Junkster

I referenced this symbol back in January 2018 and have been following it since. While impressed with its performance, there is a caveat. It is prone to out of the ordinary daily trading gains. For instance most of its outperformance YTD can be attributed to an outsized daily gain one day in January. It was the same way last year where just a couple trading days contributed to its yearly gain. I worry that could cut both ways and you could see an outsized daily decline. Also, how much longer can the good times continue in securitized credit more specifically non agency rmbs.

The fund has a limited number of holdings because of its current size. So a move in a single security can move the fund’s performance on a daily basis. I would say that more than a few days influenced RCTIX performance last year, and most daily moves in most funds are noise.
In many cases, only a few days account for the performance of many investments.
For example if you missed the 20 best days in the stock market over the past 20 years(1/99-12/18) your annualized return was -.33% vs 5.62%.
Yes, in January they monetized a bond at a significantly higher price than the pricing services were pricing it at. Their investment thesis on the bond was realized faster than they had anticipated, and when they were offered a very attractive price, decided to monetize it.
Also, there's more to securitized credit than just non-agency RMBS. They don’t know how long the good times can last, but relative to other credit sectors such as investment grade or high yield, they think securitized credit and non-agency RMBS can still offer strong relative returns.
Non-agency RMBS won’t produce the returns they have in the past, but today they still offer good yields with capital appreciation opportunities. Housing continues to improve, borrowers continue to pay their mortgages, and loan to values continue to improve. So they think these underlying trends will continue to support the non-Agency RMBS market -- which I noted in my article.
JoJo26

That's what you get with less liquid underlying instruments... Honestly, a daily liquid mutual fund probably isn't the best package to offer a strategy that is largely structured credit.
If the fund gets larger and then subsequently sees large redemptions, it will be difficult to unwind positions without taking severe down marks.

With regards to liquidity, the fund has a 60% investment grade minimum specifically designed to meet the daily liquidity needs of investors. Between cash and Agency mortgage TBA’s over 60% of the fund could be in cash tomorrow.
Additionally, regarding the non-agency RMBS, there is strong demand for this paper, and it can be liquidated quickly as well. The sector has recovered substantially and trades very well.
Investors would be wise to consider fund size with regards to liquidity in non-agency RMBS. Many of the mega funds who would need to liquidate billions of dollars in Non-Agency RMBS would have a much more difficult time than a smaller fund such as RCTIX.
Last, RCTIX invests across the capital structure of the individual securities they own. In many cases, they've invested in the senior tranches of the structure. Also, the fund is not investing in odd lot securities that can be difficult to trade.
I hope that this additional information is helpful. I'm done reporting on the fund and moving on.
Best.

FYI: The “Fastest Two Minutes in Sports” is on Saturday at Churchill Downs in Kentucky. Since the founding of the race and racetrack (in which the company draws its name) in 1875, Churchill Downs Incorporated (CHDN) has branched out to a number of other lines of business including ownership of other race tracks and casinos around the US in addition to online gambling sites. CHDN has been like Secretariat over the last decade, posting a "10-bagger" by rising more than 10x in value since its low in 2009.
So how does the stock perform around "Derby Day" specifically? In the past 20 years, the period leading up to the Kentucky Derby has typically been pretty shaky for the stock with declines in the month and week leading up to the race. Historically, in the month before the derby, CHDN has only risen 28.57% of the time with an average decline of 2.26%. The week before has been slightly better, but still declines over half the time. This year bucked the trend, though, with the stock rising 12.11% over the past month and 6.91% in the past week; similar to 2016.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/interactive/posts/think-big-blog/churchill-downs-chdn-off-to-the-races

