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.
  • airlines...
    Flight traffic is down considerably during this pandemic. Wearing face masks is required now. Some airlines leave the middle row empty while many don't and managed to get full flight. Knowing the cabinet air is 90% recirculated it is risky to fly. One doctor got infected with COVID while wearing face mask. He think it came from eyes exposure without safety google during his flight. Warren Buffet sold all his airline stocks in spring indicating these business will not return to normal capacity for years to come.
  • Bond Yields Are Sending a Scary Signal on Stocks
    These "experts" missed the fact that the Fed is controlling these markets since 2009 and conventional ideas are not working.
    Basically, I disregard all "experts" and articles, their job is to sell you something and/or can't predict the future and definitely can't predict what will happen in the next several months ;-)
    I'ld set the clock back to Greenspan. But that's just quibbling
    Under the circumstances I find I pay less attention to my portfolio than I have in years.
  • Bond Yields Are Sending a Scary Signal on Stocks
    Old_Joe: I'm a value investor, but Value has been taking it on the chin for quite a while.
    +1 I keep hearing for years the following
    1) what about value and growth beat it by so much
    2) the market is expensive but it keeps going up
    3) rates can only go up but they keep going down and why bond have been doing great
    4) PE,PE10 are high, inverted yield signals the next meltdown and...stocks go up
    5) diversification is great and it wasn't and I'm talking about wide indexes such as SC, MC, international. The SP500 had better performance with lower volatility.
    6) Inflation will be higher and kill the economy and it's not high for years.
    These "experts" missed the fact that the Fed is controlling these markets since 2009 and conventional ideas are not working.
    Basically, I disregard all "experts" and articles, their job is to sell you something and/or can't predict the future and definitely can't predict what will happen in the next several months ;-)
  • Vanguard U.S. Value Fund (investor class) to be reorganized
    Thank you. Back in the 1900 I invested with Hakan Castegren of Harbor International fund until his passing. The rest of the Northern Cross team did not live up to Hakan Castegren and I left several years later. Marathon is fair and nothing outstanding as subadvisor for Harbor International fund.
    I am actually more interested in James Anderson of Baillie Gifford who has very good long term track record. They appear to be institutional fund managers. Similar international growth and global Baillie Gifford funds are not available in the retail Fidelity and Schwab brokerages. So I will stay with Vanguard International Growth fund.
  • Old_Skeet's Market Barometer ... Spring & Summer Reporting ... and, My Positioning
    Hi @Puddnhead,
    Thanks for making comment and for your question(s).
    For me to hold no load funds through my current broker I'd have to open another account which would have a wrap fee associated with it. Thus, I stick with what I can buy at nav and/or reduced sales charges. Thus, I hold no Vanguard funds.
    With respect to SPECX. It is one of my longterm holdings and due to its organic growth it now has a sizeable unrealized capital gain associated with it; and, should I sell it I'd owe the tax man. In addition, I have it paired with another Alger fund AOFAX which is closed to new investors. Both of these funds have been good long term performers for me.
    American Mutual (AMFFX) is a quality fund and one that I have owned, in the past. Years back, I did a nav transfer out of it into ANCFX and no longer hold American Mutual A share, AMRMX.
    Although, I do not own ANZAX I own another convertible securities fund FISCX and at one time had a whole sleeve of convetible funds. I hold FISCX in my hybrid income sleeve. It has been a good performer for me through the years. A fund that I own that has about 1/3 of its assets in convertibles is AZNAX which pays out 7 cents a share per month. That equates to about a 7.3% distribution yield based upon current valuation.
    I have six small mid cap funds. They are AOFAX, FKASX, KAUAX, LPEFX, PMDAX & SMCWX. I have no plans to eliminate any of them and may add to SMCWX and KAUAX in the future.
    I always enjoy reading your comments and perspectives. This is what makes the MFO board so great by the many investment ideas presented where investors are finding success. One of the things that I find of great interest in investing is that there is no one right way for finding success.
    Since, I have no long necks Bud Lights ... in the fridge ... I'll have to toast you with a Bud Light ... from the can.
    Keep up the good work ... and, remember me to DUKE!. Smart dog.
    Take care ... Old_Skeet
  • Old_Skeet's Market Barometer ... Spring & Summer Reporting ... and, My Positioning
    @hank, as my CDs have matured and yield on CDs and MMs have gone to virtually nothing, I've also been changing "cash" into other holdings. But I've been keeping those other holdings on the conservative side. Nothing too speculative. Not reaching for yield since all my retirement money is in IRA and 401k. I'm just interested in steady, conservative, total return for this substitute for cash... with the understanding I'm also adding risk.
