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.
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    What's the difference between constructing your own "Fund of Funds" and being told by some MFOers that having too many funds is inefficient, wasteful, and self-defeating, as we've all heard here so many times over the years?
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    DODBX used to be among the very aggressive allocation funds. But a few years ago, it started a small hedging program to tame its volatility (5% nominal hedge via derivative or shorting). There was some related news then of the uniqueness of doing this in a allocation fund. So, its declines in future may not be as severe as in the past, but some upside may be sacrificed.
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    DODIX DODGX 50/50 And forget about it.
    Why not just 100% DODBX?
    I wondered the same. I read somewhere a couple decades back that D&C was essentially combining components of DODGX and DODIX to arrive at the correct percentage for DODBX. Might be different today. I moved on a couple years ago. But my longtime experience with D&C was that it typically carried a bit more in equities than your run-of-the-mill “balanced” fund - often close to 70% equities.
    Now, as fine as those funds are, over a 2-year span (2007 & 2008) DODGX managed to loose more than 43% of its value. (DODIX gained 3 or 4%.) You younger ones like @Charles can afford to sit back and ride out a 2-year storm of that magnitude But for some of us “old geezers” just trying to pocket a couple percent better than what cash generates, two years might seem an eternity.
    How did DODBX fare over that 2-year span? Somewhat better, losing only 34.8% of its value.
    (Numbers from Yahoo Finance / Performance)
  • A good year to date for many bond funds.
    Some random thoughts on bond funds which in many cases are beating stocks YTD. The big winner so far has been emerging market debt. Some funds there are already coming off two consecutive years of double digit gains. Yet we seldom read much on that category. That is a good thing. Many of the better bond traders are heavy there. The greatest bond bull run I ever witnessed was the emerging market bull run from late 98 through the early 2000s.
    While everyone is enamored with the CrossingBridge bond funds - RSIVX, CBLDX, and NRCDX - and rightfully so, how about some love for CBRDX. Its November performance caught my eye and it has continued to outperform. My fear is they fold this small and concentrated fund into one of their larger ones.
    As much as I abhor junk bonds they have been more than resilient. Like MNHYX there and learned long ago not to let my opinions impact my positioning.
    The MBS funds continue to sparkle especially my favorite SEMMX/PX as well as BDKNX/AX. Interesting though that some of the bond funds tied to the lowest of low in MBS, the legacy non agencies from yesteryear such as EIXIX, IOFIX and a few others aren’t shining at all.
    The CLO funds are hanging in there but underperforming. Would not expect a repeat of the past two years performance in funds such as HOSIX or SCFZX nor the CLO ETFs. It was a good run for the bank loan funds but they too are underperforming. The cat bonds while also hanging in there, at least for CBYYX and EMPIX, doubtful they will see anything close to their double digit returns of 2023 and 2024,
    The Treasury secretary has on numerous occasions mentioned his desire to focus on the 10 year Treasury bond. Almost so much you would think he would welcome a brief recession to get it even lower. But you would think junk bonds would have to break before that. The administration also seems intent on lowering oil. So a lot going well for bonds YTD. The action in treasuries and emerging markets explains much of the renaissance in PIMIX YTD, Will the recent run in bonds continue or will inflation be the big bugadoo. Your guess is as good as mine. Just go with the flow.
  • The U.S. Economy Depends More Than Ever on Rich People
    Following are excerpts from a current report in The Wall Street Journal:
    The highest-earning 10% of Americans have increased their spending far beyond inflation. Everyone else hasn’t.
    Many Americans are pinching pennies, exhausted by high prices and stubborn inflation. The well-off are spending with abandon. The top 10% of earners—households making about $250,000 a year or more—are splurging on everything from vacations to designer handbags, buoyed by big gains in stocks, real estate and other assets.
    Those consumers now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%. All this means that economic growth is unusually reliant on rich Americans continuing to shell out. Moody’s Analytics has estimated that spending by the top 10% alone accounted for almost one-third of gross domestic product.
    Between September 2023 and September 2024, the high earners increased their spending by 12%. Spending by working-class and middle-class households, meanwhile, dropped over the same period.
    Taken together, well-off people have increased their spending far beyond inflation, while everyone else hasn’t. The bottom 80% of earners spent 25% more than they did four years earlier, barely outpacing price increases of 21% over that period. The top 10% spent 58% more.
    The buying power of the richest Americans, who tend to be older and more educated, stems in part from the swelling values of homes and the stock market over the past several years. Rising asset prices are widening the gap between those who own property and stocks, and those who don’t.
    During the pandemic, Americans across the spectrum saved at record levels. Then inflation struck, and prices rose sharply. Most Americans turned to their extra savings to keep up with their rising bills. But the top 10% of earners kept most of what they had saved up.
    And with respect to that 90% who most likely are not MFO readers-
    Following are excerpts, severely edited for brevity, from a current report in The Wall Street Journal:
    President Trump cautioned lawmakers earlier this month about making cuts to Medicaid. But just after Trump left the room, one budget hawk remarked: “We could get $2.5 trillion if we cut Medicaid.”
    House Republicans are deeply divided on Medicaid, split between spending hard-liners who want big savings and pragmatists who warn against angering voters. Steve Bannon recently warned about the dangers of cutting Medicaid. “A lot of MAGAs on Medicaid,” he said. “Just can’t take a meat ax to it, although I would love to.”
    House Freedom Caucus members and other budget hawks successfully pressed for an amendment that directly ties $2 trillion in spending reductions over 10 years to the party’s tax-cut effort. Under that provision, the more the GOP pulls from Medicaid and other programs, the more financial room Republicans have.
    States help fund and manage the program, which provides health insurance for roughly 72 million people, or about one in five Americans, including children and people with low incomes or disabilities. The federal government spends about $600 billion annually on Medicaid.
    Republicans aren’t allowed to touch Social Security in the fast-track legislative process they are using, and Trump has said he opposes reducing Medicare benefits, leaving Medicaid as one of the remaining ways to significantly shrink spending. Within a 24-hour period, Trump stated that Medicaid shouldn’t be touched but also posted on X that he backs the House-led package that is likely to rely on cuts to Medicaid to meet its targets.
    White House spokesman Kush Desai said that the Trump administration is “committed to protecting Medicaid while slashing the waste, fraud, and abuse within the program—reforms that will increase efficiency and improve care for beneficiaries.”
    Some House Republicans say keeping Medicaid intact is essential if they want to hold the House majority in 2026. Some are privately warning party leadership that there are scores of members—including some in safe GOP districts—who oppose deep cuts. Rep. David Valadao (R., Calif.) argues that the Trump coalition now includes many Medicaid recipients.
    The program is popular. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found nearly 80% of respondents—and 65% of Republicans—think the federal government spends about the right amount or not enough on Medicaid. But budget hawks believe now is their best chance to address deepening federal deficits, which have ballooned the U.S. debt to $34 trillion.
    Comment: So here we have yet another disconnect: the majority of voters are not in that lucky top 10%, and many within the Trump party that they voted for would cut their Medicaid so as to transfer even more wealth from the 90% to that top 10%.
    Note: Text emphasis was added to the above WSJ reports.
  • Vanguard lowers fees across mutual funds and etfs
    I'm currently reading the second edition of The Four Pillars of Investing by William Bernstein published in 2023.
    I read the first edition of the book many years ago.
    In a brief section where "The Vanguard Effect" is mentioned, Mr. Bernstein writes:
    "As an admirer of the late John Bogle, it pains me to admit that customer support at Vanguard has deteriorated, with not infrequent clerical errors and extended phone hold times,
    in contrast to the generally fast, knowledgeable, and accurate support at other firms."