this is the second article on tax wash out- it also leaves a lot to be explained but more than the first
The first to benefit was the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. Investors’ end-of-year tax forms abruptly stopped showing capital gains in 2001
"Top executives at the Malvern, Pennsylvania-based firm don’t want U.S. policymakers looking too closely at how they’re doing it, according to a former insider."
"But a review of financial statements and trading data shows that Vanguard relies substantially on so-called heartbeat trades, which wash away taxes by rapidly pumping stocks in and out of a fund. These controversial transactions are common in exchange-traded funds—a record $98 billion of them took place last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News—but only Vanguard has used them routinely to also benefit mutual funds."
"Here’s how it works: Vanguard attaches a more tax-efficient ETF to an existing mutual fund. Then the ETF siphons appreciated stocks out of the mutual fund without incurring taxes, often using heartbeat trades. Robert Gordon, who has written about the concept and is president of Twenty-First Securities Corp. in New York, calls it a tax “dialysis machine.”
If I personally did a wash sale I would get wacked. Still don't understand!
"Rapidly pumping money into and out of the exchange-traded portion of the Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund removes taxable gains for the benefit of the mutual fund’s shareholders."
"Rich Powers," ( YOU SLY DOG) "Vanguard’s head of ETF product management, acknowledged the design’s tax advantages. But he said in an interview that they’re not the driver of the company’s strategy and that all of its trading complies with the law."
"Taxable Gains Begone
Unlike competitors that follow similar indexes, Vanguard mutual funds stopped saddling investors with ◼ taxable gains once ETF share classes were added."
"The main benefit of avoiding taxable gains in a mutual fund is tax deferral. Funds distribute their taxable gains to investors, who pay income taxes on them in the same year. By avoiding tax events within the fund, investors get to delay taxes until they sell the fund, which could be years or decades later. It’s akin to a zero-interest loan from the IRS."
"Theoretically, owning stocks through a mutual fund or ETF works the same way. If the fund sells a stock for a profit, the taxable gain shows up on each investor’s end-of-year Form 1099."
"But thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, ETFs almost always avoid incurring taxable gains."
Any one else know about this loophole???
"The rule says that a fund can avoid recognizing taxable gains on an appreciated stock if the shares are used to pay off a withdrawing investor. The rule applies to both ETFs and mutual funds, but mutual funds rarely take advantage of it because their investors almost always want cash."
"ETFs use it all the time, because they don’t transact directly with regular investors. Instead, they deal with Wall Street middlemen such as banks and market makers. It’s those firms, not retail investors, that expand the ETF by depositing assets or shrink it by withdrawing. These transactions are usually done with stocks rather than cash. The middlemen, in turn, trade with regular investors who want to buy and sell ETF shares."
What is the charges of fees by the middlemen surely they are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts??
Does the VANGARD and the middlemen eat all your capital gain?
To me it looks like Vanguard has found a way to feast on your cap gain so you don't have to pay taxes on them. How sweet a deal------ For Vanguard and the MIDDLEMEN!!!
THE DEVILS IN THE DETAILS
QUOTES FROM Bloomberg
JUST MY 2 CENTOVOS!!

@hank According to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission there may be at least one place where there is too much pot.....

Oregon is producing twice as much cannabis as people are using, according to a new study from the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. And Oregon has been overproducing marijuana for a while — leaving more than six years’ worth of supply sitting on shelves and at farms.

https://opb.org/news/article/oregon-cannabis-surplus-2019/

I’m unable to access the article. But the elephant in the room here would appear to be: What’s the rest of the money invested in? For someone heavily allocated to aggressive growth funds, a higher cash level might be appropriate. But, if you’re holding a lot of balanced, diversified income or asset allocation funds, than those already hold some cash (or short term bonds) and so your own cash allocation might not need to be as high. Like so many other questions postulated here, the answer can only be answered in context.
Personally, I target 15% in my static allocation (possibly appropriate for the 70+ crowd). That’s not strictly cash, however. Also includes some short-term bond funds. I’ve considered taking it down to 10% and putting the 5% into something a bit more aggressive like TMSRX at T. Rowe. That fund should pull a couple percent higher than cash over intermediate term (3-5 years) without a whole lot of additional risk from what I can see. But there’s more liquidity with cash. So I’ll let it rest.
While cash isn’t trash, If one can afford even a modicum of fluctuation in value (and dispense with FDIC backing), there are better alternatives.

