It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Long-term care is extremely costly to pay for over the years, and when you finally need it, you often face loopholes and delayed payments. Most people can’t afford it, and many who can don’t really need it because they already have sufficient funds.I know why I don't' spend it down. I live comfortably and do mostly what I want but LTC for 2 people can go through a sizable nest egg pretty damn fast. Two in LTC could be $200k+/year!!
This analysis would seem to also apply to delaying SS benefits. With a commercial COLA annuity, the investor is accepting lower monthly payments at the start in exchange for higher (adjusted) payments later. With delayed SS, the investor is accepting even lower zero monthly payments for four years in exchange for higher payments once SS starts.The expected benefit of including the COLA is negative. This is primarily because the retiree has to deplete the portfolio faster earlier in retirement for the annuity with the COLA due to the lower initial payment. The portfolio has a relatively higher return, which benefits the retiree as well. The COLA does the best only when inflation is relatively low and life expectancies are notably longer.
Core has different meanings to different investors.I've taken a careful look at CBLDX but like Observant1 don't feel it is good in a core position. Rather, I could use it to stretch risk in my near-cash (0-5 year) sleeve. For that satellite role I find it a close call.
That Hartford fund has more derivatives, and what-not, than the PIMCO fund. That's quite an achievement. :-DSo I queried MFO P with my morning coffee, because I like queries. Here is what I came up with:
Basic Info
• Asset Universe: Mutual Funds
• SubType: Bond
• Age, years: 10+
Index? No Index Funds
More Basic Info
• Share Class: All Classes (Note: This option takes longer to load, initially.)
• Fund of Funds? No Fund of Funds
More Risk Metrics
• DSDEV Rating: 1 - 2 Below Average
• Down Rating (In Type): 1 - 2 Bottom Quintile
Purchase Info
• Expense Ratio (ER), %/yr: 1.00 or Less
Bond Info
• Quality: BBB or Better
• Junk Plus Non-Rated: 20% or Less
• Duration: 6 Years or Less
• Effective Duration: 6 Years or Less
I set the time period from 202112. There were few results over three years of effective duration, which is not too surprising given the environment we have been in. Here they are by duration length, then lowest ER of the fund without regard to purchase conditions: FIJEX, PGBIX, SNGVX, VCFIX. HWDVX, FPNIX.
When I looked at the results for the last twelve months there were no funds with a duration over 2.3. It has been a bumpy flight.
So then I dialed out to ten years and ended up with PGBIX, SNGVX, HWDVX, and FPNIX.
I might try dialing up the risk factor a little later today, but I think this post has gone on long enough.
Thanks, WABAC.
You've given me lots of homework to do!
So I queried MFO P with my morning coffee, because I like queries. Here is what I came up with:
Basic Info
• Asset Universe: Mutual Funds
• SubType: Bond
• Age, years: 10+
Index? No Index Funds
More Basic Info
• Share Class: All Classes (Note: This option takes longer to load, initially.)
• Fund of Funds? No Fund of Funds
More Risk Metrics
• DSDEV Rating: 1 - 2 Below Average
• Down Rating (In Type): 1 - 2 Bottom Quintile
Purchase Info
• Expense Ratio (ER), %/yr: 1.00 or Less
Bond Info
• Quality: BBB or Better
• Junk Plus Non-Rated: 20% or Less
• Duration: 6 Years or Less
• Effective Duration: 6 Years or Less
I set the time period from 202112. There were few results over three years of effective duration, which is not too surprising given the environment we have been in. Here they are by duration length, then lowest ER of the fund without regard to purchase conditions: FIJEX, PGBIX, SNGVX, VCFIX. HWDVX, FPNIX.
When I looked at the results for the last twelve months there were no funds with a duration over 2.3. It has been a bumpy flight.
So then I dialed out to ten years and ended up with PGBIX, SNGVX, HWDVX, and FPNIX.
I might try dialing up the risk factor a little later today, but I think this post has gone on long enough.
You are concentrating on the wrong things:What made HOSIX great to this point is its SD. In terms of returns, HOSIX performed in line with HY bonds, hence my reference to BGHIX. What is unknown is how HOSIX will do when the space gets hit, and it inevitably will. What concerns me most is even looking at the structured space, other funds experienced significantly more volatility (the SD for CLOZ was 3.07 compared to 1.25 for HOSIX...and the max DD was 1.35 versus .16). Was this the result of better bond selection at HOSIX or the possibility that HOSIX has hard to price bonds such that volatility is masked when the bonds perform? Again, no one knows. I think I will still with JSVIX for now. Those guys from Semper have seen tough times before and that provides some comfort. Separate from these bond funds, I've been pretty impressed with BUYW in terms of risk v. reward. Good luck all!
What made HOSIX great to this point is its SD.
Nope. Both performance and risk/SD were great. That's 2 knockouts.
RPHIX has better SD than HOSIX but performance is far behind.
This is exactly what I'm looking for. Performance + lower SD. It doesn't mean I get the best performance; I get good risk-adjusted performance funds.
Remember, SD is based on monthly numbers and does not always show the volatility.
I don't invest in typical HY or EM, and if I do, it's only for weeks.
But if I'm looking for riskier funds, EGRIX, and APDPX would be top funds for me.
See 3+ years of EGRIX, APDPX, BGHIX
(
The fact is that since the inception of HOSIX its CAGR is 8.97 versus 8.01 for BGHIX. I get the comparison over the past three years of the funds you listed on PV...but if you go back past 3 years you can look at how HOBIX compares to BGHIX (surrogate for the HY space) back to 2016. While I get that HOBIX is not HOSIX, if I recall correctly it was still a fund heavily invested in the securitized space. It's not such a pretty picture for HOBIX as BGHIX performed better overall, and even better compared to EGRIX, which shows how different times can yield very different outcomes.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla