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.
  • FPBFX (fido Pac. Basin) or MAPIX (Mathews Asia Div.)
    I'd never taken a close look at those bar charts to see what they actually represent. My current working hypothesis is that they are simply the 10 year risk and reward ratings on the ratings & risk tab. If my theory is correct, funds that have not been around at least 10 years will not have these bar charts on their quote pages.
    The three year performance/risk buckets are above average/average. Since the manager has been around for just two years, that would seem to be the better set of ratings to look at in any case.
    The next question is how FPBFX could be rated as average performance vs. category over 10 years when it landed in the 7th percentile, with 60% better performance than the category average (6.31% vs. 3.88%).
    This suggests either the performance rating is wrong, or "category" is defined differently for "category performance" in the quote page table and for "return vs. category" on the ratings&risk tab. That is, the category comparisons might not be the same for the percentile figure and for the "average" bucket.
  • Josh Brown: In 2015 I Learned That…MFO's David Snowball Comments
    Hi Catch22,
    Thank you for reading and responding to my post.
    I really do believe that forecasting (especially the future according to Yogi Berra) is a terribly uphill slough. But if some error rate is acceptable, it is not an impossible assignment. As Yogi famously said: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it”. And when investing, there are countless uncertain forks in the road.
    Study after study have demonstrated the high error rates when making forecasts. The long running CXO Advisory Group study that scored the forecasts of 68 financial professionals just reinforced the high hurdle that most experts stumble against. The CXO guru grades registered only about a 48% accuracy record.
    Random successes are often followed by painful failures as the regression-to-the-mean iron law exercises its ultimate influence.
    On a much larger scale, Phil Tetlock has organized and measures the accuracy of a large body of carefully selected, screened, and challenged political wiz-kids. These scholarly studies have been conducted over many years and across many iterations. Expert teams have been assembled based on earlier prediction prowess. Forecasting accuracy at the margins has been improved with team effort, but it remains a tough uphill battle. Here is a Link to a relatively recent Tetlock lecture:
    https://www.aei.org/events/predicting-the-future-a-lecture-by-philip-tetlock/
    Experts can be assembled that tilt the forecasting odds just a little. An informed team of bright folks can make a difference, especially if the team is dedicated and is composed of members with a wide ranging set of experiences and knowledge. The MFO contributors satisfy those criteria.
    So, while I surely do not agree with all that is said on this wonderful site, I do learn and profit from the MFO exchanges. After 6 decades of moderately successful investing, I’m not prepared to “leave this game”.
    An important lesson that I learned during those many participating years is that setting a satisficing goal is better than shooting for a maximizing goal in terms of anticipated rewards. If you are not familiar with the concept, here is a dictionary definition of 'Satisficing': “A decision-making strategy that aims for a satisfactory or adequate result, rather than the optimal solution”. An optimal portfolio return is a mythical target.
    Additionally, I preach and practice portfolio diversification and patience as strong investment tools to embrace. Investing need not be complex.
    Stay strong and healthy for 2016. The market challenges are forever present.
    Best Wishes.
  • David Snowball's January 2016 Commentary
    Yes, Gendelman was formerly at the House of Marsico. He managed the Multicap Growth fund for a number of years, quite successfully, until "something happened" one day and it was simply announced he was no longer managing the fund and was no longer at the firm. The end. It will be interesting to see what he does with the new charge at American Century. [U. of Iowa alumnus, FWIW]
  • Q&A With Patrick Kelly, Co-Manager Alger Spectra Fund
    It is good to read about a fund that I hold in the large/mid cap sleeve found in the growth area of my portfolio and one that I have owned for a good number of years. In fact, it has been one of the top producers found not only within its sleeve which currently holds four funds but the whole growth area of the portfolio which consist of sixteen funds
  • Fund Focus: Thornburg Global Opportunities Fund
    It is good to read about one of the funds that I have owned for a good number of years and hold in my global growth sleeve along with five other funds. In fact, THOAX has been one of the better producers found in the whole growth area of the portfolio which currently consist of sixteen funds.
  • FPBFX (fido Pac. Basin) or MAPIX (Mathews Asia Div.)
    Also posted on M*.
    I'm a long-time investor in MAPIX and have gotten in and out a couple of times; I am "in" right now. BUT, I'm not sure I'm getting the most bang-for-the-buck (pardon the cliche').
    Absolute returns are good, not great, the downside has been okay, but not what I'd hoped, so I have been exploring other options in the Divers. Asia Pacific category.