We’ve currently got about 10% of our total savings in cash right now, the highest in many years. This is due to the relatively high yields of CDs and money markets right now, as well as the low yields for high quality bonds. That, plus we need to make periodic withdrawals in retirement and want to avoid having to sell stocks during potential market downturns.

Thanks @Old_Skeet for the comment.
I think the problem we’ve both identified is that it’s hard to tell whether following is intended to serve as (1) a verb or (2) a participial (a type of modifier derived from a verb).
If #1 is the case, than the action (“following”) could conceivably happen sometime after the EM and domestic U.S. markets had already sustained the initial damage. Perhaps the investor possesses excellent timing and only bought EM stocks after the initial damage had occurred in order to to take full advantage of the anticipated divergence.
However, if #2 is the case, than “following” might serve as an adjective / modifier (part of the participial phrase: “following this diversification.”) The phrase serves to identify specifically which years are being spoken of. In this case the diversification likely occurred before the markets sustained the initial damage and (since it remained in place after the damage) served to smooth out future returns. In either case the investor experienced less volatility than had he / she been only invested in developed markets. However, it seems likely he / she would have come out farther ahead in the first instance.
Minor technical point: If we assume #2 to be the case, than the main verb in the sentence changes and becomes “smooths (out”). And in that case, the sentence technically needs a new subject (which it appears to lack). However, the intended subject is “it”, and it’s quite common in standard usage nowadays to omit the pronoun in this case, as the intended reference to the concept of diversification is easily inferred by the reader.
Ol’Skeet is correct that there are several different places a comma might be inserted. The key thing here is to note that whether the comma is placed after years or after diversification makes a significant difference in how the reader interprets the sentence’s meaning.
* I’ve linked this story before, but it’s worth repeating: The Case of the 10 Million Dollar Comma:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-few-words-about-that-ten-million-dollar-serial-comma

Now ... you folks know I'm not a grammar expert or great wordsmith. However ... I'm thinking ... that the comma needs to go after the word this. And, would read as follows: "But for the next several years following this, diversification smooths out returns and leads to less variation in recovery."
Regardless ... Mitch conveys a great message.
Currently, Old_Skeet owns two emerging market funds. They are NEWFX and DWGAX. I've owned NEWFX for better than ten years and just recently purchased DWGAX within the past year. I plan on keeping both of them as permanent positions for diversification purposes.

A very nice run for the last 10 years ! What will the next 10 years bring for these funds ?
A look see how they performed in 4/th Qter 2018 would have added to the article.
Derf

@Mitch - Makes very good sense. Thank you.
May I suggest that placing a comma after “following“ might avoid possible confusion as to meaning?
“For sharp quick increases and decreases all stock classes are highly correlated and will have large movements together. But for the next several years following, this diversification smooths out returns and lead to less variation in recovery.”
(Another approach might be to place the comma instead after “diversification” - depending where you want the emphasis.)

Also the diversification analysis from the article is not that useful. For all the swift large declines as far as I go back (back to the 1987 crash), everything goes down sharply together (no diversification advantage). However in the subsequent recovery there were big differences in different asset performance. In this case for all 2-3 year periods that include 2008, EM stocks largely outperformed USA stocks (probably largely because China hugely stimulated their economy, while the US was frozen on fiscal policy and Europe raised interest rates before eventually lowering them), and this really helped even steady my own portfolio performance. People need to look at diversification in a more modern context. For sharp quick increases and decreases all stock classes are highly correlated and will have large movements together. But for the next several years following this diversification smooths out returns and lead to less variation in recovery.

