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.
  • Small-Cap Core Funds
    HSCSX and HDSVX, a recent offering from Hodges, with the same management team as the above-mentioned HDPSX, but much smaller. WSVIX, of which I have a lot, has under-whelmed for a couple of years.
  • S&P 500 At 3,500 By 2025: 67.3% Increase
    Punching the numbers into a spreadsheet, I get a 5.3% annual price increase (assuming 3500 is reached by EOY in 2025.
    That's not a stretch. -- In fact, its fairly conservative and may reflect secular headwinds of aging demographics and normalization (to some degree) of interest rates.
    OTOH, 2025 is 10 years away. The odds of a nice, smooth 5.3% each year are so infinitesimal as to not even to be considered a possibility. Wherever we wind up 10 years hence, it won't be a smooth ride.
    Observation: we are now in the midst of the 7th year of the current Bull. We are overdue for a Bear. And Bear events tend to correlate at/near Presidential handoffs.
    caveat emptor
  • Fund Focus: Alger Spectra Fund
    Alger Spectra (SPECX) is one of four funds held in Old_Skeet's large/mid cap sleeve found in the growth area of my portfolio. I have held it for a good number of years and it accounts for about 40% of its sleeve. The other funds held are AGTHX, IACLX and VADAX with each of these funds carry a weighting of about 20% each. Indeed SPECX has been a great performer for me through the years. I have been thinking of selling all of AGTHX and replacing it with BRLGX; but, I have held off in doing this due to taxation on the sell transaction.
  • Fund Focus: Alger Spectra Fund
    FYI: The top performing large-cap fund in that decade was $5.7 billion Alger Spectra . Spectra notched a 12.44% average annual gain in those 10 years for its investors since 2004. Ankur Crawford joined as co-fund manager this year.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MjEwMDE3NDM=
    Enlarged Graphic;
    http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBlv112415_1K.jpg&docId=782263&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1228&caption=&id=782227
    M* Snapshot SPECX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/specx/quote.html
    Lipper Snapshot SPECX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/SPECX?countrycode=US
    SPECX Is Ranked #115 In The (LCG) Fund Category By. U.S. News & World Report:
    http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/alger-spectra-fund/specx
  • Fairholme Fund: Fund’s Successful Bet On AIG Triggers A Big Tax Bill For Investors
    Fairholme says it accrued $2-billion in gains from AIG, and 99% of the distribution was taxable at long-term rates, but I wonder what the real/actual return was for shareholders.
    Mr. Berkowitz also sold about 60% of his Bank of America holdings.
    After watching his Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac play, it seemed to have intellectual merit, but fighting the government is akin to spitting in the wind.
    If my memory serves, he began accumulating Sears at over $100 a share 10 years ago. SHLD is around $20, now. That's alot of opportunity lost.
    Lately, his filings show he picked up Canadian Natural Resources, because of depressed oil and gas prices. And always into financials, Berkowitz has returned to a favorite of his, Citigroup. He also recently bought IBM.
    Despite his critics, few can argue that Bruce has followed his ("ignore the crowd) convictions, and Ben Graham's words of wisdom.:
    "You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right."
    ***
    Now, his once $20 billion FAIRX is under $5-billion. It will be interesting to see if he regains his footing as a value investor, rather than a gunslinger.
  • Fairholme Fund: Fund’s Successful Bet On AIG Triggers A Big Tax Bill For Investors
    FAIRX was down 2.72% in 2014 (compared to +13% for the S&P 500), and just a bit more than flat this year (compared to +2% for S&P). So folks who bought into FAIRX during the last two years are probably not feeling all that "successful" with the tax bill.
    I sold FAIRX in the beginning of 2012. I was going to kick myself for missing out on some big gains with FAIRX -- but just checked the chart, and FAIRX is actually still significantly below the S&P 500 since I sold. Looks like the second half of 2014 really took the steam out its recovery.
    Of course, when I sold FAIRX, I didn't put the money into an S&P 500 index fund either. I'd say that's where the real mistake was.
  • Small-Cap Core Funds
    I recently bought Vanguard's Strategic Small Cap for my kids Roth IRAs. Nice it's #1.
    Years ago my first purchase for them was Bridgeway Ultra Small BRUSX. Went gangbusters for a while (4K now 27K for each kid) Now languishing for some considerable time. I cannot recommend it to you at the moment, but perhaps astute members of this board can recommend what I do with it. I like Montgomery's shop, but...
  • Small-Cap Core Funds
    HSCSX despite some manager changes a year and a half ago. It has easily beaten its peers across all periods and is very tax efficient.
    I would hang on to JSCVX for now since small-cap value has been beaten up in recent years and it's hard to find a good fund in that area. Ever since management changed the strategy and composition of the fund in 2013, it has done very well compared to its peers.
  • REITS: How To Invest In Real Estate Without The Added Stink
    I also use an index fund for REITs. Not because of fees, but because of the inconsistent performance of actively managed funds in this sector.
    Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX) is lagging its category this year -- but is still top 30-40% over the past 3+ years.
    For those who can take some more volatility, PIMCO Real Estate Real Return (PRRDX / PRRSX) has index-like behavior with more risk/reward.
    Another frequent recommendation (and MFO Great Owl), Fidelity Real Estate Income (FRIFX) has generally more bond-like performance and is not really comparable. It is a much smoother ride but has missed out on a lot of the upside of the past few years.
  • American Funds: Share Classes Galore

    As a longtime AF holder, I am happy with their funds and fairly comfortable with their investment process/management, but these days, knowing what I know now versus 15 years ago, would absolutely refuse to buy more and/or institute new positions if I had to pay a load.
    The last AF I purchased was in my 403(b) and a load-free, low-cost R-6 class share.
  • Mutual Fund Distributions: The Profit And The Peril
    I received my first yearend mutual fund capital gain distribution this week from Thornburg Strategic Income (TSIAX) in the amount of 2.74 cents per share with a payout date of 11/19/2015. I anticipate receiving about a 3% capital gain distribution on the equity side of my portfolio. If this materializes, then the total distribution (interest, dividends, capital gains) received will be north of 5% on current valuation and better than 6% on amount invested. Thus far, this year, I have been able to have competitive performance with my portfolio's benchmark (The Lipper Balanced Index). Times are now tough for us yield seekers as I can remember my portfolio easily paid out better than 8% ten years ago.
  • RPHYX / RSIVX: New commentary explains mistakes that resulted in credit losses
    I expect its NAV to drop (all marketing to the contrary). Its average bond price is 102.69, its average coupon is 8.21%, and its average maturity is a tad over 2 years.
    Put it all together, and you get an expected decline of 2.7% in NAV over two years or less as some of these bonds are called before maturity. The high coupon is supposed to compensate for the declining value, just as higher coupons are demanded for any premium bond.
    That's just a black box description, without going into the details of what's inside the box. There are a lot of questions when one opens the box; I don't think declining NAV in and of itself is one of them.
  • RPHYX / RSIVX: New commentary explains mistakes that resulted in credit losses
    Yeah, but let's agree what "substitute for cash" means. There is under the mattress(and good luck), Bank Account (and FDIC), Money Market Fund (and hope manager is not Bernie Madoff's third cousin), then RPHYX.
    So anyone plonking down their entire cash in RPHYX, leave alone RSIVX, need to know what they are doing. Or rather, they should not be doing that. I mean HSGFX is market neutral and losing more money than most funds. By this analogy I should be complaining it should give me 0% return not negative. Now I AM complaining, but that's because it is giving me severe negative return for several years (well fewer years than other folks...)
    If RPHYX/RSIVX drops 3% for 4 years, then let's all complain. Or let's give them time unless we hear anything more. Frankly, as I have said before, at this time I just need to know how much of his own money Sherman has in each fund. I never understand the fund disclosure rules. Besides, WTF don't managers tell us exactly what they own? It's not like it's a privacy issue, I don't think.
  • The launch of MFO premium
    Hi, guys.
    Sorry about the delayed announcement. I'm away at a professional conference doing stuff on behalf of the college and haven't been able to get near a computer.