    I've invested quite a bit of "cash" into 2 places, short term treasuries by an ETF, ISTB (Ishares 1-5 year duration) and put a substantial amount into a conservative alternative fund, MNWAX.
    I used to own PRPFX years ago. As you probably remember it was one of the darlings of the board during and after the 2008 recession. By memory, I think the stocks it holds are geared towards energy which hasn't been in favor for quite a while. Always thought of it as a conservative play on gold.
  • Old_Skeet's Market Barometer ... Spring & Summer Reporting ... and, My Positioning
    Hi @hank,
    Thanks for posting your allocation and writing about how you portfolio is constructed. I'm going to study your alternative sleeve and see how this sleeve Xrays using a 50/30/20 weighting. Perhaps you would be willing to comment some more about it?
    In looking at PRPFX it looks like it would be a good fit for my niche sleeve. It had the better downside and upsside performance over my current funds in the sleeve during the recent market swoon and the better returns out through 5 years after that the other funds have the advantage.
    With this, I've now have placed it on my buy pending list awaiting better buying conditions as I just, for the most part, don't buy funds while they are at their 52 week highs.
    Old_Skeet
  • Vanguard U.S. Value Fund (investor class) to be reorganized
    The Vanguard Global Equity Fund is the only Vanguard fund that Marathon advises.
    Marathon has advised this fund since its inception in 1995.
    From the December 2018 issue of 'The Independent Advisor for Vanguard Investors' newsletter:
    "Original manager Marathon Asset Management generated strong returns when Global Equity got its start. Vanguard then added Acadian Asset Manangement in 2004 and Alliance Bernstein in 2006, and performance suffered. Baillie Gifford was hired as a fourth sub-advisor in 2008, but oversaw just 5% of the portfolio for several years."
    "Since Baillie Gifford came on board in April 2008 through the end of September 2018, Global Equity returned 78.9%. Marathon's separate account was up 101.0% - meaning the fund still hasn't performed as well in its new form as it would have under Marathon's sole management. Baillie Gifford's separate account gained a terrific 136.9%. And as I said, Acadian's individual record brings up the rear with a 72.9% return."
  • Old_Skeet's Market Barometer ... Spring & Summer Reporting ... and, My Positioning
    “My normal asset allocation is 20/40/40. As you can see I am +5% heavy on the income side of my portfolio...”
    Thanks Skeet, Since you and I are in similar boats age-wise, risk-wise, I’ll share the allocation model I’ve used for the past 2 years now. Like yours, it’s a “sleep well” fairly conservative allocation. I won’t detail individual holdings, with the exception of the alternatives, as it’s a fairly ambiguous area.
    25% Balanced funds
    25% Global Income funds
    25% Alternatives *
    15% Cash / Speculative holdings **
    10% Real Asset funds
    * Within the alternative sleeve in order of magnitude (largest to smallest): PRPFX, TMSRX, ABRZX
    ** With regard to the cash / speculative sleeve, my nominal position would be 100% cash. But currently about 30% of it is devoted to a couple speculative holdings: PIEQX and PRLAX. I’m accepting this added risk to help compensate for the extraordinarily low current interest rates and to take advantage of buying opportunities presented during the March-April meltdown. PRLAX, for instance, was down 50% YTD at the time of purchase. Currently off only about 25%.
    NOT investment advice. Disclaimer follows:
    “Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR. Per G.G.,Chief of Ordnance” - Mark Twain
  • Vanguard U.S. Value Fund (investor class) to be reorganized
    John Rekenthaler (M*) recently wrote a column about how Vanguard is gradually shuttering its actively managed US equity funds, specifically VULVX. He observed that Vanguard's actively managed US equity funds have not performed well relative to their Vanguard index fund peers over the past several years.
    https://www.morningstar.com/articles/994649/whither-vanguards-active-us-equity-funds
    I just sent him email to the effect that the fund is not actively managed, but a quant fund. His response, in part: "U.S. Value was old-school quantitative – active management through, yes, microchips. But definitely active management."
    While Vanguard is reducing the number of its actively (and old-style quant) US broad equity funds, over the past decade it has added a variety of other actively managed funds.
    A few that have been discussed at MFO are VGWIX, VGWLX, and VMVFX. Others include VCMDX, VMMSX, VWICX, VEIGX. A few bond funds have been added as well.
