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.
  • Buy, Sell and Ponder -- March
    I sold SPHD on the late upswing today for a 16% gain over a few years. It paid a half decent dividend as well, but I don't like its positioning going forward. There are other dividend options that may do better in the current environment.
  • Buy, Sell and Ponder -- March
    Wondering about the status of SPHD, which seems to be getting pummeled YTD (-6.5%) because of its holdings in Utilities, Real Estate and other interest-sensitive stocks. I have built up pretty large cap gains since I bought it a few years ago. It's definitely in the wrong sectors right now, especially compared to something similar like SCHD. Opinions about SPHD?
  • Elizabeth Warren Wants To Be Your New Mutual Fund Manager
    "He cited an incident that had occurred two years earlier, in which a gunman shot and killed three people in a Seattle shipyard. “The next day, the papers reported that, within minutes of the shooting, the Seattle School District had been able to lock down every school within a two-mile radius of the shootings,” Wales said. “My first thought was Well, good for the school district for doing a fine job protecting our kids. But wait a minute. Is this Kosovo, Bosnia, Beirut, Rwanda—that we have to lock down our schools to protect our children?”
    The man quoted in this article, Tom Wales, a US Attorney who advocated gun control, was shot and killed in October, 2001. His unsolved murder is the subject of a recent New Yorker article by Jeffrey Toobin. Linked in that article is another piece Toobin wrote in 2007 about the murder and from which I copied the above quotation. For ages now, reasonable people have despaired at the nuttiness of official reactions to the shooting down of our citizens. It does indeed appear that we are competing with some of the most dangerous places on the planet, such as Yemen these days. Have we made any progress?
    Here's the link: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/08/06/an-unsolved-killing
  • Six Magic-Potion Funds From Vanguard
    Reminds me of Motif investing; build your own, eh?
    https://www.motifinvesting.com/motifs#catalog=overview

    From the article: A low-vol fund gives you more of sleepy Microsoft (MSFT)
    >>> Things change, times change, managers change. Microsoft is not currently a sleepy company.
    Sample: growth to value and value to growth:
    ---Durant-Dort Carriage Company was a manufacturer of horse-drawn vehicles in Flint, Michigan. Founded in 1886, in 1900 it was US's largest carriage manufacturer.
    This very successful business made the partners rich men and it became the core on which William C Durant and J Dallas Dort began to build General Motors.
    Durant sold out of this business in 1914 and it finished carriage manufacture in 1917.
    >>>With the assumption of being able to purchase stock in the above, one may suspect those who poo-poo'd the demise of carriages and those who poo-poo'd rise of the motor car. Who and when someone may have bought or sold shares in either organization would have allowed them a more complete understanding of growth becoming value and value becoming growth scenarios, yes?
    Below chart is factor investing, too. Large cap value vs large cap growth, from 2 different vendors. Simple etf models, although I don't know about internal holdings changes over the years. In particular, since early 2016 value can not find as many friends.
    http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?JKE,JKF,IVW,IVE&p=6&O=011000
    I will guess that active individual investors are/were 50% inclined to be "factor or smart beta" investors before the terms became fashionable, eh? One makes personal investment choices for whatever reasons. One makes choices based upon many "factors" in their own world of risk and knowledge.
    A few possible factors might include:
    ---age
    ---financial status, being employed and young with a good wage and prudent personal financial habits; being near retirement or being retired with a comfortable financial position
    --- How hungry are you? = I'm young and hungry, I'm almost retired and don't want to lose what I've worked so hard to attain or I'm retired, and don't want to lose what I've attained, but still need to be invested in something reasonable. Among all of this at any age level is the aptitude/attitude involvement which may lead one to a more hands off approach of a plain joe/jane balanced fund style of investment or the Robo advisors.
    One sorts and searches for whatever investment style floats their boat of comfort.
    Factor or smart-beta investments offer more choices and hopefully not more confusion.