    This morning we announced the opening of the MFO Premium site (It's the site that a bunch of board members have had access to for the last few months). The note that went out to all of the folks on our mailing list is pasted below. Here's the story: we've been working for a year or so on ways to keep MFO free, open and vibrant. We're mostly getting by each month on $500-600 from Amazon and two or three contributions. That keeps the lights on but not much more. While Accipiter, Charles, Chip and Ed have been incredibly generous in donating their time and expertise, I didn't think that I could sustain MFO for years on hundreds a month. We took two steps to change that. First, we became a non-profit. Second, we designed MFO Premium as both a useful tool and an incentive to encourage folks to contribute. It's mostly Charles's fund screeners and a Works-in-Progress feature where I'm sharing some of the stuff that won't be ready for the cover essay for months (I write slowly).
    Our first goal for the site is to cover the cost of the data we've licensed from Lipper; $1,000 a month, which is really a very good price for such stuff. If we're able to raise that much, we'll begin using the surplus to strengthen MFO's ability to help folks. That might mean actually being able to pay folks for stuff they've written or to pay programmers to help with the next redesign of the monthly essay. It's kind of a mess now: a single scrolling essay that runs to 30-40 pages in Word. We're trying to customize a template that will make it look more like a magazine which, we think, will make it much easier to read and navigate. But getting that right requires fairly high level skills and experience. Eventually finding ways to help small, smart fund managers thrive would also be good for us all.
    As I note below, we are taking nothing away from MFO. Nothing's getting moved behind a paywall. Period. We're a non-profit with a mission. I'm mostly trying to find a way to keep pursuing that mission.
    As ever,
    David
    ---
    We are pleased to announce the launch of MFO Premium. We're offering it as a gesture of thanks to folks who have supported MFO in the past and an incentive for those who have been promising themselves to support us but haven't quite gotten there. You can gain a year's access for a tax-deductible contribution of at least $100; if there are firms that would like multiple log-ins, we'd happily talk through a package.
    MFO Premium has been in development for more than a year. Its genesis lies in the tools that Charles, Ed and I rely on as we're trying to make sense of a fund's track record. We realized early on that the traditional reporting time frames (YTD, 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year periods) were meaningless at best and seriously misleading at worst since they capture arbitrary periods unrelated to the rhythms of the market. As a result, we made a screener that allowed us to look at performance in up cycles, down cycles and across full cycles. We also concluded that most services have simple-minded risk measurements; while reporting standard deviation and beta are nice, they represent a small and troubled toolkit since they simplify risk down to short-term volatility. As a result, we made a screener that provides six or eight different lens (from maximum drawdown in each measurement period to recovery times, Ulcer indexes and a simple "risk group" snapshot) through which to judge what you're getting into.
    Along the way we added a tool for side-by-side comparisons of individual funds, side-by-side comparisons with ETFs, previews of our works in progress, sample screener runs and a small discussion area you can use if something is goofed up.
    We think it has three special characteristics:
    1. It's interesting: so far as we can tell, most of this content is not available in the tools available to "normal" folks and it's stuff we've found useful.
    2. It's evolving: our current suite of tools is slated to expand as we add more functions that we, personally, have needed or wanted.
    3. It's responsive: we're trying to make our tools as useful as possible. If you can show us something that would make the site better and if it's within our capabilities, we'll likely do it.
    To be clear: we are taking nothing away from MFO's regular site. Not now, not ever. Nothing's moving behind a paywall. We're a non-profit and, more particularly, a non-profit that has a long-standing, principled dedication to helping people make sense of their options. If anything, the success of MFO Premium will allow us to expand and strengthen the offerings on our free site. Right now we operate on little more than $1,000/month, which is exactly what our recently-signed data licensing agreement with Lipper is going to cost. We're hopeful that premium memberships - at $100, tax deductible, a year for individuals - will allow us to cover the cost of the data feed. If we're able to raise more than that, we'd like to be able to offer some compensation for the folks who write for the Observer and expand our efforts to help guide and support independent managers and boutique firms.
    In response to a frequently asked question, we've kept track of all of the folks who've already contributed to the Observer this year. You're not getting left behind but it may take a couple weeks for us to catch up with you.