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    Went with 7 different CEFs in the space. ”Obsessive” for sure. Follow these things so closely thought I might as well try to squeeze a little extra juice out of the lemon while at it. Hope others will continue to post with their strategies if they do use some similar. And thanks for all the ideas.
    Still feel like a new kid on the block having had a brokerage account for only 4-5 years. Some interesting new ways to make and loose money.
  • Vanguard lowers fees across mutual funds and etfs
    I use UBKeys at Vanguard, most secure method to my knowledge. I have Vanguard for over 20 years, never had any issues logging in. I don't sell/buy too much and never had issue in this area, may be I got lucky with them.
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    hank, I have been doing something similar since 2000.
    I select the best risk/reward up to 5 funds within top 1-2 categories for my criteria and keep changing. Then, every fund must be in the top 20-30%. Risk control is a lot more important to me.
    The more money I have and the best I got, I started using only 2-3 funds.
    Stocks: 1995-2000 + after 2010 = mostly LC tilting growth. 2000-2010=Value, SC, International.
    Bonds: Preparing for retirement, PIMIX was my first bond fund. I started investing in it in 2010 and it grew to over 50% until I sold it in 01/2018.
    Basically, I modeled it after basketball, a game that I played over 4 decades. As a coach, you want to go to the playoffs every year. Winning isn't a guarantee. Why would someone hold value when growth is so much better for many years?
    You play your best 5 players every time. Superstars play more, and you give them more rope. A superstar isn't guaranteed. You want to play your best 5 at any moment. You can't have a bad player on the court.
    All my funds must perform well within their category. Reliability is worth a lot. I don't play with emotion. A bad fund must be replaced. It gets very easy over the years.
    I never diversified since the first day I started investing. Diversification = I must have LC,SC,value,growth,international and others. If US LC does well, it's the easiest to make money. If it doesn't, you diversify more.
    What's the catch? when and how to replace funds. That takes discipline and a lot of experience. You can't learn swimming by reading a book. My goals have changed too and that changed my trading too.
    Exceptions exist: every several years you find funds/managers that beat the odds. Think PRWCX,PIMIX for many years; I held SGIIX,FAIRX,OAKBX for 8+ years during 2000-10. Some managers do great in specific markets.
  • Bloomberg Real Yield
    21 feb, 2025.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-02-21/bloomberg-real-yield-02-21-2025-video
    consumer sentiment down, inflation fears rising. Expectations for sticky inflation are highest in 30 years...Direction trend in the yield of the 10-Year is rather uncertain... Friday: 4.4546%.
    brian rheling, wells: expecting higher rates. Inflation a bit higher by the end of 2025. Estimate 10-year at 4.75 by year-end.... jonathan duensing, amundi usa: assuming 2 percent corporate growth, 4.5 percent on the 10-year seems reasonable.... reduced immigration will reduce growth and consumption. Gotta see what happens legislatively also re: spending reductions. (My insertion: And what about all the recent Musk related firings?). Uncertainty lately flowing out of Washington. People want to see some reliable policy decisions and how they will affect us and trading partners.
    rehling: Markets have digested the higher level of uncertainty pretty well. Even so, there will be a fair amount of volatility. Markets already becoming desensitized to the extreme rhetoric from the gummint recently.
    Europe: Record quick start to the year, getting to 500B euros of issuance. Tops the record set just last year...USA I.G. issuance last week of $52B... Treasury issuance: 20-year: 4.83% and 30-year TIPS: 2.403%. (Why is anyone putting money there?)
    Winnie Cisar on Junk: there is optimism in that market that is not justified. So, too many factors to the potential downside are being ignored. Ashley Allen generally agrees. Even so, yields do look attractive. True of both I.G. and Junk. ... What to avoid: Cisar: stay away from stuff that may take a hit from surprise policy changes, shifting global macro trends. Basic Materials, retail. ... Allen: investors are yield-hungry. Just be careful, cautious.