    In closing, I'll offer the below partial lyric as the "theme song" for the ever evolving world of etf choices. Build it and they may come, eh?
    Kinda like the simple lyric of this Dave Clark Five song (I Like It Like That) from the mid-60's:
    Come on (come on let me show you where it's at)
    Ah, come on (come on let me show you where it's at)
    Whoa!, come on (come on let me show you where it's at)
    I said the name of the place is I like it like that
    The music is all around us, all we have to do.....is listen.
    Take care,
    Catch
  • Elizabeth Warren Wants To Be Your New Mutual Fund Manager
    Here is an excerpt from the above-linked article in the Atlantic on the AR-15:
    As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.
    In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.
    I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?
    The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.
    A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.
    Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.
    I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.
    With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care.
  • Bucket #1
    If you are a retiree and think it is prudent to have 1-5 year piece of your investments in a rather safe place for annual or emergency needs, how are you positioning this money? Suggestions or opinions appreciated.
    I think a CD ladder is a good choice now. I've got a bunch sitting in MM but might switch it over to CDs. I'm still about three years from actual retirement.
  • Bucket #1
    I don't think bee's "bucket #1" fits my definition at all. I always considered or read that the "safe" #1 bucket contains $$$ you do not want any or very little, chance of losing principle. It is the safe bucket you draw living expenses from.
    My bucket 1 (~4 years expected withdrawals) will be a MM fed by a CD ladder. Only 1 more bucket for me, bucket 2 is just a fairly stable 60:40 mix that will feed bucket 1 if the economy is not in recession. The purpose of bucket 1 is so that you don't have to draw from the growth bucket in down years. In good times it will get fed to keep that 4 year cushion.
    Just my 2 cents and I am not retired yet. Some time this year. More than 2 buckets just confuses me I guess.
  • Bucket #1
    @JoJo26,
    Interesting. I thought the whole point of target date funds was that they were a one stop shop...
    Tweaking a little growth (staying ahead of inflation) was my thought here as well as simplicity.
    I kinda think a single target date retirement fund works well for new investors (a 30 year old owning a 2060 fund...cool), but I like the idea of re-casting this single target fund 5 years before retirement into (6) target date funds to serve as "5 year spending buckets". I also would fund a 1-3 year safe spending bucket (separate from these other buckets). Finally any additional savings would be place into long term growth investments.
    Inflation has a funny way of kicking a retirees bony butt. That 5 cent candy bar is now a buck...that 25 cent draught beer is now $5 bucks.
    Seems to make sense to me.
  • Bucket #1
    My unconventional Bucket #1 in retirement would utilize target date funds.
    Bucket #1 would arrive in 5 year increments using target date funds that are spread out over retirement. If I were retiring in 2020...Bucket #1 would be (Bucket 2020) and would be funded with 5 years of retirement spending (any growth could be looked at as additonal discretionary spending) to be spent between 2020 -2025.
    A second Bucket #1 (Bucket 2025) would be funded with a 2025 target date fund and would have 7 years (2018-2025) to "grow". It would be funded to anticipate expenses during those 5 years (2025-2030). The third bucket #1 (Bucket 2030) target date fund would have 12 years to grow...and so on.
    This approach glides a portion of your portfolio from growth to income...from stocks to bonds...in a professionally diversified and professionally managed way. I might add it's affordable and easy to understand. Anyone from you to your wife can stay the course.
    Six target dated funds would cover your retirement for 30 -35 years of retirement "bucket #1" needs.
    The rest of your available portfolio can be dedicated to long term growth and the occasional re-balancing with your buckets.
    I also see Bucket #1 being paired with an additional 1-3 years of spending in the event markets fall into an extended bear. The would very very liquid and very safe.
    Not sure how one would deal with the possibility of a "lost decade" (extended under performance of the market), especially during the spend down of assets in retirement.
    Any thoughts?
    Interesting. I thought the whole point of target date funds was that they were a one stop shop...
