It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Andrew Foster, a renowned portfolio manager and founder of Seafarer Capital Partners, shares his insights on why emerging markets are no longer a growth story. Foster emphasizes that the investment case for emerging markets lies in individual companies rather than countries.
I have that in the IRA. It might be a better fit for the taxable. I'll probably put that money into FMIMX.I’ve been looking at mid-caps and I came across XMHQ, a promising candidate. When researching the « quality » factor for this fund, I found the following description:
The Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (Fund) is based on the S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index (Index). The Fund will invest at least 90% of its total assets in the component securities that comprise the Index. The Index is a modified market capitalization weighted index that holds approximately 80 securities in the S&P Midcap 400® Index that have the highest quality scores, which are computed based on a composite of three proprietary factors. The Fund and the Index are rebalanced semi-annually.
I guess S&P own the recipe to the secret sauce. They don’t appear to want you and me to know what the three proprietary factors are. I suspect further research into « quality » funds will prove equally frustrating.
The equities are selected based on the highest quality score, calculated by the following three equally-weighted fundamental factors: (1) return-on-equity (2) accruals ratio, and (3) financial leverage ratio. The index is being weighted by the total of its quality score multiplied by its market capitalization and is rebalanced semi-annually.
He looks at the returns and volatility for higher quality vs lower quality in US stocks, high-yield (BB vs CCC) bonds, small cap stocks, global stocks and value stocks.As GMO launches its first ETF, it seemed like a good time to share my thoughts on the market inefficiency that the strategy seeks to exploit – the quality anomaly. The basic goals of any active investor are to achieve higher returns and/or lower risk than a passive portfolio. These goals are, or at least should be, in conflict with each other. If financial markets were efficient, it would be impossible to sustainably achieve higher returns without taking on additional risk. And any portfolio that embodied lower risk would pay for it with lower long-term returns. At the highest level, markets basically work this way. Government bonds and cash are lower risk than high yield bonds and equities and have delivered lower returns across almost all markets and most time periods. But within risk assets, things get weird. Within both stocks and high yield bonds, you have historically been able achieve both higher returns and lower risk by owning the highest quality securities in those universes. This quality anomaly has been around for a long time and exists within multiple subsets of the equity universe. And for what it is worth, their opposite numbers have also been mispriced – low-quality stocks and CCC (and below) bonds have underperformed their broad universes despite their obviously greater downside in bad economic times. In an investing world where most trade-offs are difficult, this one is pretty easy. If you were going to have one permanent bias in your equity and high yield bond portfolios, it should be in favor of high quality.
https://capitalmarkets.fidelity.com/brokered-certificate-of-deposit-underwritingThe financial institution [bank] makes principal and interest payments to the Depository Trust Company (DTC). DTC is responsible for passing the principal and interest to the broker-dealers. The broker-dealer is responsible for passing the correct amount of principal and interest to the owners of the Certificates.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla