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.
  • avoid these 3 bond funds when rates rise
    https://www.investorsalley.com/avoid-these-3-bond-funds-when-interest-rates-rise/?t=tdhlandjoe36mtmc&utm_source=marketcap&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=tdh36monthplan
    "Avoid These 3 Bond Funds When Interest Rates Rise
    Bonds, Interest Rates, Stocks to Avoid
    September 17, 2018 6:15 am by Tim Plaehn
    Are bond funds a safe haven if the stock market crashes?
    With interest rates about to rise, is it a good time to invest in a bond fund?
    These are questions investors may be asking themselves as the stock market may be peaking and the Fed keeps jacking up interest rates. If you are fearful of what may happen in the stock market, you may also be considering putting money into one of the popular bond ETFs. Read further to understand that a bond fund comes with its own set of risks, ones that the financial services industry won’t tell you about."
  • The Closing Bell: Wall Street Near Flat, Trump Gives Go Ahead On China Tariffs
    FYI: U.S. stocks fell in midday trading on Friday, with major indexes shedding an early advance to turn negative following a report that President Donald Trump still wants to impose tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods, the latest sign that the trade jitters will continue to hang over financial markets. The Dow and the S&P 500 turned positive just before the closing bell.
    Stocks swung between gains and losses and then gains before the close after Bloomberg News reported that President Donald Trump instructed aides to proceed with tariffs on about $200 billion more in Chinese products. The dollar strengthened for the first time in three days as U.S. 10-year note yields briefly climbed past 3 percent.
    Technology shares led declines, with Apple Inc. falling as much as 1.7 percent. The iPhone maker last week warned that new tariffs could increase the cost of its products. Financial markets have been whipsawed this week by conflicting reports on the status of trade relations between the world’s two largest economies.
    For the week, the Dow was looking at a 0.8% gain, the S&P 500 a rise of 1.1% and the Nasdaq was poised for a 1.3% weekly rise. All three indexes were rebounding from last week's declines.
    On the plus side of the eleven S&P 500 Sectors were Energy, Financials,and Industrials. The negatives were Real Estate, Technology, Utilities, Communication Services, Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples. and Materials.
    Regards,
    Ted
    Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-14/your-evening-briefing
    Barron's After The Bell:
    https://www.barrons.com/articles/dow-ekes-out-a-gain-of-9-points-on-a-freaky-friday-1536960733
    Bloomberg:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/asia-stock-rally-set-to-extend-dollar-slips-markets-wrap?srnd=premium
    WSJ:
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trade-prospects-lift-global-stocks-1536911221
    Reuters:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-falls-as-trump-greenlights-china-tariffs-idUSKCN1LU1LW
    IBD:
    https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/small-caps-outperform-trump-china-tariffs/
    MarketWatch:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-futures-higher-as-sp-500-takes-aim-at-a-record-2018-09-14/print
    CNBC:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/us-markets-economic-data-and-trade-talks.html
    Europe:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/european-stock-inch-higher-set-for-first-weekly-gain-in-three-2018-09-14/print
    Asia:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-continue-to-rise-as-nikkei-nears-7-month-high-2018-09-13/print
    Bonds:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/us-bonds-and-fixed-income-economic-data-in-focus.html
    Currencies:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/forex-markets-dollar-emerging-market-currencies-us-china-trade-in-focus.html
    Oil:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/gold-markets-us-cpi-the-fed-us-china-trade-in-focus.html
    Gold
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/gold-markets-us-cpi-the-fed-us-china-trade-in-focus.html
    WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
    http://markets.wsj.com/us
    Major ETFs % Change:
    https://www.barchart.com/etfs-funds/etf-monitor
    SPDR's Sector Tracker:
    http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
    SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
    Current Futures: Mixed
    https://finviz.com/futures.ashx
  • RSQ International Equity Fund to liquidate
    Who now remembers Julius Baer International (BJBIX)? From 1995 to the start of the financial crisis in 2007, BJBIX outran its peers by a margin of more than 2:1. Then it lost 65% in the crash, which was still better than its peers. The problem was that its rebound off the market bottom was not as vigorous as its peers, and its performance sort of stalled. (Somewhere in there, some marketing genius rebranded Julius Baer as Artio because, he argued, Julius Baer was confusing. FundAlarm ridiculed the move, noting that naming your funds after the Celtic bear goddess wasn't like introducing a household name into the equation. Artio floundered.) Managers Rudolph-Riad Younes and Richard Pell were shown the door in 2013 and shortly thereafter launched RSQ International.
    RSQ suffered from a lack of predictability: it sometimes offered downside protection, then would manage to lose money when the market was making money, but not make money when the market was losing. Since inception, the fund has averaged a loss of 0.1% annually while its peers made 4.0%. Mr. Younes left in 2016, and now Mr. Pell is left to turn off the lights, sweep out the shop and head home.
    David
  • The Real Cost of the 2008 Financial Crisis
    Yes, an excellent summary of the "Great Recession". However, there's very little in that article that an attentive reader of The Wall Street Journal and The Economist wouldn't have been aware of as the events described actually unfolded.
    A short excerpt from the New Yorker article:
    "And banks aren’t the only potential threat to financial stability. According to the Basel report, asset managers now control nearly a hundred and sixty trillion dollars, more than the worldwide holdings of the banking industry. During a market sell-off, the report warned, some of these firms could face pressures—such as a surge of investors eager to cash out—that would lead to a downward spiral."
    Interestingly, The Economist, in the current issue, is in substantial agreement with that observation.
    One last word from the New Yorker article:
    "Nobody can say for sure where the next financial crisis will come from. But Trump and the G.O.P. are busy hastening it along—even as they’re undermining the architecture needed to deal with it. "
  • Q&A With Hank Paulson: A Look Back At The Turmoil Of 2008
    FYI: If Hollywood decides to produce a movie about a government official who finds himself mired in the middle of a once-in-a-lifetime crisis, Hank Paulson could easily be cast in the lead role. He’s tall, bespectacled, ruggedly handsome, and still has pretty much the same athletic physique he had when he started 50 years ago on the varsity football team at Dartmouth. (His nickname was “Hank the Hammer.”)
    He is also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs and of course was the Treasury secretary, under President George W. Bush, during the 2008 financial crisis.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.barrons.com/articles/hank-paulson-looks-backat-the-turmoil-of-2008-1536759000?mod=hp_highlight_2
  • Why The 4% Retirement Rule Is Just A Starting Point
    Oh-oh. I just lost a whole lot of faith in engineering. If the guy who engineered that bridge in Genoa is still around maybe he can find a new career as a financial planner.
  • Why The 4% Retirement Rule Is Just A Starting Point
    >> How does the fact that a tool is used in an engineering discipline built on physical rules make it an effective tool in a field (financial planning) that lacks a similar foundation?
    Many engineering disciplines are more like financial planning, and vice-versa, than you may realize. An awful lot of judgment and choice and sketchy causality entailed.
  • Why The 4% Retirement Rule Is Just A Starting Point
    Who was first in discovering the 4% drawdown rule is not significant to me. My number one purpose in my submittals on this topic was to introduce Monte Carlo simulators
    Obviously not significant to you, as you didn't introduce Bengen. Rather, you injected a claim that the 4% rule was based in part on Monte Carlo analyses. As you stated above, your purpose in submitting this false statement was to bridge from the WSJ article to what you wanted to write about.
    Even the last reference you quoted acknowledged its usefulness.
    Already addressed in my post prior to the one I'm responding to here. Useful, yes, it's better than a poke in the eye.
    .
    All tools have identical limitations
    If all tools have identical limitations, then why push just a single tool? Previously you claim to have identified a shortfall in tools that use historical data. Shortfall, limitation. What's the difference? It seems tools don't all have identical limitations.
    I am not an unsophisticated user of this fine modeling concept. ...
    I am an experienced user of Monte Carlo analyses. In the nuclear engineering discipline (one of my masters degrees is in that field), it is a frequently used tool.
    How does the fact that a tool is used in an engineering discipline built on physical rules make it an effective tool in a field (financial planning) that lacks a similar foundation? The observation that you and some engineers frequently use this tool (regardless of the domain) is not is a good argument that it is well suited for the unsophisticated, inexperienced user.
    From my perspective it seems like an ideal tool.
    Ideal, yet something with faults that could be eliminated: "I generated my own Monte Carlo code to aid in the decision process. I recognized the shortcoming of ..."