FYI: Investors paid less to own funds in 2018 than ever before. Our study of U.S. open-end mutual funds and exchange-traded funds found the asset-weighted average expense ratio was 0.48% in 2018, down from 0.51% in 2017. We estimate that investors saved roughly $5.5 billion in fund expenses last year thanks to this 6% fee decline, which is the second-largest year-over-year decline we have recorded since we began tracking the trend in asset-weighted average fees in 2000. The asset-weighted average expense ratio has fallen every year since 2000. Investors are paying roughly half as much to own funds as they were in the year 2000, when the asset-weighted average fee stood at 0.93%; they're paying 40% less than they did a decade ago and about 26% less than they did five years ago. The asset-weighted average expense ratio of passive funds was 0.15% in 2018 (versus 0.25% a decade ago) compared with 0.67% for active funds (0.86% in 2008). This means active-fund investors are paying about 4.5 times more than passive-fund investors on each dollar, the widest disparity since 2000
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/content/dam/marketing/shared/pdfs/Research/USFundFeeStudyApr2019.pdf?cid=EMQ_&utm_source=eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=17040

For me, I have, for the most part, through my many years in investing, trimmed my equity positions into strength and expanded them on weakness. As to old saying goes ... buy low, and sell high.

I don't disagree with this comment, but a different argument can be made for the other side of the coin, trimming to early in an up trend (opportunity cost) and buying while the market is falling - try to catch that proverbial falling knife. In both cases it's timing the market. Always hard to time it. Always a gamble.

If there’s such a thing as good financial porn that was it. Remember grabbing a copy or so off the supermarket stands in the spring of ‘97 and enjoying them outdoors as it warmed in these parts. Those were transitional years. One year from retirement and had recently let go of my fee-based plan advisor - ill prepared to manage the accumulated assets on my own.
Some other things which helped shape my thinking back than were Andrew Tobias’ The Only Investment Guide You’ll ever Need and a recent book by John Bogle: Bogle On Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor. The WSJ was still pretty good reading. And, of course, Rukeyser’s weekly interviews with the likes of John Templeton / Perter Lynch were influential. Bill Fleckenstein had some good free columns online in those years and helped instill in me a wariness of markets (probably excessive) which still prevails today.

There is nothing more positive than skepticism amid rising prices. I would be more worried if this market was more embraced and investors were much more enthusiastic. I can’t predict any better than anyone else. But the momentum coming off the December lows was among the fourth greatest of the past 60 years. August 1982 and March 2009. We saw how much higher the market went over the ensuing years. Strength begets strength. The problem is the other was January 1987 and we also know what occurred 9 months later.

For Perspective:
“The Dow Jones Industrial Average's highest closing record is 26,828.39, set on October 3, 2018. It followed a record set the previous day.” https://www.thebalance.com/dow-jones-closing-history-top-highs-and-lows-since-1929-3306174. On Friday the DJI closed 26,542. That put it 287 points below where it was roughly 6 months earlier. Call it an uptick if you like. For anyone with longer than a 6 months time horizon, the market, as measured by the DJI, is still in recovery mode following the late 2018 selloff.
Massive downward spirals in markets are exceedingly rare. I’m aware of only 2 in this country during the past 90 years that reached or exceeded the 50% range (‘29-‘32 and ‘07-‘09). In addition, Japan’s Nikkei may be worth a look. In 1989 that index, in a developed market with an economy second only to the U.S. at the time, peaked at 38,916. 30 years later it rests at 22,259.
No intent by me to shape anyone’s views one way or another. My recent shift to a static allocation model with only occasional rebalancing has distanced me from the daily / seasonal market gyrations. It’s more boring, potentially less profitable, but also reduces the danger of shooting myself in the foot.

For me, I have, for the most part, through my many years in investing, trimmed my equity positions into strength and expanded them on weakness. As to old saying goes ... buy low, and sell high.
From my perspective, this is a grossly overvalued market and I'm not putting new money to work at this time. This does not mean that it want go higher; but, I'm thinking the returns will be very thin during the nearterm.

Lots pundits stating no doubt another large recession likely occur 6 to 36 months... We don't really know exactly when
So if you are doing well/near retirement and thinking time to bail out, extremely happy w previous 10+years profit then maybe best time to get out..
I reduced mother portfolio to 30%equities and 70% bonds fixed-income recently

Anyone using this up tick as a reason to take some profit ?