  • Life After Death? Kodak Shifts Into Drug Production
    Another viewpoint -
    Must be 25 years ago, we requested Kodak prepare a small batch of a potential API for investigational use.
    In due time, a large bottle arrives. But, WTF ??? I've never heard of the stuff the label says it is.
    I call Kodak. "Oh, it's the right stuff, we just put on the wrong label. We'll send you a new label."
    WTF !!! This is for use in a human clinical trial. YOU ARE TAKING THIS STUFF BACK !
    Just because a company has a certain expertise does not mean it has the required expertise. Worse, they may think they have the expertise, when they do not.
  • FPA New Income, Inc. limited availability to new investors as of August 1, 2020
    @wxman123
    VFIIX has also provided a similar record since 1981 37 up years. The 2 down years were (-2.23%) in 2013 and (-0.95%) in 1994.
  • FPA New Income, Inc. limited availability to new investors as of August 1, 2020
    Generally speaking, different years are good for some types of investments and bad for others. That's why 1994 is so interesting - little seems to have done particularly well.
    Obviously 2008 was a disaster for equities, and serves to get one focused on bonds. Since junk bonds and to a lesser extent corporates tend to track equities, the further a fund strayed from Treasuries, the more likely it was to lose money that year.
    To illustrate this, here's a chart for 2008 comparing intermediate Treasuries (VFITX up 13.8%), Treasury-laden IG market (AGG, up 6.2%), a good corporate bond fund (PIGIX up 2.2%), a corporate index (down 2.7%), and the average corporate bond fund (down 8.2%).
    Shortening duration tempers swoons, so one is most likely to find funds that didn't lose money in 2008 either by investing shorter term or in government-backed securities. Another way to improve yield is to invest in MBSs that resemble these other bonds in duration and credit quality, but come with a higher coupon.
    Using asset-backed securities in enhanced cash funds has a number of advantages. The interest rate risk or duration is similar to a money market instrument. The volatility of returns from interest rate moves should be fairly low, but a yield premium is available over money market assets.
    https://www.ipe.com/enhanced-cash-and-the-naming-problem/25602.article
    However, nothing comes for free. These higher yields have prepayment risk (negative convexity). That risk is somewhat hidden by the numbers and usually pays off. Until it doesn't. Look for threads along the lines of "XXX fund worked until it didn't".
    One can even find MBS funds in the intermediate government category with won/lost records comparable to SNGVX Though for a variety of reasons I wouldn't personally use these "longer" term funds as cash substitutes.
    SNGVX has an effective duration of 2.9 years and is full of GNMAs, FNMA's, etc.
    PDMIX is called an intermediate term fund. It has an effective duration of 1.8 years and is full of GNMAs. Like SNGVX, it lost money in 2013: 2.37%. Outside of that, it's never had a losing year. But ... it only goes back to mid 1997. It wasn't tested in 1994. It also adds another layer of performance enhancement (and risk) with leverage.
    VFIJX is also called an intermediate term fund. It has an even shorter effective duration of 1.0 years. Like SNGVX and PDMIX, it lost money in 2013: 2.13%. Unlike PDMIX it was around in 1994, and unlike SNGVX it did lose money that year: 0.95%, making its record 37-2 (it started in mid 1980).
    With all these funds, it's a matter of taste. What sort of risks and of what size one is willing to take for what level of return. One gets different risk profiles by investing in different types of bonds. Then it's a matter of finding a good fund of that particular type.
  • FPA New Income, Inc. limited availability to new investors as of August 1, 2020
    In "the never had a losing year contest" it's not meaningful to consider funds that did not exist prior to 2008 IMO.
    IMHO the whole concept is an arbitrary numbers game. While I tend to agree with you about having an interest in 2008 performance, I'm more interested in 1994, when bonds lost almost 3% and stocks barely broke even. That's a real test.
    Why should 365 days be special? (Well, except for every fourth year.) Even granting that one year is a useful period of time (not too long to make recoveries easy, not too short to get confused by random noise), what's special about January 1? If one is ascribing meaning to one year periods, ISTM that absent some meaningful rationale, looking at all rolling one year periods makes as much sense as looking only at calendar years.
    As it turns out, AVEFX lost money over the 365 day period between 6/16/2003 and 6/15/2004. It lost a tad more over the 366 day period ending 6/16/2004 (counting Feb 29, 2004).
