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.
  • Biotech ETFs are Red Hot.
    Holding VGHCX, VPMAX & FBIOX, I have to agree with Jerry. Health care funds will be important for the 30 years that it takes the boomers to move from retirement to interment (I think that's an original phrase), but I don't know which companies to pick. Admittedly, I think medical biotech offers the best upside for the foreseeable future, but a less constricted health fund may do better later.
    General stock funds gravitate to their areas of expertise, and they may not have a good health sector analyst, although they should. Consequently, they will invest in areas that they understand.
  • Exploring Gold Miners, Emerging-Market Stocks
    Good points bee, fundalarm, scott.
    I just posted this in another thread. Wonder if anyone has a comment:
    How is anyone going to be a successful investor in gold?
    Gold peaked at $875/ounce in January 1980. So there was a major run up till that point and people did extremely well.
    Then it went down in value for 21 years, losing somewhere around 65% on a nominal basis, and probably lost around 90% if you take inflation into account.
    Then it had a major run up from about 2001 thru 2012, peaking around $1900. Now it's back to $1200.
    MFOers, How is anyone supposed to invest in this asset class successfully?
    By the way, Alan Greenspan is now saying that it would be good to own gold now!
  • Gold Slumps, Tests 1,200 Level
    How is anyone going to be a successful investor in gold?
    Gold peaked at $875/ounce in January 1980. So there was a major run up till that point and people did extremely well.
    Then it went down in value for 21 years, losing somewhere around 65% on a nominal basis, and probably lost around 90% if you take inflation into account.
    Then it had a major run up from about 2001 thru 2012, peaking around $1900. Now it's back to $1200.
    MFOers, How is anyone supposed to invest in this asset class successfully?
    By the way, Alan Greenspan is now saying that it would be good to own gold now!
  • Portfolio Review - Your comments/suggestions
    BTW, I invested in both AKRE and GPGOX funds not to fulfill some portfolio allocaiton needs, but for the concept that I believe in. In my opinion, proven manger with a new fund is a very good combo to succeeed, so I invested in them as soon as they came out. I missed a similar ones, though contemplated, for example MAPIX. Its performance in the first few years was very good, and it cooled now.
  • Exploring Gold Miners, Emerging-Market Stocks
    VGPMX testing its 2008 low at today's close.
    Article presents a half truth with this quote:
    "The mining stocks benefit from leverage to the metal. As a result, a 2% allocation to precious-metals equities equates to a roughly 5% allocation to bullion"
    Doesn't leverage also work in the opposing direction?
    My quote would read something like:
    "The mining stocks are equally harmed as benefited from leverage to the metal. A PM equity investor has had to endure roughly 2.5 times the volatility compared to bullion"
    A $10K investment in VGPMX in 2004 would have grown to $36K by 2008, a 260% gain. Over that same four year period GLD rose to $21.7K or roughly 117%. (The authors claim) of PM equities exhibited beneficial leverage over this timeframe is true, but by 2009 VGPMX valuation fell from its $36k high to a low of $9K, a drop of about 75%. During that same time period GLD's valuation went from $21.7K to $15.8K, a drop of about 25%.
    This same dynamic has repeated itself over the last 3.5 years where GLD dropped roughly 33% from its high in April of 2011 while VGPMX dropped close to 66%.
    Leverage happens in both directions and often cuts fast and hard on the downside.
    image
  • Portfolio Review - Your comments/suggestions
    Fundalarm,
    Responding to all of you separately so that I won't end up with a big message.
    I sold out all my bond funds a while ago and in cash now. Sorry, I did not provide that info, and I should have done that.
    Burnt my fingers in 2000-02 downturn by investing in stocks, and converted to funds completely from 2005-06 (transition period). I am regular at M* forums since 2005 and at fundalarm/MFO from 2006. What I am saying is I am not a novice investor to follow the crowd. I invested in CGMFX as a speculative play, after its putrified performance, and after all the performance chasers left. Since that fund like feast or famine, I stayed in it for 3 years before I quite no loss or no gain.
    I am of same age as you.
    Have not checked portfolio in X-ray in the recent past but I do that on frequient basis, being a regular visitor of M*. I play around with their tool once in a while. This portfolio is purely a retirement one. Too many funds because these are across 4 accounts of ours. I have thought about consolidating them into two but V'rd does not offer all the funds that I want, which are avaiable in TDA. For example, Artisan funds.
    Finally, close to 75% of the funds are in solid core funds (VDIGX, FPACX, VHGEX, ARTKX, ARTGX, etc.). Obviously Grandeur peak and other EM fund are not part of that core.