    That's about it. We think that the site is useful, the contribution target is modest and the benefits are substantial. We hope you agree and agree to join MFO Premium.
    On behalf of Charles, Chip, Ed and all the folks who make MFO work,
  • MFO Fund Ratings Through 3rd Quarter 2015 - Updated with Lipper Database
    Hi ron.
    The legacy version of Risk Profile above can be obtained by entering a single symbol here. Return ranking is provided for all evaluation periods (1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years), as applicable. But the metrics, like STDEV, are just for the oldest of these. There is a nice comparison, however, with various reference funds across same eval period as the age group of requested fun (entered symbol).
    The outputs above are from MFO Premium, which I believe David will announce very shortly.
  • The Fairholme Allocation Fund reopening to new investors
    FAAFX has a cash reserve of 24% of NAV per GoogleFinance. But also 23% in a single stock.. Sears (SHLD). Very strange that a go-anywhere fund (can own stocks and bonds) would throw 23% in a single equity ---
    I've only been yelling about SHLD since Fundalarm and back then people told me that, "It's a value stock!" Berkowitz and his Sears thesis have been completely wrong for years now, not to mention slimy (Berkowitz: “Sears does just enough, so they're not breaking the terms of their very long lease.” http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120918/blog06/120919939/why-bruce-berkowitzs-bullish-stance-on-aig-is-paying-off)
    To me, Berkowitz/SHLD is kind of like aspects of SEQUX/Valeant and Nygren/WaMu all wrapped up in one. Plus, with SHLD bonds, FAAFX is closer to 30% Sears.
  • Schwab Slashes Minimums On OneSource NTF Mutual Funds
    Many investors look at that $50 fee and think "why should I pay this, when I can get the same fund for 'free' (NTF)?"
    If they're looking at investing $5K in a TF fund, they may be right. $50/$5K is 1% and typically buys an ER reduction of 0.25%. That's four years to break even. For a true long term investor, four years is nothing, but I suspect most investors look at that as "forever" , i.e. too long.
    If anything, it seems that the minimums on institutional funds at brokerages seems to be going up (as contrasted with the increasing availability of load-waived retail funds). That could be due to the pricing structure imposed on TF funds. They pay fees, too.
    0.10% of AUM or $20/account/year is what Schwab charges TF funds. The same sort of calculation as above applies to the what these funds pay. For high min funds, $20/year is peanuts. Drop the min below $20K, and the funds might as well just pay Schwab 0.10%/year to sell institutional shares. That's a big bump in expenses for this share class.
    http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/compensation_advice_disclosures/schwab_compensation.html#transaction_fee_funds
  • Regret Minimization
    @MJG - I remember there was an article in “The Economist” many years ago. At that time England was suffering through the Mad Cow Disease and the article was about picking a best alternative. I expect there may be research papers on this topic, but not necessarily related to investments. I see that Wikipedia has a discussion of
    Regret_(decision_theory)

    Cheers
  • Checking In On The Robo Advisors With Year-to-Date Results -- Frank Zorrilla's Blogspot
    Howdy @Joe
    You noted: "I provided the same information to a number of managers (my age, investment horizon, risk tolerance, goals, etc.) and the recommended allocations were all over the map. I concluded that I could guess about the future and the appropriate allocations about as well as anybody else and didn't need to be paying an advisor to do it for me. Been on my own around 10 years now and doing fine without any advice."
    Wonderful overview. Pretty much says it all for many here at MFO.
    Moderate allocation per M*, for what value this list holds, has a large YTD range.
    Take care,
    Catch
  • Checking In On The Robo Advisors With Year-to-Date Results -- Frank Zorrilla's Blogspot
    Interesting how different these portfolio allocations are. I noted the same thing some years ago when I decided to get rid of investment managers and run my own portfolio. I provided the same information to a number of managers (my age, investment horizon, risk tolerance, goals, etc.) and the recommended allocations were all over the map. I concluded that I could guess about the future and the appropriate allocations about as well as anybody else and didn't need to be paying an advisor to do it for me. Been on my own around 10 years now and doing fine without any advice.