    To summarize, starting with a false statement, you suggested that people use tools with model shortcomings that you found unacceptable for your own use. Tools that make sense to you, because you have a masters of nuclear engineering.
  • A Decade After Lehman Collapse, Investors Still Shun Bank Stocks
    FYI: Time may heal all wounds. But the decade since the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. hasn’t been long enough to restore investors’ faith in banks.
    While this week marks the 10-year anniversary of the Lehman bankruptcy, an event seen widely as a catalyst for the global financial crisis, data on stock prices and fund positioning suggests the aversion to the banking industry hasn’t gone away.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-11/a-decade-after-lehman-collapse-investors-still-shun-bank-stocks
  • Why The 4% Retirement Rule Is Just A Starting Point
    @MikeM - Hi there Mike- I think that msf has pretty well covered the general response to your questions. Because Monte Carlo simulation was not widely available during our working years, I designed (took me a while, I'll tell you) a "predictive" spreadsheet which I integrated into the general financial spreadsheet which I had used for some years (and still use) to keep track of our various investments.
    The "predictive" section took account of all resources which would be available to my wife and I after retirement: pensions, SS, Medicare, and income or value increase in investments of equity vehicles, bond vehicles, and real estate. Likewise we had excellent data which had been accumulated over a number of years with respect to anticipated expenses, broadly classified as "basic" (unavoidable), discretionary, and emergency.
    Each of those variables was referenced to large tables which were set up to independently run compounded values over 35 years. Independent inputs for variables included inflation rate, rate of return on equities, bonds and cash (CDs and savings) accounts, and a "financial disaster" input which introduced a general meltdown variable selectable for any given year in the 35 year stretch.
    By varying each of those inputs in any desired combination it was possible to see the cascading effect of various disaster scenarios occurring at different selected times. For example, I generally ran cash and bond income at 2% below the inflation rate, which was also a selected variable, and equity income at 2% above. Very conservative. Being a pessimist by nature, I generally ran setups which would cover every bad thing happening that I could imagine.
    As it happened, I wasn't too far off in the predictive timing for disaster. Destruction of financial resources will be most influential the earlier that they happen in retirement, as they can set back the entire cumulative compounding effects quite seriously. Indeed, Murphy struck, in 2007/2008, just after retirement.
    Nevertheless, the tables worked out pretty well. By pulling down our discretionary expenses (another independent variable input) we survived the chaos in good shape, and were able to carry on with no huge impact to our retirement mode.
    Edit/add: I should also mention that we were deliberately in good shape with respect to loans and finance charges: 30 year mortgage @8% had been paid off ten years early, never any credit card or other interest expenses. (Once the mail was late with a credit card payment and it cost something like $4.21. My wife still mentions that occasionally.)
    MGJ dismissed this whole effort rather casually with a reference to the "limitations" of a spreadsheet for these purposes, and endless exaltations and paeans as to the superiority and invincibility of Monte Carlo. He's welcome to his opinion: just take it with a large grain of whatever. He seems to be one of those folks who believe that whatever they do is the right and only way, that anything else is highly suspect or at best barely acceptable, and thoroughly enjoy telling you so. I'm sure that you know the type.
    Regards
    OJ
  • Why The 4% Retirement Rule Is Just A Starting Point
    Hi msf,
    The shortcoming of much that Mr. Bengen did and reported is that he used actual historical market returns, sometimes in the precise order in which these returns were registered. That's a very limiting method. The odds of that happening again are close to zero.
    The beauty of Monte Carlo is that thousands of cases are randomly incorporated into the simulation. Potential investment outcomes and their variability can be studied in an organized manner. Indeed most haven't any chance or low odds of them ever happening. But the odds are not zero and the Monte Carl methodology represents them in a nearly correct percentage. Each Monte Carlo simulation of the exactly same input conditions will yield a slightly different, but similar, average outcome. That captures the nature of market uncertantiesl
    Monte Carlo is a splendid tool to test portfolio robustness against the unpredictable swings of the marketplace over time. Luck is always a player, and Monte Carlo gives some numerical measure of a portfolio to survive when exposed to these uncertainties.
    Monte Carlo simulations continue to grow in popularity. Today, it is a common practice for professional financial advisors to use Monte Carlo to stress test the survival odds of a portfolio over a long timeframe. Wise investors take advantage of this useful tool too.