    Why is avoiding any loss (but only over calendar year periods) no matter how small so critical? Is it better to make 0.01% in a MMF, or to make some measurable profit even if one loses 0.05% in one out of 23 years. That describes PMDRX. It has performed better than AVEFX with a smoother ride.
    FPNIX started 4/1/1969. From then until the end of the year it lost almost 3%. Between the end of that April and the end of the following April (365 days), it lost nearly 11%.
    From its launch to the end of the following April (i.e. its first 13 months), it lost over 5%. At nearly the end of November 1970, 1 2/3 years after launch, it was still down.
    But none of this "counts". The 1969 loss doesn't count because that wasn't a full calendar year. The nearly two year span doesn't count because it doesn't align on calendar years.
    All this is supposed to be "meaningful"?
    Absolute negative screens have problems. This is not to suggest that one should disregard losses. But it's their magnitudes and frequency that matter, not the mere fact that a fund happened to lose a small amount over a particular 365 (or 366) day period.
    How one weighs different factors is a personal preference. All I'm suggesting is that giving one factor (avoiding losses) infinite weight may not be as helpful as it appears.
  • Life After Death? Kodak Shifts Into Drug Production
    A current article in The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Kodak, with the help of a $765 million US Government loan, is metamorphosing into generic drug production. Following are pertinent abridged extracts from that article:

    Onetime photography leader is shifting into production of drug ingredients using a loan provided under the Defense Production Act
    Eastman Kodak Co. has won a $765 million government loan under the Defense Production Act, the first of its kind. The purpose: to help expedite domestic production of drugs that can treat a variety of medical conditions and loosen the U.S. reliance on foreign sources. Kodak’s loan has terms similar to a commercial loan and must be repaid over 25 years.
    The loan is from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, a government agency akin to a bank, the officials said. The loan is the first of its kind under the Defense Production Act, which the Trump administration has previously invoked to speed the production of Covid-19 related supplies such as ventilators.
    The onetime leader in photography sales is gearing up to produce ingredients for a number of generic drugs, including the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine that President Trump has touted in the treatment of coronavirus. Meanwhile, the U.S. is aiming to shift from relying on countries such as China and India, Kodak Chief Executive Jim Continenza and U.S. officials said. Mr. Trump in May issued an order allowing the DFC to financially support the “domestic production of strategic resources” for the coronavirus pandemic and “to strengthen any relevant domestic supply chains.”
    Kodak will produce “starter materials” and “active pharmaceutical ingredients” used to produce generic medicines. “We have a long, long history in chemical and advanced materials—well over 100 years,” Mr. Continenza said. He added that Kodak’s existing infrastructure allows the company “to get up and running quickly.” Kodak is effectively changing gears, expecting its pharmaceutical ingredients to make up 30% to 40% of its business over time, and expects the loan to create around 300 jobs in Rochester, and 30 to 50 jobs in Minnesota.
    For the U.S., the benefit of providing the loan to Kodak is to reduce reliance on other countries, particularly China, for drugs, DFC head Adam Boehler said: “We don’t ever want to be in a position, because of a pandemic, because of any reason,” that a foreign entity could upend U.S. access to medicines or pharmaceutical products".
    China is the world’s biggest supplier of the raw materials—known as active pharmaceutical ingredients—that form the basis of medicines. That dependence on China makes shortages more likely should Chinese manufacturing be shaken, according to a 2019 U.S. government report. China’s dominance is growing: The U.S. imported $3.9 billion worth of pharmaceutical raw material from China in 2017, an increase of nearly one-quarter from the prior year, according to IHS Markit.
    Rear Adm. John Polowczyk, who heads the White House’s supply-chain task force, said domestic drug production began shifting away from the U.S. in the 1970s, largely for reasons related to cost savings.
    Peter Navarro, the White House trade adviser, said “This is not about China or India or any one country. It’s about America losing its pharmaceutical supply chains to the sweat shops, pollution havens, and tax havens around the world that cheat America out of its pharmaceutical independence.”
    Personal comments-
    • I believe that this action, supported by President Trump and Peter Navarro, is absolutely in the national interest.
    RE: "domestic drug production began shifting away from the U.S... largely for reasons related to cost savings."
    • Right. And of course those "cost savings" are reflected in the moderate and affordable drug prices that we see today. Let's try "largely for reasons related to increased drug company profits, at the expense of the national interest."