  • Fallen Angels Income Fund (FAINX)
    Taking a cursory glance at this fund's basic profile numbers on the M* quote page, I see several things:
    (1) once again, M* has placed FAINX in the wrong category, an exercise that should be so straightforward in this case that it would be considered a simpler work problem on a Cave Man IQ test;
    Call me Cro-Magnon, but I don't see the obvious misclassification as a Moderate Allocation fund. It seems neither does Lipper, who calls it a "Mixed-Asset Target Alloc Moderate Fund". (Lipper generally rates it higher than M* - 4's, except for tax efficiency (5) and cost (1, obviously).
    This may help, it's Lipper's discussion of its categories, as well as how they align with M*'s:
    http://www.lipperweb.com/docs/Research/Fiduciary/2009_02_Fund Classification Roadmap.pdf
    (for completeness, here's M*'s descriptions of its categories: http://www.morningstar.com/InvGlossary/morningstar_category.aspx)
    p. 13 describes Lipper's Mixed Asset target allocation funds. Table 2 shows how its mixed asset target allocation moderate funds line up with M*'s moderate allocation:

    Asset Class Lipper M* FAINX
    Equity 40-60% 50-70% 71%
    Fixed Inc/Cash 40-60% 30-50% 28%
    M* doesn't look at instantaneous snapshots of a fund (because there can be transient fluctuations), rather a fund's portfolio over the past few reports (not sure how far the lookback period goes). For the fund's first three years, M* classified the fund as conservative allocation. I'm inferring from the fact that the very initial classification (before a portfolio was published) was moderate allocation, M* looked at the actual portfolio and said that it was more conservative than the prospectus suggested.
    Over time, that has shifted. It might be trending toward aggressive allocation, but doesn't seem to have gotten there yet.
    Maybe I need to check with a Neanderthal - though that could turn out to be a dead end.
  • Biotech ETFs are Red Hot.
    My PRHSX more than doubled over the last couple of years. Unfortunately, a very small percentage of the overall portfolio to make any significant difference (:-
  • Portfolio Review - Your comments/suggestions
    Hi VF,
    VHGEX is an old fund in the retirement account, held it since 2005, when Marathon Asset Management was the only sub-advisor. I bought it based on the advice by Dan Wiener in the trial subscription I tried out then. Vanguard messed up this fund by making it multi sub-advisor fund. I am holding it as one of the core holding along with VDGIX. If V'rd has a good International Lcap fund, I would have easily opted for it instead of VHGEX but both V'rd ILcap funds are mediocre.
    TRF is speculative play on Russia, as its market being cheap realtively. I have progressively become aggressive in investing style over the last 10 years. I can't imagine holding some of these funds 5-10 years ago. :-).
    Thanks,
    Mrc
  • Biotech ETFs are Red Hot.
    I hold HQL and PRHSX and several other funds that are significantly overweight healthcare both in the US and in developing markets. I think HQL does perform just as well as the Fidelity funds over time. Its equal to FBIOX and a little ahead of FSPHX over the last 5 years, behind both over 10 years and comfortably ahead of both over 15 years. My portfolio is designed to be overweight healthcare, so I'm just using different vehicles to achieve my goal and target different areas.
  • An Early Line On The M* Domestic Stock Fund Manager Of The Year
    And most of those Vanguard funds are sub-advised by Primecap. I think Primecap has every fund, or possibly missing one, that they manage on this list. Its really amazing and I'm very happy that I invested in POAGX a few years ago. The performance has been outstanding and even though its more volatile than other funds it always ends up at the top of the list. I wish I had bought one or more of the Vanguard funds before they closed but those large cap funds just weren't on my radar back then and to some degree they still aren't. But I keep track of these funds because if and when they ever open again I'll be sure to stick my foot in the door.
  • What To Expect From Your Bond Mutual Fund
    My two bond funds have annual returns of +9.7% 5yr, 7+% 10 yr
    I EXPECT the same for the future, I guess that's stability... or stable enough
    I hope you're right. 7-10% annualized returns for junk bond funds going foreward would seem indicative of a robust economy and correspondingly strong stock market (not that I mind). Remember, however, that junk, like most bonds. also had declining interest rates as a tail wind over the past 10 years. I'm not at all certain rates can continue to decline.
  • John Waggoner: Can You Retire On A $1 Million ?
    Really? A $1000/week isn't enough? Change your lifestyle then.
    p.s. I lived in the Bay Area (Berkeley to be precise) on a $1000/month, with 2 kids, no problem. Guess it all depends.