    Best Wishes
  • Why The 4% Retirement Rule Is Just A Starting Point
    "The 4% retirement rule ... is based on multiple studies that included using Monte Carlo analyses"
    What the WSJ article says: "Based on pioneering research in the early 1990s by William Bengen, then a financial planner in California, the so-called 4% rule states that retirees can pull about 4% annually from their nest egg (a figure Mr. Bengen eventually set at 4.5%), with a high probability that their savings will last 30 years."
    Bengen's research had nothing to do with Monte Carlo analyses, such as "This Vanguard Monte Carlo calculator."
    Bengen said so himself: "Let me add that I am a great admirer of Vanguard and their effort to serve investors well with low-cost, well-managed funds. I use their funds in my personal portfolio. But our approach to computing "safe" withdrawal rates ... is quite different."
    https://www.aaii.com/journal/article/insights-on-using-the-withdrawal-rule-from-its-creator
    That excellent 2018 interview with Bengen was linked to by the WSJ article. To me what is interesting is not so much the 4% figure as why he picked a thirty year target. (FWIW, in 1994, the IRS joint life table for a couple of 65 year olds was 25 years. The current Table III shows 27.4 years for a 70 year old couple, so we can assume that a 65 year old couple would have at least a 30 year life expectancy per IRS today).
    Also, in his followup that I quoted from above, he addressed @slick's 3.5%
    In contrast, my methods use actual historical returns and inflation rates in the order in which they occurred. Vanguard's methods create sequences of returns and inflation which probably never happened in reality. As a result, they may generate "worst case" scenarios worse than anything that has ever happened, while my methods search for the worst case that has actually occurred.
    Note also that Vanguard uses different asset classes than I do in my research.
    When you change things like that, numbers can change radically.
  • Why The 4% Retirement Rule Is Just A Starting Point
    @slick- Maybe what we need is a version of a Monte Carlo calculator to determine the chances of our longevity, which we could then match against the financial Monte Carlo results. That might radically change one of the major inputs to the financial calculator: the amount of time we are going to need any income at all. :)
  • Ten Years After The Financial Crisis
    Hi Guys,
    Forecasting the future, especially in financial matters, is indeed hazardous duty. Countless books and articles on forecasting accuracy (more like inaccuracy) can easily fill bookshelves. I own many and hopefully have learned just a little to dampen and control my emotional impulses. Among the many famous authors in this crowded field is Phil Tetlock. He has generated and documented much useful insights in this challenging fleld of study.
    Here is a Link to one of his videos that just might interest and instruct you:

    As a general observation, most proclaimed forecasting experts have poor records. Keeping score uncovers their frequent shortfalls. These failed experts have deep knowledge in one area. Most likely, true experts have reasonable knowledge in many diverse areas. Tetlock has identified these experts and their special characteristics over many decades of study.. It is not a short time task. Tetlock has called these few real experts "superforecasters".
    I am not a member of that elite group.
    Best Wishes
  • Ten Years After The Financial Crisis
    FYI: The financial crisis brought the global economy to the brink, with many regarding the bankruptcy of investment bank Lehman Brothers in September 2008 as the seminal moment of the great recession. That same year, the U.S. housing market went under water, J.P. Morgan acquired Bear Stearns in record time as it too faced collapse, stock markets crashed and the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates to their lowest in history. Ten years on, the J.P. Morgan Research team explores what has changed and what the future could hold for the global economy and markets
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.jpmorgan.com/global/research/10-years-after-crisis
  • Yes, it is September 2018; 11,10 and 9 years ago .....
    .....finance timelines below.
    2007 Financial Markets Timeline

    2008 Financial Markets Timeline

    2009 Financial Markets Timeline
    I may add a bit more; but have other appointments today, in my timeline.
    Take care,
    Catch
  • Who Will Cover Mutual Funds For Investment News ?
    FYI: A veteran mutual-fund-watching journalist is now freelancing,
    and a prominent trade publication for financial advisors is on the
    hunt.
    John Waggoner left InvestmentNews in June and has been
    freelancing ever since, continuing to work from home in Vienna,
    Virginia (outside Washington, D.C.), he confirms. He previously
    served as a senior columnist and mutual funds reporter for the
    FA-focused publication, yet he was laid off in June, he says. The
    position has not yet been filled.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=58587&wireid=2