  • FPA New Income, Inc. limited availability to new investors as of August 1, 2020
    If you want only funds that never lost money then performance could lag badly. PFNIX 10 years average annually is only 2% and that's a dismal bond performance.
    I'd suggest you might have a typo, but you've assured us that whatever was posted, you meant what you said and you said what you meant, your numbers are true, 100 percent.
    Still, given that PFNIX has only been around since 4/28/18, producing a 10 year average for that share class is a neat trick.
    If one were to extrapolate PFNIX returns based on the performance of other share classes, one might arrive at a 10 year average return of 3.57% as of June 30th. That's far better that your 2%. However the shares, had they existed, would have lost money in 2011, 2014, and 2015.
    Nor could it be that you conflated Pimco Low Duration Income Fund with Pimco Low Duration Fund, e.g. PTLDX. Because while the latter fund did average a bit over 2%/year over the past ten years, it too lost money. The annual performance graph below is from its prospectus.
    image
    If the game is simply to compare performance of funds that have never had a losing year.... AKRIX. I win! The metric in the quoted sentence was 10 year average annually. That would be 18.3%.
    Silly cherry picking game.
  • Things that make me go hmmm...
    Why is it that every spoken political ad I have seen and heard for the last 30 years whose content I more or less agree with is spoken in a smarmy repulsive voice? This one is the latest. Talk about self-defeating shooting oneself in the foot! Why would anyone believe anything spoken in such a self-satisfied tone? I hear no alarm, no urgency in the voice of this speaker. I hear self-righteousness.
  • FPA New Income, Inc. limited availability to new investors as of August 1, 2020
    One reason maybe that AVEFX ''flies under the radar'' is it is not available at Fidelity or Schwab no load/NTF.

    In 2020 peak to trough AVEFX lost about 10% while FPINX lost only about 2%.
    AVEFX has 20% in stocks FPINX < 1%
    Vanguard VASIX is a better choice than AVEFX. See (
    chart). VASIX ER=0.11%. It has better performance and SD(volatility) is close.

    There may well be better choices for this TYPE of fund, but the criteria I was focusing on was never a down year. VASIX has had two, including down 10.53% in 2008. Not so pretty. AVEFX has an unbroken streak during its existence dating back to 2004.
    If you want only funds that never lost money then performance could lag badly. PFNIX 10 years average annually is only 2% and that's a dismal bond performance.
    AVEFX has a much better performance but 3.8-3.9% average annual return for 5-10 years are not good enough for me. At least VASIX performance annually is at 5.2-5.3% and Vanguard uses just indexes.
    My goals at retirement are 6+% average annually with SD < 3 + positive annually + never lose more than 3% from any last top.
  • Eastman Kodak stock price surge
    After working at Kodak for 40 years, in great times and bad, I still bleed yellow. Hope this works out for them.
  • Gold future
    Would oil be a drag on a commodity fund?
    Oil has been a tremendous boost for funds that invest in oil futures since the price went negative April 20. Over the past 3 months oil’s soared to over $40. I don’t even know how to compute such a phenomenal rate of return from -$30 to +$40. (maybe “a gazillion percent”?). The supposition behind @little5bee ‘s question must be that oil has entered bubble territory. :)
    All the “cards“ seem stacked against oil from a casual viewer’s vantage point. Fracking, electric cars, shared vehicles, wind and solar, global warming / ecological related restrictions. What’s interesting is that with air travel off 50-75% during the pandemic and carriers mothballing aircraft, the price of oil has hung in there. So you have the eventual resumption of air travel to look forward to. Also, not all oil derived products are burned as fuel. Asphalt used for paving is one example. Lord knows we have plenty of roads in need of rebuilding.
    There aren’t a lot of pure commodities funds. The ones that do exist play the futures markets thru derivatives. That’s expensive and risky. But who wants to take delivery or crude oil or lean hogs? I put a little in Invesco’s BRCAX shortly after oil fell below 0. This one’s the real McCoy as far as commodities funds go. The fund has done well since than. PRENX does not call itself a commodities fund. It invests in nat. resources, concentrated in refiners. Even its manager has suggested for at least 3 years now (in annual reports) that this fund is not currently a good investment, as he foresees a long bear market in the nat. resources area. I’m eager to read his next fund report to see if his thinking has changed any. PRAFX is as close as Price comes to having a commodities fund. It is less exposed to oil and appears to have a bit more in gold judging from its behavior.
    Disclosure: I own all 3 of the above mentioned funds.