  • Bucket #1
    If you are a retiree and think it is prudent to have 1-5 year piece of your investments in a rather safe place for annual or emergency needs, how are you positioning this money? Suggestions or opinions appreciated.
    Bobpa...my bucket#1 is currently allocated to a series of bonds who's goal is to achieve a modest 2-3% return with reduced drama. These include: ZEOIX, SSTHX, PIFZX, SUBFX, and then a handful of muni's in the taxable account. I've got about 4 years of spending dollars in these funds.
    Being short duration, the impact of recent and future rate increases should be minimized. However, with CD's now hitting 2% for a 1 year CD, I'm going to be shifting at least a portion of these bucket#1 holdings into a CD ladder at Schwab. The bond market is getting a bit frothy for my taste.
  • Bucket #1
    My unconventional Bucket #1 in retirement would utilize target date funds.
    Bucket #1 would arrive in 5 year increments using target date funds that are spread out over retirement. If I were retiring in 2020...Bucket #1 would be renamed (Bucket 2020 using a 2020 target date fund)) and would be funded with 5 years of retirement spending (any growth could be looked at as additional discretionary spending) to be spent between (2020 -2025).
    A second Bucket #1 (Bucket 2025) would be funded with a 2025 target date fund and would have 7 years (2018-2025) to "grow". It would be funded to anticipate expenses during those 5 years (2025-2030). The third bucket #1 (Bucket 2030) target date fund would have 12 years to grow...and so on.
    This approach glides a portion of your portfolio from growth to income...from stocks to bonds...in a professionally diversified and professionally managed way. I might add it's affordable and easy to understand. Anyone from you to your wife can stay the course.
    Six target dated funds would cover your retirement for 30 -35 years of retirement "bucket #1" needs.
    The rest of your available portfolio can be dedicated to long term growth and the occasional re-balancing with your buckets.
    I also see Bucket #1 being paired with an additional 1-3 years of spending in the event markets fall into an extended bear. The would very very liquid and very safe.
    Not sure how one would deal with the possibility of a "lost decade" (extended under performance of the market), especially during the spend down of assets in retirement.
    Any thoughts?
  • GLFOX Concerns?
    I'd owned GLFOX for a few years, until it began to lose momentum middle of last year, then sold it and put the $ into ARTGX.
    If I still had it in the port, I'd think about holding at least some of the position for now to see what happens in the near term. The U.S. rate train has slowed a bit in the past few days, and the dollar's come out of its funk (temporarily?), coinciding with a small bump up in GLFOX. I'd also look into what exactly is happening with euro markets, sectors, currency, and rates, which I'm not following closely right now. The currency hedge has certainly been a big downer for the fund over the past year.
    Given the latest developments, it's possible it might turn into a buy sometime in the near future. An alternative to sell-all or hold-all would be to trim on this uptick, see how it plays out, and re-enter full position size if it breaks to the good ... sort of a hedged wait-and-see.
  • Larry Swedroe: What Investors Should Worry About
    Thanks @MikeM2,
    I’ve never been a fan of alt funds. Seems to me that about a dozen or more years ago the SEC began requiring these L/S funds to include the interest paid on money borrowed to hold short positions to be reflected in their published ER. That resulted in much higher published ERs for these guys. I’d guess that the 1.07% figure is pretty typical.
    Despite misgivings re the class of funds, I recently put some money into Oppenheimer’s QVOPX only after (1) reading the fund reports for a couple years to get a sense of how Michelle Borre runs the fund and thinks, (2) becoming really concerned about valuation of most risk assets, and (3) socking away about as much cash as I care to. I will note that QVOPX has a total ER just north of 2%. - certainly a lot less than the fund you listed above. (And, I have some load-waived money at that house.) 4.18%? Outrageous!
    The fund has had a really unimpressive record for several years, and so I’m not recommending it (or any alts). One thing about Oppenheimer that troubles me is their funds seem more highly dependent on individual managers than most other companies. So, I’d be loath to stick with this fund if manager were to leave. Last time I checked, it was having a decent year compared to another conservative hybrid I own (and benchmark against), TRRIX.