Interesting question. But why are you calling today’s market conditions an

“uptick” ? U.S. equity markets today have barely clawed their way back to where they were 6-12 months ago. “Rebound” or “recovery” might better describe today’s market. @Derf, I share your apprehension. While I don’t have access to the Barrons story, I suspect it’s bearish in sentiment. Problem is: These warnings are becoming like a “broken record”. (For those too young to remember vinyl, “broken record” was a phenomenon characterized by the unstoppable repetition of a few notes or words - over and over again.)
Read virtually any respectable financial publication from Barrons to the MFO Monthly Commentaries over the past 8-10 years and you’ll find warnings about overvaluation, lofty levels, dangerous markets, overbought markets, over exuberance, etc.. Yet, had you heeded those warnings 3, 5 or 8 years ago and moved to ultra-safe investments like cash and limited duration bonds you’d likely have been left standing in the dust along the road as markets marched higher.
Does this make me optimistic going forward? No - not in the least. But something isn’t adding up when you compare the decade old flood of warnings about valuations alongside actual U.S. stock market performance over the same period. One possibility (but only a possibility) for those fixated on indexes is that the 10-year steady march higher since 2009 will eventually be erased by a sudden, rapid, downward spiral in valuations. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen. Should it occur, however, it might make the roughly 18 months slide from late ‘07 to early ‘09 look like a Sunday picnic.*
I don’t get paid to give investment advice here, so offer none. :) I share your concerns and I’ve done what I can to lower overall risk in how my retirement monies are invested - appropriate to age and a 10-20 year time horizon. But there are no guarantees. And, whatever plan / course one decides on, it needs to be tailored to age and circumstances. @Derf, I realize this does nothing to satisfy your concerns. But thanks for the question anyway.
*From its peak in 2007 to its low in 2009, The S&P 500 Index fell roughly 50%.
https://www.frbatlanta.org/cenfis/publications/notesfromthevault/0909

Absolutely super post Hank. One that younger investors should save as a reference.

Anyone using this up tick as a reason to take some profit ?

Interesting question. But why are you calling today’s market conditions an “uptick” ? U.S. equity markets today have barely clawed their way back to where they were 6-12 months ago. “Rebound” or “recovery” might better describe today’s market. @Derf, I share your apprehension. While I don’t have access to the Barrons story, I suspect it’s bearish in sentiment. Problem is: These warnings are becoming like a “broken record”. (For those too young to remember vinyl, “broken record” was a phenomenon characterized by the unstoppable repetition of a few notes or words - over and over again.)
Read virtually any respectable financial publication from Barrons to the MFO Monthly Commentaries over the past 8-10 years and you’ll find warnings about overvaluation, lofty levels, dangerous markets, overbought markets, over exuberance, etc.. Yet, had you heeded those warnings 3, 5 or 8 years ago and moved to ultra-safe investments like cash and limited duration bonds you’d likely have been left standing in the dust along the road as markets marched higher.
Does this make me optimistic going forward? No - not in the least. But something isn’t adding up when you compare the decade old flood of warnings about valuations alongside actual U.S. stock market performance over the same period. One possibility (but only a possibility) for those fixated on indexes is that the 10-year steady march higher since 2009 will eventually be erased by a sudden, rapid, downward spiral in valuations. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen. Should it occur, however, it might make the roughly 18 months slide from late ‘07 to early ‘09 look like a Sunday picnic.*
I don’t get paid to give investment advice here, so offer none. :) I share your concerns and I’ve done what I can to lower overall risk in how my retirement monies are invested - appropriate to age and a 10-20 year time horizon. But there are no guarantees. And, whatever plan / course one decides on, it needs to be tailored to age and circumstances. @Derf, I realize this does nothing to satisfy your concerns. But thanks for the question anyway.
*From its peak in 2007 to its low in 2009, The S&P 500 Index fell roughly 50%.
https://www.frbatlanta.org/cenfis/publications/notesfromthevault/0909