    I find myself looking closely at FIDO's Pac. Basin fund,FPBFX (my wife owns it in her 401K). It has a new manager since late 2013, so his track-record is very short and difficult to evaluate. When I compare it's returns and metrics to other funds (3 years and less), in particluar, MAPIX, FPBFX comes out mostly on top.
    Returns favor FPBFX significantly; slight nod to MAPIX for M* "risk"/SD; Alpha, Treynor, upside/downside capture ratio favor FPBFX.
    Furthermore, when I look at the "downside" Quarterly returns for 2013-2015, I find no real difference, if anything, it may favor FPBFX a bit.
    Bottom line, what thoughts, suggestions and opinions do you have? Am i being too impatient and possibly "performace chasing"?
    Thank you for any and all comments!!
    Matt
  • Nice story about GLRBX
    I agree that it was a nice gesture, and could have been left at that.
    My mention of M* was to point out that one has to be careful with processed data from different sources - if sources process raw data differently, the resulting numbers can't be compared. You mentioned trying to get processed data from M* and from the fund. That opened up this apples and oranges problem.
    M* is as clear as anybody on its methodologies - how it processes raw data. It's good that you could get some processed numbers from the fund manager; perhaps you should take him up on his offer and call him back to inquire how the processing (averaging) was done.
    Your intent may not have been to comment on M*, though it seems hard for you to resist: "Let's just say that I would never pay their membership fees for their services, or lack thereof."
    Let's just say it was a nice gesture by a fund manager and leave it at that.
    Yes, indeed, it was a nice gesture. Since you brought up *M's "pretty good coverage" of the credit analysis of conservative allocation funds, I'll just say color me unimpressed. 162 out of 192? How many were done in the past year? It's been four years since they did a credit analysis GLRBX? Three years for BERIX? These are two five-star balanced funds. There's a reason why I get all of my *M material free from the library. Let's just leave it at that.
  • A Painful Year for Contrarian Trades
    FYI: There’s been something of a bull market in people who consider themselves a contrarian investor in recent years. People took notice of those who called the tech bubble in the late-1990s, the the real estate bubble in the mid-2000s or the bottom of the stock market in early 2009. Everyone would now like to think that they’re greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://awealthofcommonsense.com/contrarian/
  • Will Bad ‘Breadth’ Make For A Rotten 2016? Watch Equal-Weight S&P 500 ETF
    @Ted: My equal weight consumer staples RHS beat out market weighted XLP by about 6%. I own both. The seem to have a somewhat negative correlation, alternating who does better in a given year, thats why I ended up with both. These are my ballast funds which tend do ok in down years.
  • How Bad Has 2015 Been For Diversified Investors?
    FYI: So just how tough has it been for diversified investors in 2015? Think about it, stocks and bonds are flat, cash makes you nothing and commodities tanked once again. Most years being diversified is the way to go, this year has been historically tough.
    I took a look at various asset class returns over the past 30 years and made some hypothetical portfolios for each year. I put 50% into the S&P 500 (stocks), 25% into 10-yr bonds (bonds), 10% into commodities, and 15% into cash.
    Happy New Year,
    Ted
    http://ryandetrick.tumblr.com/post/136226077810/how-bad-has-2015-been-for-diversified-investors
  • Nice story about GLRBX
    The breakout by Credit Quality has '-' for GLRBX; the columns that are filled in are the benchmark and category average figures. I suspect the reason why the figures given are dated 12/31/11 is that this appears to be the last time that M* did a credit analysis on GLRBX - the "style history" table immediately above shows a style box for 2011 and nothing more recent.
    I would suggest being wary of the benchmark/category average in the all the credit tables. Various numbers don't come close to the figures shown on the page for FBALX. (The figures are supposedly separated by a month, Sept vs. Oct 2015, so they shouldn't match exactly, but they should be closer than they are.)
    It seems that if the last time that M* did a credit analysis was five or more years ago, M* does show the current benchmark and category figures. See the tables for OAKBX, where the claimed date for the tables is 12/31/10. The benchmark/category figures seem to match the (current) figures found with FBALX.
  • Nice story about GLRBX
    I've owned glrbx for years and have never been disappointed.
  • An exception to the EM Carnage/Bloodbath/Whatever
    I've got very little in it anymore, but why is PRASX ALWAYS a laggard? Going back 10 years, it looks better than not bad. But if you invested in this fund 5 or 3 years ago, it sucks.
  • PONDX dropped 2.08% today
    @PRESSmUP - not unique, but not a routine occurrence (unlike monthly income divs and annual cap gains distributions).
    The monthly income dividend comes on the last day of the month. For December, it came on the 31st in 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2010. In 2011 it was Dec 30th (Friday). The annual cap gains dividend comes each year in the middle of December.