    I know I'll probably get scoffed at, but where I live (MD/Wash DC), $52,000 might get you check to check in a studio apartment, frugal or not, particularly if you are younger and just starting out.
    If you live in the closest and cheapest livable suburb in VA (which you'll have to do because living out further will mean you need a car, and living in DC or MD will mean much higher taxes), you'll take home $734.50 weekly of your $1000 salary. That's $3182.83 per month.
    Almost no leasing agent will even talk to you unless you make over $45k here, and then you better have sterling credit. 400 sq ft. studios start at $1250 as a rule; one bedrooms go for around $1500-$1700. That doesn't include utilities, internet, phone, water, transportation, food, health care, clothing, or any other outstanding debt.
    $3182.50 - take home
    -$1250 - rent
    -$ 100 - utilities/electric/water (my BGE bill + water averaged about $125 for a 1BR for the past 4 years)
    -$ 50 - internet (no cable)
    -$ 90 - 2GB Phone contract w/ phone through AT&T
    -$ 350 - Health insurance (figured @8% of $52k)
    -$ 200 - Transportation on METRO (@$8 p/d, 5 days a week + $25 p/m)
    -$ 380 - Food (@ $12.50 p/d. It isn't just rent that's steep here)
    -$ 375 - Student Loan payments (that's about $50,000 @ 6.8% over 20 years, because you aren't getting a $52,000 a year job here without at least 1 or 2 degrees, usually at a higher cost than this.)
    _______________
    $387.50, or $89.42 p/w before car, clothes, and other misc. expenses even start. And that is without any investing in a retirement account to get that $1M or savings towards a downpayment on a house. The obvious solution is to get a roommate, but that is only going to knock your monthly rent down about $400. You could also move some place us, but plenty of us are from here and have family, or have skills that are only employable in DC.
    And people don't even want to know what NYC costs.
  • John Waggoner: Can You Retire On A $1 Million ?
    The comment about SS waiting from age 62 to 65 and the comment about CPI not keeping up with "real" inflation are two different things. The SS payout goes up each year you wait based on change in life expectancy, not based on CPI. The inflation change is in addition to whatever the life expectancy adjustment is. For example, if you are 62 you are expected to live another (approximately) 21 years. If you wait a year, you now are expected to live another 20 years so the payout goes up about 5% because of that.
  • Vanguard: Lawyer-Turned-Whistleblower' Betrayed' Fund Giant
    There are lots of different things going on here. It's been many days since I read a brief or two on the case, so this may not be exactly right (and I don't have the time now to review), but here goes:
    - IMHO Vanguard should win quickly - not on the merits but on procedure - they seem to be arguing that the plaintiff (as former Vanguard counsel) cannot bring suit (breach of attorney client privilege). He may be relying upon a whistleblower exception to the privilege (assuming there is one - I haven't checked statute; Vanguard seems to be saying that caselaw denies there's such an exception).
    But if there is such an exception, he'd have to be saying something new. While he may have new details, the basic argument (that Vanguard charges below market rates) isn't new - Vanguard makes it clear this has been public knowledge for forty years.
    Vanguard is also arguing on the merits (that they didn't break a rule), but I don't expect it to get that far.
    - Why people should care - not because you're a Vanguard investor/owner, but because you're a taxpayer. The complaint is not that Vanguard customers are losing (rather, they're winning with Vanguard's structure), but that the US Treasury, and thus all taxpayers, are losing, because Vanguard isn't paying its fair share of taxes.
    There is a rule that says funds must pay market rate for services. Vanguard Group appears to violate this rule by charging cost - clearly below market rate, since fund management companies charge to make a profit. (In Vanguard's case, those profits would be distributed back to the funds, which own the Vanguard Group management company.)
    So why does this matter, if the higher charges would simply flow right back to the funds that paid those extra charges? Because Vanguard Group would have to pay taxes to the IRS and to states. Only the after tax profits would be returned to the funds.
    If Vanguard Group charged an extra $1M (to earn a $1M profit for all its management services), it might owe the IRS $350K. $650K would flow back to the funds, but the shareholders of those funds would have paid the full $1M extra in management fees.
    At least that's my understanding of some of the issues.