  • BRK - Buffett's Annual Letter
    Buffett's Annual Letter https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2024ltr.pdf
    From Annual Report (150 pages), https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2024ar/2024ar.pdf
    Cash & cash-equivalents $334.201 billion (28.96%)
    Stock portfolio $271.588 billion (23.54%)
    Insurance assets $315.379 billion (27.33%)
    Railroad, utilities, energy assets $232.713 billion (20.17%)
    TOTAL ASSETS $1,153.881 billion (100%)
    Insurance float is $171 billion - that's the premium pool from insurance written & outstanding that will cover future claims over many years.
    "Cash" is high, but the above data provide the overall picture of BRK assets.
  • Duplicate threads running in “Off Topic & “Other Investing”?
    Some members, including myself in the past, have sought to heighten awareness of important threads in “Off Topic” by posting a separate thread in “Other Investing” containing a link to the off topic thread. It’s well meaning and possibly unavoidable if the topic has both ”off topic” and ”other investing” implications. However, sometimes this leads to two duplicate threads running concurrently with some members posting to the OT thread and others posting to the investing thread.
    The situation can get confusing and even led to some “hard feelings” being misdirected at one board member by another recently (thread). The more important facet of all this is that some readers are viewing only 50% of the ongoing discussion. (Readers in OT may not be viewing comments made in the investing section. Readers in Other Investing may not be reading the associated comments posted in OT.)
    Since the intent of these second (ancillary) threads would seem to be to call attention to a thread in OT, is there some way posters could be blocked from posting comments under the ancillary thread and directed instead to the original thread in OT? Presumably, they would click on to the attached link, be directed to the OP and then post their comments in the OT section. Not to criticize anyone. Just seeking to minimize confusion and avoid the problems noted.
  • M* Portfolio not updating
    @msf's mention of the Plato/Socrates Allegory of the Cave in regard to reality versus illusion reminds me of reading Plato fifty years ago. Those of us who read that stuff will remember that what most of us call reality was regarded as illusion by Plato, and according to Plato, Socrates. Somewhere there is a true ideal that only has reflections in our world. Which is probably why we have the old quip about whether a table is a table.
    I'm not sure how that ties into reporting NAV's except to say that the prisoners in the cave probably had a better grasp of reality than good old Plato, bless his heart.
    I better stop now before I start quoting Nietzche or going on about Gnosticism. Time to get to the local fitness center.
  • Re-investing RMDs
    If VTCLX floats your boat, there are a couple of ETFs tracking the R1K. VONE (Vanguard) and IWB (iShares). VTCLX also tracks the R1K though more loosely for better tax efficiency.
    The ETFs have slightly higher tax cost ratios than VTCLX (0.41% and 0.40% respectively vs. 0.31%). Over the past 1 and 3 years they have slightly outperformed VTCLX pre-tax (with Vanguard's ETF being the best), though VTCLX has done slightly better over five years.
    Here's Portfolio Visualizer's comparison of these funds over 10 years.
    VTCLX has 65% in unrealized gains while the ETFs have lower exposure (likely due to their ETF structure): 17% for IWB and 35% for VONE.
    Again, when it comes to tracking market cap weighted indexes, you can often find "regular" funds that are comparable to ones focused on tax efficiency. This tool may help finding comparable ETFs:
    https://etfdb.com/tool/mutual-fund-to-etf/
  • Re-investing RMDs
    We have not paid FIT/SIT since 2012 and won't take RMDs until Age 73, so no direct experience (yet) with your question. That said, it will be a very important question for us in a few years.
    We will start our analysis at that time with a comparison of all other options versus ITOT, VOO and the like. We expect there will be plenty of better tax-efficient options than the VG (or other) tax-managed mutual fund options. But that's a job for us for another day a few years from now.
    Here's a primer for your current analysis:
    https://russellinvestments.com/us/blog/understanding-tax-managed-funds-and-strategies
    https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/investment-products/etf/etfs-tax-efficiency
    https://www.morningstar.com/funds/25-top-picks-tax-efficient-etfs-mutual-funds
    https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Tax-managed_fund_comparison
  • Buy Sell Why: ad infinitum.