    In some years (2014, 2012, 2011) there was an extra distribution a couple of days before the end of the year. In other years (2013, 2010) there was not. When there was an extra distribution, it was 1x to 2x the mid December regular cap gains distribution (which IMHO looks bad enough - they should not be that bad at calculating the cap gains, absent a late sale). This year it was 25x (25c vs. 1c).
    See historical div distributions at Yahoo Finance.
    Morningstar is reporting the 24.75c/share div as an income dividend, but that's just repeating what PIMCO's supplemental dividend page said. How could a monthly income dividend of 5c/month transform into 25c for the month of December (in addition to the 5c dividend I expect to show up tomorrow)?
    Unless PIMCO has been holding back on paying out the full amount of income on a monthly basis (contradicting its prospectus), or unless it is lying about the nature of the dividend? Any other suggested explanation of where an extra 5x monthly income div comes from?
  • PONDX dropped 2.08% today
    I've held PONDX for the last 5 years, and in each year they've had multiple distributions during December. This is by design.
    Is this year's occurrence of multiple distributions in December unique from prior years?
  • The Year Nothing Worked: Stocks, Bonds, Cash Go Nowhere
    Yet short term aside, within the context of 10 year performance strings ( over 90 years ) of a disciplined tactical allocation approach, "flat" years where "nothing works" are occasionally present and part of the process. Sometimes we have to "sit on our hands" in order for long term alpha to materialize ... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KGHb49SE5Iugr2rLN_maqMH2fgX2s2rP8FYt0ohVJi0/edit?usp=sharing
  • Why Long/Short Funds Have Performed So Poorly?
    FYI: Long/short funds are one of those strategies that is wonderful in theory but very difficult to pull off successfully in practice. These funds go long the stocks they think are going to rise and go short the stocks they think are going to fall. So they should be able to make money in a wide variety of market environments because of their ability to alter their exposure to the market along with their stock-picking prowess.
    The long/short pitch really began to gain steam following the excruciatingly long bear market from 2000-2002. The S&P 500 was down three straight years. These funds typically only have 40-60% long exposure to the stock market, so they are technically hedged against market losses (assuming their stock picks don’t blow-up).
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://awealthofcommonsense.com/why-have-longshort-funds-performed-so-poorly/
    M* Long/Short Fund Returns:
    http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/longshort-equity/$FOCA$LO.aspx
  • The 10 Best Fidelity Mutual Funds For 2016
    Hi InformalEconomist,
    Thank you for bringing the discussion back on topic. We sure have a tendency to divert our attentions elsewhere.
    Fidelity does have an impressive lineup of fund choices. I ran a quick analysis of the .10 funds mentioned in the referenced article. Over the last 10 years, if a portfolio were assembled using all 10 funds in equal parts, that portfolio would have delivered a higher compound return with less standard deviation than an S&P 500 benchmark. Diversification is alive and well.
    So is the Aerospace and Defense industry. That's a huge industry employing over 2 million workers. It's like a battleship; it's hard to change direction. The commercial part of it will continue to grow slowly (like 3% this year) as aircraft deliveries are solid. The military budget is similarly solid. The need for American military supremacy is not challenged by either our population or our elected government officials.
    Have a happy New Year. I certainly will.
    Best Wishes.
  • Selling MF losers for tax purposes
    Depends on the size of the losses, value of those losses, opportunity costs.
    Do you want to be out of the market for a month? Or if you move that money to other funds for just a month, what are you hoping for?
    If you're hoping for a gain, then when you sell (to move the money back to your original funds) you'll have short term gains that will be taxed at ordinary income tax (not cap gains) rates, which somewhat defeats the purpose of the move. If you're hoping for the fund not to go up, then what's the point? (Though you would be able to claim any loss.)
    If (in the case of PONDX) you're just looking for income (i.e. monthly dividend, not appreciation), how much do you expect to get in a month vs. getting 1% in a bank account? That difference is approximately your opportunity cost, give or take the risk of PONDX or your replacement fund changing in value over the next month.
    It may be better to think of moving the money to other funds for a year (to avoid the short term gain problems). If the market goes up in 2016 you'll still wind up recognizing gains, but at least they'll be long term. You have to weigh that tax cost against the losses you'll recognize now.
    Looking at PRWCX, the shares that lost ~10% might be worth selling; I'm not sure I'd sell shares bought at the beginning of this year (~4% loss) - a lot of risk (in moving money around, possible short term taxes, etc.) for a small write off. So if you do a partial sale, these are the shares I'd keep (more below).
