s) relative to the market sector somewhat related to their fund and how they have performed over whatever period of time one considers worthy. My humble opinion. Take care, Catch
Ted was rude, but right. There must be some kind of reason why anyone would choose to invest in a Fund of funds. I am convinced that it is counter-productive. I'm an amateur, not an expert. And yet, I certainly DO know enough to be dangerous. Grin.
@Old_Skeet, I would be grateful to learn more about your sleeve system, most importantly how you define your sleeves. Your results are impressive, congratulations!
I basically have only two missions, the first of which is to be (significantly) overweight emerging/frontier markets and underweight developed international markets. The second is to be, again "significantly" overweight small cap stocks. Roughly 50% of my portfolio is mutual funds and 50% is stocks. I have a handful of funds I love and would keep through thick and thin, and another handful that I like but would give up if I found another fund that I thought better. I manage my accounts as one, with decisions about which account to use based on tax considerations and what I would reduce first if I needed cash.
Thank you for your question. I hope this helps you devise a system that you might find beneficial.
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is an income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area which consist of four sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve and a specialty sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and the amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each sleeve, each area and the portfolio as a whole. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly.
Here is how I have it broken out.
Cash Area Demand Cash Sleeve… Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area Fixed Income Sleeve: ITAAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX Hybrid Income Sleeve: AZNAX, CAPAX, FKINX, ISFAX, ISFAX, PASAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, IGPAX & TIBAX Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, CFIAX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area Global Sleeve: ANWPX, PGROX, THOAX, DEMAX, NEWFX & THDAX Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, SPECX, IACLX, VADAX, HWAAX & BWLAX Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: IIVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX Specialty Sleeve: CCMAX, LPEFX & TOLLX
There you have it. What seemed complex is really quite simple.
Hey guys! Managed to find Internet on the beach. My brother who thinks his lil brother lost it a long time back, never invests in mutual funds. However thanks to this board and after I recommended RPHYX and RSIVX - the only funds he owns besides bunch of Vanguard in his 401k - he still introduces me to others as his brother. Sorry digressing...
When we discussed conservative (ahem) ways to get some yield, he says to look at PFF and the new VRP. Then he showed me how some preferred stocks have provided him good income over the past few years and especially after the financial crisis. Anyways, just some food for thought. I am going to research some preferred stock funds after I get back. Seems like a compelling diversifying opportunity to me
Wish my first generation IPad had a camera so I could post a picture of my first real vacation in years. I have already had enought beers in the name of each one of you.
I'm afraid I've fallen into "lurker" status here. Haven't had an original thought in so long. Your posts are highly valued. There's maybe a dozen here I read 100% and you are one. (Not meant to be a knock against others). But Skeet, I've scanned the thread you linked and see only one very tame comment by Ted. Am I missing something? Or has something racier been deleted?
Nobody will fault you for flagging. Many of us have been voicing similar concerns for more than a year now. All the world loves a fighter and Ted is one. I hope he and David can iron things out so Ted can return and continue contributing. I have no idea what the resolution is, but would agree with Ted that posting under "special handling" would not be acceptable - except for a very short probationary period. Who would submit to that type of regular censorship?
Though a lurker, I find much interesting here in recent days. The flare-up over copyright infringement made me think of 60 Minutes last Sunday. The issue there was trademark rather than copyright. In a nutshell: Same family has owned Tabasco company for generations. Only they can legally call a product "Tabasco", although anyone can market a "hot sauce." The (extremely wealthy) brothers interviewed are a couple of very cool cats. In response to the interviewer asking what would happen if someone else labeled their product "Tabasco" one replied in the warmest voice and with the broadest smile: "We'd be happy to go along with them to court."
Gotta love it! And yep - need to respect the hard work and ownership rights of authors. Regards
Comments
I studied both of these funds because you presented them to the board.
IRNIX is an interesting fund as it seems to hold a good number of mutual funds and I counted at least 24 of them within its portfolio. Therefore, for me, it is a fund of funds from my thinking and carries a Four Star rating by M*.
IRONX is another interesting fund (Four Stars) and it seems to be currently holding only Stock Futures at this time and is classified a long/short fund by M*.
I have linked the M* reports on these two fund for those that would want to look at them in more detail.
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/irnix/f?t=irnix
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/ironx/f?t=ironx
Old_Skeet
I have been doing the same thing. American Century made it easy for me by opening a new fund ASDVX. Short duration of less than 3 years. Investment grade and high yield instruments from anywhere including emerging markets. Preferred stocks. I had been looking at Schwab but since this was in a rollover account the paperwork was a consideration.
I was 80/20 stocks to fixed, now after a couple of moves including the above I am about 65/35.
The one issue with fund of funds: expense ratio, since there are 2 layers of expenses instead of one. This fund has an expense ratio of 1.49%, quite high for a fixed income fund.
I must say, I've never seen such a large pack of high yield bond funds in one place before!
I've not read the prospectus or visited the website. It's called Strategic Income Fund, but one wonders if this is a "tactical income fund". You would suspect it is. I'm sure VF knows, and can address JohnChisum's question.
Regards,
Ted
@rjb112, I agree. Just buy a low cost high yield fund with a good record.
Item 1) In reviewing IRNIX which was presented by the Vintage Freak although it is a fund of funds it does carry a four star M* rating and has a duration on 3.35 years. So with this it appears good performance can be had form a fund of funds just as good performance can be had form my sleeve system that holds a number of funds … usually three to six. I expect this fund to continue to perform well and if one or even a few of the funds that it holds falters then there are the others that can still propel the fund. Its turnover ratio is 43% so it appears some active trading and positioning occurs. In 2008 it lost about one half of what other funds in its category lost.