    My parents have been in QLENX for the last 4 years or so and have been happy with the yield and appreciation. As Mark said, the dang fund just keeps marching.
  • ★ The most important economic overview that I have read in many years ★
    msf: His point, as I take it, is that the numbers, though accurate are misunderstood. So things are worse than people get from the numbers reading them simplistically. True enough. But then he goes and does the same thing by simplistically presenting some reasons why the numbers don't say what people think they say.
    ***************
    Actually, I understood him to say that the tools and metrics do measure what they are supposed to measure, but it's the wrong stuff. It offers a cloudy picture of what it is we want to know: unemployment, inflation. I did not take away a message that the monthly numbers are misunderstood; rather, the wrong tools are being employed.
    In a single magazine (online or not) article, not necessarily aimed at the number-crunching wonks, I'd be willing to say that a very particular and in depth presentation would have been out of place. He made his case. He asserted that the tools he and his team created offer a more accurately focused picture of true life. Too early for me to disagree. If he would make available a follow-up which exposes his new statistical method to the light of day, then we could agree or disagree about that. For a million years, I have known that the current metrics are screwy: just simply not presenting a real-life snapshot that corresponds to Reality very well.
    He's illuminating and expressing a thing that we all take for granted. Every month, people and the Markets react to the published numbers, but the numbers --- every time--- deliver a "head-fake." As I said above, I'll bet he and his team prefer to keep their method proprietary. We'll see. I'm with OJ: this business needs to be examined and acknowledged, rather than assumed, again and again.
  • ★ The most important economic overview that I have read in many years ★
    Its funny what we consider "employment" and what we consider important "statistics".
    I stopped my "full time career employment" at age 51. I spent the next 7 years caring for my elderly mom. I went from a well paying 8 hour job to a non-paying 24 hour job. Since this new job paid nothing and provided no resources it required many long nights of research to identify resources and funds for my mom's care. Over these eight years, I managed both my mom's diminishing health and her dwindling net worth.
    Most of my other seven siblings were too busy with their employed lives to help much when it came to this non-paying family care position. As alone as I was, I am not the only one who has taken on this type of non-paying work.
    From young Moms and Dads who stay at home to care for their children to middle aged adults taking care of their elderly parents, many working age Americans choose to work outside of the workforce, often for their entire working life.
    My mom raised 8 Kids; never took a day off in her life, but also never had an "employment record". When my dad passed, at age 54, she received nothing more than a survivor's benefit. At age 88, adjusted for inflation, her survivor benefit was a meager $800/month.
    For me, working until 65 would have made a huge difference in my retirement savings, but I am not sure I could have lived with that decision. I chose to care for my mom because she chose to care for the eight of us.
    These articles focus on workplace employment statistics, yet ignore the very important non-paying and non-workplace work many of us chose to do for our loved ones and how these hard choices impact the workplace.
  • ★ The most important economic overview that I have read in many years ★
    Kyrie Irving has been a Vegan since 2017 and playing pro Basketball at All Star level.
    I knew some vegetarian families that for 1000s of years only ever had milk and yogurt for animal products.
    I was a vegetarian for more than 40% of the years of my life. After that I ate everything available, including snakes. Now I am down to fish and egg whites. Though no eggs for the last one month because of shortage and I do not miss them. There are other vegetarians in this forum.
    I can not imagine there is a standard diet that is a fit for every individual.
  • International Equity Investing
    I've maintained exposure to international equities for many years.
    MIEIX (CIT clone) is my core foreign fund which I've owned for years
    while ARDBX is an auxiliary fund owned for under a year.
    International equity funds have underperformed domestic equity funds for an unusually long period.
    Perhaps reversion to the mean will occur between these two asset classes sometime in the near future?