  • bloated
    Thanks, all. Really. OK, so you guys don't say to yourselves: "When this fund reaches $5B I'm gone. It's a very relative term, considering a fund's mandate. Over the years, I've deliberately put $$$ into young funds which ipso facto do not have a big asset base, yet. Funds like SFGIX Seafarer, MSCFX Mairs & Power Small-cap, TRAMX TRP Africa/Middle East, MAESX Matthews Frontier Asia, DLFNX DoubleLine core-plus, MAINX Matthews Asia bonds...... Of the not wonderful choices available in my wife's 403b, I selected Vanguard Small-cap Index NAESX. Still less that a thousand dollars in there. THERE is a fund that M* has even featured re: asset drift, connected to bloat. M* says it owns way too much now in Midcaps to truly be a small-cap fund....
  • Regulators Looking into Bond Funds with Hard to Sell Assets.
    Howdy @JohnChisum
    Not to you; but thoughts about the information presented in the article.
    We, being "investors"; operate, in part, that we have the presumption of the full faith and credit of supposed to big to fail soverign governments (central banks) to have our back side when things don't go well in the financial system.
    The ultimate concern for individual investors should be restrictions that could be put in place to access one's own monies. And yes, such restrictions are only a matter of a decision that it is the right thing to do during a financial stress situation.
    As to the center point of the article. High yield or junk bonds and related poorer quality debt exist for the sole fact that those organizations and/or companies placing these financial instruments into the market place are perceived or known to be "on the edge" with the ability to honor a full payback of the monies "loaned" to them by the investors in the bonds issued.
    It does not matter who the issuing entity may be. One needs to ask whether they are more comfortable or comfortable at all; investing in bonds issued by "some" countries (make your own list) or the HY bonds being issued (for example) by well known company names in the U.S., who have such hugh existing debt burdens and "on the edge" of profitable operations; but still need more money to continue to attempt to operate their business model and keep their heads above the waterline of profit.
    A list of holdings (via prospectus) of junk debt issues helps to indicate how much one may have their monetary butts hanging over the "other" side of the quality fence. The same may apply to some of the equity holdings of various mutual funds.
    While I can't disagree with premise of the article; there remains such a tight correlation between junk debt and equities (supposed high quality companies or not); that this "financial intercourse" keeps both areas on the edge, and relying upon one another.
    If the junk credit issues where to crumble, the financial fallout in equity sectors would be widespread, eh?. We witnessed this event 6 years ago.
    Below are two common, and widely used indicators.
    A total return view from the period of Oct., 2007 (when indicators started to become "rough") through March 4, 2009:
    SPY = -51%
    HYG = -27%

    We all have to pick our own investment poison (during the bad times); with the only apparent difference being that some will make one's investments more sick than the other.
    We rely, in part; upon the bond rating agencies, with their abilities and with the data they are provided, to present what we believe to be the facts relative to bond qualities.
    Even to the fact of whether one is supposed to take more comfort in a circumstance that the ECB may purchase "junk" credit issued by Greece (not picking on this country, but an existing circumstance); because no one else wants to buy the bonds. Magic money moves from the ECB to the central bank of country "x". Is this supposed to help me feel better that something, if anything; has been fixed? Not at this house. The "electronic" credit, the money loaned, is parked as a data file for a spreadsheet. What the heck becomes of the outstanding monies that were lent?
    The above thinking is based upon course studies over many years; resulting in the "Whatsamatter U" diploma hanging on the wall, at this house. :) The degree didn't cost much; and that may be evident in this write.
    Take care of you and yours,
    Catch
  • John Waggoner: Can You Retire On A $1 Million ?
    @Crash, As a substitute teacher you had a front row seat on this whole thing. I was surprised you used the term "feral". I think in another time the use of that word in conjunction with children would have been described as shocking and deplorable. Sad to say though, it applies. I can remember my early years of school. Kindergarten, where we all had a blanket to sit on and we were attentive to the teacher. I never remember any wild outbursts from any of my classmates in grade school.
    The main reason I was surprised at the term feral was because of an incident that happened here in the Philippines earlier this year. A passenger bus was transiting an elevated highway in Manila. They call these flyways here. The bus lost control and smashed through the concrete rail and edge and dropped to the streets below. This was in the very early morning if I remember rightly. Most of the occupants were killed on the spot. A handful survived. Manila, like most large cities, has a big network of cctv cameras to monitor the streets etc, and this whole thing was caught on video. As the bus lay smashed on the pavement and the wheels still turning, a bunch of kids started to appear and they climbed on board and started to get in. They were not helping but rather stealing. Cell phones, purses and wallets. When the sirens got close they scattered. I saw this on the television news and said to my wife that these kids were like feral animals. It was like those apocalypse movies that are abundant these days. Those kids are produced by a mother and were born and raised in the most filthy and decrepit conditions. There are literally gangs of them in the major cities here. They roam at night.