Item 2) Some say I have way too many funds … perhaps so, perhaps not! In comparing my portfolio’s performance to Morningstars Moderate Target Risk as a benchmark … well I have handily bettered the benchmark. The results follow listed by period with the portfolio being listed first within the results and then the benchmark for a market close of August 1, 2014 in its current configuration.
1 Week) Portfolio -1.8%, benchmark -1.8% … 1 Month) -2.1%, -2.0% … 3 Month) 1.5%, 1.4% … YTD) 5.0%, 3.7% … 1 Year) 11.9%, 9.6% … 3 Year) 10.7%, 9.4% … 5 Year) 12.5%, 10.9% … 10 Year) 8.4%, 6.6%.
Closing comment: With this, there seems to be some added value by using the sleeve system along with selecting only quality funds and when one of them does falter replacing it with another. Seems this is what IRNIX might be doing and it seems to be doing it just fine. After all, it caught the Vintage Freaks attention and carries a four star rating by M* ... and, it only lost about half of what other strategic income funds lost in 2008.
Have a good day … and, most of all I wish all … “Good Investing.”
Old_Skeet
Old_Skeet
http://ironfunds.com/pages/about-us/riskmanagement
They are doing hedging which if done properly might explain things
Look below to see why it only has 2 stars. Compare the performance to the high yield bond category.
The star rating is not Morningstar's opinion of the fund, just the mathematical results.
Morningstar's opinion of the fund is seen in their Analyst Rating of the fund. They like the fund quite a bit, as evidenced by the fact that they have given it a Bronze medal.
Their forward looking opinion of a fund is expressed in their Analyst rating of Gold, Silver, Bronze, Neutral or Negative
Goes to show that there is more than one way to find success in investing. My portfolio centers around five accounts (401k, self directed IRA, health savings, profit sharing plan, and a taxable investment account plus two bank accounts). And, the sleeve system is what I came up to manage the whole package of the five invstment accounts which combined consisits of about fifty funds.
For me it has worked well.
Old_Skeet
That info regarding hedging puts a different light on the subject. Thanks for investigating that.
OSTIX and its current 2* relative to the HY sector; to the best of my recall is related that OSTIX was not or was not ever fully a high yield bond fund, but that is where the fund is postioned now.
I can only suspect that that M* does not have a proper "math" method to rank a fund as the holdings rotate.
PIMIX (one of our holdings) is a multi-sector bond fund that has continued to move holdings as the manager(s) deem proper. I would think it very difficult to attempt to place a "pure" ranking on such funds.
M* rankings may be of some value to a more "pure" index fund; but I do not place a lot of value in attempting to rank an actively managed fund. In such a case, one may be more comfortable with observing the skills of manager(s) relative to the market sector somewhat related to their fund and how they have performed over whatever period of time one considers worthy.
My humble opinion.
Take care,
Catch
Have a great vacation.
I basically have only two missions, the first of which is to be (significantly) overweight emerging/frontier markets and underweight developed international markets. The second is to be, again "significantly" overweight small cap stocks. Roughly 50% of my portfolio is mutual funds and 50% is stocks. I have a handful of funds I love and would keep through thick and thin, and another handful that I like but would give up if I found another fund that I thought better. I manage my accounts as one, with decisions about which account to use based on tax considerations and what I would reduce first if I needed cash.
Thank you for your question. I hope this helps you devise a system that you might find beneficial.
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is an income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area which consist of four sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve and a specialty sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and the amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each sleeve, each area and the portfolio as a whole. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly.
Here is how I have it broken out.
Cash Area
Demand Cash Sleeve…
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area
Fixed Income Sleeve: ITAAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: AZNAX, CAPAX, FKINX, ISFAX, ISFAX, PASAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, IGPAX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, CFIAX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area
Global Sleeve: ANWPX, PGROX, THOAX, DEMAX, NEWFX & THDAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, SPECX, IACLX, VADAX, HWAAX & BWLAX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: IIVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty Sleeve: CCMAX, LPEFX & TOLLX
There you have it. What seemed complex is really quite simple.
Old_Skeet
When we discussed conservative (ahem) ways to get some yield, he says to look at PFF and the new VRP. Then he showed me how some preferred stocks have provided him good income over the past few years and especially after the financial crisis. Anyways, just some food for thought. I am going to research some preferred stock funds after I get back. Seems like a compelling diversifying opportunity to me
Wish my first generation IPad had a camera so I could post a picture of my first real vacation in years. I have already had enought beers in the name of each one of you.
I'm afraid I've fallen into "lurker" status here. Haven't had an original thought in so long. Your posts are highly valued. There's maybe a dozen here I read 100% and you are one. (Not meant to be a knock against others). But Skeet, I've scanned the thread you linked and see only one very tame comment by Ted. Am I missing something? Or has something racier been deleted?
Nobody will fault you for flagging. Many of us have been voicing similar concerns for more than a year now. All the world loves a fighter and Ted is one. I hope he and David can iron things out so Ted can return and continue contributing. I have no idea what the resolution is, but would agree with Ted that posting under "special handling" would not be acceptable - except for a very short probationary period. Who would submit to that type of regular censorship?
Though a lurker, I find much interesting here in recent days. The flare-up over copyright infringement made me think of 60 Minutes last Sunday. The issue there was trademark rather than copyright. In a nutshell: Same family has owned Tabasco company for generations. Only they can legally call a product "Tabasco", although anyone can market a "hot sauce." The (extremely wealthy) brothers interviewed are a couple of very cool cats. In response to the interviewer asking what would happen if someone else labeled their product "Tabasco" one replied in the warmest voice and with the broadest smile: "We'd be happy to go along with them to court."
Gotta love it! And yep - need to respect the hard work and ownership rights of authors. Regards