    PONDX is different for a couple of reasons. One is that the monthly div reinvestments this year have had small losses (2-3%). So you may be looking at smaller losses per share. On the other hand, moving money to a different bond fund and back may be "cheaper" - as I described above, you generally don't expect much appreciation from bond funds.
    Still, it's a volatile fund in a volatile category - a similar replacement fund could go up or down a percent in a month. If it goes up, that's better than keeping the money in cash. If it goes down (and tracks PONDX) then you would have lost the money anyway, and meanwhile you realize the loss for 2016 instead of later. Not that much volatility for bond funds, even funds like this, so the risks are less in moving money around.
    If you're going to do a partial sale (as with PRWCX), then I'd suggest telling your broker (or TRP if you're invested directly) that you want the cost basis to be actual cost (specific shares), with the default method specific shares and the secondary method being highest first or tax utilization. You need to do that a day or two before the sale - the brokers I've been dealing with won't switch from average cost to actual cost (any other method) in less than a day.
    This is important because you want to maximize the losses you're recognizing. If you use average cost, then all the shares you sell will be treated as having the same cost - which means you'll be averaging in the cost of even those shares that went up in value. On the other hand, if you use an actual cost method, then the cost of the shares sold will be the real costs, which for many shares will be above the average.
    You notify the broker, and then when you sell the shares (or the next day) you notify the broker which shares you sold. It's easiest doing it online at the time of the sale. The system will let you pick the shares you're selling, and you just check off the most expensive ones until you've picked enough shares. Or if you told the broker to sell highest first, this will happen automatically for you. That will maximize the loss you recognize.
    One other point: reinvested dividends will create wash sales if you don't sell your full holding. That means that some of the losses won't be counted now. You don't lose them, you just defer them. It's not terrible, and these days, the broker will do the calculation for you. If you purchased 10 shares this month (through reinvestment or separate purchase), then the losses on the oldest 10 shares will be deferred (not counted now).
    The bottom line is: is taking this loss now of enough benefit to be worth these maneuvers? Taking the losses now and buying back means that you'll have bigger gains to pay later (since you're resetting the cost at a lower price).
    I took a fair number of losses this year, but most years I don't even though they're available to me. And I did it with funds that were easy to replace or ones that I wanted to get out of. Swapping back into equity (or volatile bond) funds entails risk and possible tax costs. It's an easier decision when one has a long term replacement fund in mind.
  • Qn re: SPHQ ETF Change in "Quality Index"
    Continuing....
    Most of the sectors are fairly close, except for Consumer Cyclical and Financial Services - pity. But the broad "super sectors" (Cyclical, Sensitive & Defensive) are spot on. It is also a shame that the blended E.R., at 45 bps, is 16 bps higher than SPHQ.
    But again, after March 2016, SPHQ will no longer "be" SPHQ. It will be a very different E T F with very different holdings, "trying to pass" as the old SPHQ.
    Another comment. If you look at the [Documents] tab of SPHQ, and open up the fact sheet,
    you will see a graph suggesting that the ETF has underperformed the S&P 500. While this is true over the life of SPHQ, it is not true since the SPHQ index last changed at the end of June, 2010.
    According to M*, over the last 5 years, SPHQ has outperformed Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund Admiral Class by about 73 bps per year, with risk (measured either by Standard Deviation or Beta) that was about 10% less than the 500 Index.
    In other words, by stapling the new post-June 2010 index onto the SPHQ in 2010, Powershares produced an E T F that looked like an underperformer, in their own marketing materials.
    Other risk measures from M* are available here:
    http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=SPHQ
    Morningstar sector allocations are below, for MPGFX, SPLV, their 50/50 blend, and SPHQ.
    Exp Ratio	65 	25	45 	29 
    Sector MPGFX SPLV BLEND SPHQ
    Basic Materials 11.60 4.31 7.96 6.79
    Consumer Cyc 5.13 3.01 4.07 19.21
    Financial Svcs 12.99 16.99 14.99 4.71
    Real Estate 0.00 6.82 3.41 0.83
    Cyclical 29.72 31.13 30.43 31.54
    Comm Svcs 0.00 4.17 2.09 0.79
    Energy 2.83 0.00 1.42 1.26
    Industrials 32.25 19.31 25.78 29.03
    Technology 7.37 0.00 3.69 4.17
    Sensitive 42.45 23.48 32.97 35.25
    Cons Defensive 8.69 20.44 14.57 16.77
    Healthcare 19.15 13.48 16.32 10.45
    Utilities 0.00 11.44 5.72 5.97
    Defensive 27.84 45.36 36.60 33.19