    Yep, it is a very sad tale of our civilization these days. What is even worse is working hard and saving your money until one day you realize that you have succeeded only now to be branded as rich which is a dirty word now.
  • John Waggoner: Can You Retire On A $1 Million ?
    That is the key. A lot of people do not know how to be frugal. They grew up spoiled by their parents or parent who couldn't say no. That is the end result when they are adults. There is a lot of stuff people can cut back on. Going to the movies every week? Bad habits like pubs or clubs most nights of the week. Eating out all the time instead of cooking at home. The list is huge.
    As for the question of attaining a million being easier for older people, my opinion is that we were raised by folks who endured the Great Depression and WW2. They taught us to spend wisely and save for the future. Somehow the lesson got lost as generations went by and now young children have iPhones and parents spoil them silly. Us older people were working in our school years already. Summers might mean picking berries or whatever was local. Now there are restrictions on how much young people can work.
    My keys to attaining a lot of money? Learn the discipline of saving early on. Even if the amount is small, it is that discipline that gets ingrained into one's mind and eventually you are putting several hundreds into your retirement accounts. (depending on your salary of course) Another key is to quit loaning money to the government in the form of overpaying your taxes. How many people get huge refunds every year? A lot. For example if you got $3000 back on your taxes that works out to $115 each paycheck. (3000 divided by 26) That money could be going to your 401k etc. Reduce your withholding so that you get close to break even. As you put more money into your tax deferred accounts, your taxable income goes down more and that provides you with even more money to put away. Usually big refunds get spent on adult toys or vacations etc.
    If you get a bonus or a raise, think about what would happen if that hadn't happened. Put those raises and bonuses into your retirement accounts too.
    How was my life after all that? I ate well, drove new cars, went on vacations etc. I wasn't deprived of the good things in life, I just knew what my limits were. I never let credit cards ruin my financial plan. That is very easy to do. I had a average middle class wage at my work but I did work OT and that also was saved. By the time I was in my early thirties I had my first $100k. Getting to $200k was much faster. The curve really takes off once you hit a certain amount. My accounts continued to soar as I kept to my plan. I won't tell exactly how much here but it is substantial. I was fortunate to have a good bull market. That is something we don't know or can predict. I made my share of mistakes as well. I pulled out of my funds after Oct 1987. That crash rattled me but it was a learning experience and I didn't make that mistake a second time. I thought about buying AAPL at $18. Hindsight. Thats water under the bridge now. I had money in Twentieth Century Ultra fund when it rose 87% one year. I had money in the TRowe Price New Asia fund when they had some booming years early on. Gold was spectacular in the early 2000's. I guess those made up for the mistakes.
    The main point is to keep pumping the money away and whenever you have an opportunity to increase that, go for it. It's called paying yourself first.
    I apologize for the long post. I didn't mean to drift off here but I wanted to share my experience and maybe someone can use some of my tips to increase their assets.
    Hey, JohnChisum!
    You stole this from me, didn't you????????? ;)
  • John Waggoner: Can You Retire On A $1 Million ?
    Dex, Thank you for clearing some things up. One's choice of words lead to certain interpretations.
    We're talking about rising costs of health care; that is, health care has always been a part of retirement costs. But it has become a larger part over time. This might have been clearer had health care been listed in the original list of costs.
    You mention Medicaid as something not kicking in before age 65. But Medicaid is a program based on income, not age. It's a different program in many ways from Medicare. For example, Medicaid covers long term care, Medicare does not.
    With respect to SS and Full Retirement Age (FRA) - As I understand your clarification, your first statement was that some people will have to take SS before (FRA) because they need the money. Fair enough.
    However, if SS COLA does not keep up with inflation, then everyone - whether they need to or not, should take payments early, because they would get more real value, as I explained. So people who have to take benefits before FRA are not disadvantaged (they don't "lose"). You may not have linked the two statements, but the two assertions are logically coupled.
    One last note on medical costs - they are rising at their slowest rate in fifty years.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/aca-impact-on-per-capita-cost-of-health-care/
    (One can just look at a couple of bar graphs in the article if one doesn't want to read the whole text.) And for 2015, Medicare premiums are rising less (0.0%) than SS benefits (1.7%).
    That's not to say that health costs are not a major concern. IHMO, they are one of the two most significant retirement uncertainties, and I said as much in another post. But if one is going to say that they are skyrocketing, one should acknowledge recent trends too.