  • Would You Fire An Investment Manager Who Averaged 29 Percent Per Year?
    FYI: One of my father’s friends is a Scottish immigrant named Bill. He doesn’t have time for fools. “Could you talk to Bill about investing?” my father had asked. “He just fired his financial advisor.”
    At the time, I was visiting my parents. After dinner, Bill dropped by. As Bill poured himself a beer he said, “I’ve had three different investment guys in the past five years. I fired the third guy last week.”
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/would-you-fire-an-investment-manager-who-averaged-29-percent-per-year
  • Private Equity: Overvalued And Overrated?
    Hi @bee,
    Actually, no I have not given much thought to buying stocks in the companies the fund holds. The turnover for the fund is listed at about 30%. So, in holding an average of 32 positions means they sell on average about ten positions per year and buy about ten more. This, thus far has created a good income stream in the form of fund distributions from their profits. In another year or so with the payouts I have received and anticipate receiving if the fund share price went to zero I would not have lost capital as I will have received in payouts a sum equal to what I have invested. That amounts to a distribution roll of eight to ten years. You want find that in real estate.
    For me, based on my cost basis and distribution roll for Income Fund of America was 12 years to recoop my capital and for Franklin Income Fund it was about thirteen years. Folks, for what these funds have paid out if their value went to zero I'd be well ahead based upon the number of years I have owned them.
    So ... How can I go wrong with that?
  • Private Equity: Overvalued And Overrated?
    Hi @Mark,
    Actually my annual payout including dividends, interest and capital gains distributions has averaged since I have owned the fund 12.9% based upon my cost basis. My total return per share has an averaged annual return of 15.4%. In addition, I am finding that the pent up unrealized capital gains within the fund are just under 20%. So if you buy now you'll be buying your distribution, so-to-speak.
    That's one of the reasons I have been building cash for the past couple years. Stock are currently richly priced by my standards. And, if you pay too much your returns will be thin. That's one of the reasons I like to buy the downdrafts. While the weak investors are selling I'm putting my buying britches on as I did when I purchased this fund.
    Thus far my buying strategy has worked well for me.
  • Private Equity: Overvalued And Overrated?
    Skeet, as I have noted many times on this board almost all of my investment portfolio is geared toward income be it interest or dividend payments but primarily the latter. I find it interesting that you used the last six years in your investment claims since two of those years had returns of roughly 41% and 27% while the other 4 did basically squat. Furthermore, you use this years projected S&P yield of 1.7% to show disparity rather than it's historic 2.0% average for the last 6 years. Tell me, has LPEFX always had an 8.9% yield? I couldn't find anything in all of the records I was able to locate. I'm glad the fund has worked for you but I think uncle Warren is right for most folks.
    By the way, I see that the 10-yr average return of this fund is right around 3.0% so you might want to be keeping a close eye out for the exit doors.
  • Private Equity: Overvalued And Overrated?
    Hi @Mark,
    Apparently you are not a yield seeker?
    One of the things that attracted me to LPEFX is its ability to generate income along with some capital appreciation. With this, it is part of my well diverisfied income generating portfolio. Through the past six years that I have owned LPEFX my average annual return has been better than 15%. So with a current yield of about 9% it, for me, has been better than most income funds. Now what is the yield on the S&P 500 Index? I finding it currently to be back of 2%. Hey, that is a pretty big dividend to yield spread of 1.7% vs. 8.9%. Compared to S&P 500 Index through my years of ownership I probally gave up some total return capacity but gained much more income over what I otherwise would have over holding the 500 Index. Don't get me wrong ... from time-to-time ... I've owned the Index too.
    Form my perspective it has been worth it because of its ability to generate income. For others, like yourself, it might not have been.
  • Private Equity: Overvalued And Overrated?
    Given the returns over the last 10 years by the S&P 500 index and the World Small/Mid Stock index why would you even bother. But hey, it's not my money.