MFOHome About Commentary Discussions Funds The Best Resources Support Us!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
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.
  • M*: Funds That Went From Worst To First
    For new and seasoned investors, the rule of "do your homework" still applies, eh? Read as much as you need for your understanding comfort level, and ask questions about a particular investment to be comfortable with the fit in your perception of risk tolerance and how the investment fits into a portfolio for your age and other financial circumstance. In the below case I knew there must be a typo. FAGIX had a loss of -5.79% in 2018 and is YTD about +15.4%. A -5.79% loss for 2018 became a -58% (very close number types with throwing away a decimal and rounding). Yup, we all have brain farts from time to time.
    So here's the deal. I read the linked article from the perspective of a seasoned individual investor/boomer familiar with FAGIX. I also thought about the article from the perspective of a relatively new investor attempting to understand investments. Mr. Kinnel starts the write directing the reader to only the years of 2019 and 2020 and possible investment scenarios for the funds mentioned. He writes in the EXAMPLE below of FAGIX rebounding from a 58% loss.
    FROM Russel Kinnel: As investors review their results for the year and plot a course for the future, some will no doubt be tempted to dump the holding that did worst and reallocate that money to the managers who did best. Yet a review of the greatest turnarounds this year suggests that your biggest winner in 2020 might be one of your biggest disappointments from 2019. At a minimum, be sure you aren't selling simply because the fund's style is lagging.

    EXAMPLE from the article:    Fidelity Capital & Income (FAGIX) is yet another Notkin vehicle. In this case, it's a high-yield bond fund that rebounded from a 58% loss to a 15.2% gain. As I mentioned, the equity version has higher highs and lower lows, but the drivers are similar. Notkin has about 20% of the fund in many of those same stocks as Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock, and his aggressive style is on display with his bond selection, too.
    Good evening,
    Catch
    catch22 catch22 in Fund Discussions
  • M*: Funds That Went From Worst To First
    FYI: As investors review their results for the year and plot a course for the future, some will no doubt be tempted to dump the holding that did worst and reallocate that money to the managers who did best. Yet a review of the greatest turnarounds this year suggests that your biggest winner in 2020 might be one of your biggest disappointments from 2019. At a minimum, be sure you aren't selling simply because the fund's style is lagging.
    Here's a look at six prominent funds that have gone from worst to first. One thing that links all of them is that they persevered with their strategy rather than pivoting to something else. As Vanguard founder Jack Bogle liked to say in bear markets: Don't just do something, sit there!
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.morningstar.com/articles/957544/funds-that-went-from-worst-to-first
    Ted Ted in Fund Discussions
  • Mark Hulbert: 2 Powerful Reasons To Pass On Investing In A Combined Charles Schwab-TD Ameritrade
    FYI: I wouldn’t invest in a combined Charles Schwab-TD Ameritrade.
    To be sure, it makes a certain amount of sense that Charles Schwab SCHW, +0.35%, the largest discount brokerage firm in the U.S., would be interested in acquiring TD Ameritrade AMTD, -0.52%, the second-largest firm. The discount brokerage industry has become a very-low-margin business dependent on as wide a customer base as possible.
    Yet those margins have been declining before our very eyes. With brokerage commissions now zero, and Schwab charging no fee to access its basic Robo-Advisor platform (known as Schwab Intelligent Portfolios), the firm has become heavily dependent on upselling clients to the premium version of this platform that charges $30 a month and provides access to a human being. It will need a huge base of customers to upsell enough of them to turn a significant profit.
    It’s not clear that a firm even as large as a combined Schwab-TD Ameritrade will be able to do so. It will have to jump over not just one, but two, very high hurdles.
    Of course, Schwab has another major contributor to its bottom line besides charging for its advice: Net interest revenue, which is the difference between the interest it earns on customer cash balances and what it pays. But note carefully that this line item is dependent on attracting clients to its advisory platform and then keeping them.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/2-powerful-reasons-to-pass-on-investing-in-a-combined-charles-schwab-td-ameritrade-2019-11-21/print
    Ted Ted in Fund Discussions
  • Ben Carlson: The 5 Types Of Market Crash Predictions
    Excellent article @Ted! Very substantive.
    Here’s my tongue-in-cheek contribution: “5 successful investors predict when the stock market will crash” (I guess it depends on your definition of “successful” re the last one they cite.)
    http://time.com/money/5235032/just-around-the-bend-this-is-when-the-stock-market-will-crash-according-to-5-famous-investors/
    hank in Fund Discussions
  • Ben Carlson: The 5 Types Of Market Crash Predictions
    FYI: JP Morgan put out a research note last week that named names of people who have called for a crash scenario in the past decade:
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2019/11/the-5-types-of-market-crash-predictions/?utm_source=Daily+AR&utm_campaign=2461e44811-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c08a59015d-2461e44811-144127017
    Ted Ted in Fund Discussions
  • Shareholder service fees
    This is a fee charged by a fund "to respond to investor inquiries and provide investors with information about their investments." "FINRA imposes an annual .25% cap on shareholder service fees."
    All quotes above and below are from
    https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersmffeeshtm.html
    Often one sees this charge represented as a 0.25% 12b-1 fee. But it can just as easily be called out as a separate line item, or it can be "paid outside a 12b-1 plan [and simply buried] in the 'Other expenses' category." Thus there are three different ways that the service fee can show up. This facilitates a fair amount of deception:
    1. Since a noload fund can hide the 0.25% service fee in the opaque Other Expenses category, such a fund looks more "honorable" than another fund showing a 0.25% 12b-1 fee.
    2. A load fund can take a 1.00% 12b-1 fee and split it into two line items: a 12b-1 fee of 0.75% (the max allowed for distribution fees) and a separate 0.25% service fee line item. (See, e.g. JNBCX.) Such a fund looks better than another fund showing a simple 1.00% fee, even though they're both charging the same amount.
    Because such legerdemain is legal, because one never knows what's being paid for out of "management fees" and "other expenses", IMHO the total ER is the principal number to focus on. A noload fund that documents a 0.25% 12b-1 fee for shareholder services is no better or worse in terms of what it charges than one that hides the fee elsewhere.
    msf in Fund Discussions
  • Vanguard brokerage account conversion round 3
    It's confusing, the distinction between accounts and positions.
    On the Vanguard site, there's a drop down, My Accounts-> Account Overview.
    When you go there, you see a list of accounts. Each of those accounts may have zero or more positions. If they're fund platform accounts, they can hold only Vanguard mutual funds. If they're brokerage platform accounts, they can hold anything.
    What I think you did was execute an exchange within a mutual fund platform account. You sold some shares of one fund and opened a new position within an existing account. You did not open a new account. (I wrote: "at neither Vanguard nor Fidelity can one open a new account on the mutual fund platform.")
    Most of the time this distinction doesn't matter, and you just work within one existing fund platform account. But the account you use can sometimes matter.
    Someone may contribute money to an IRA and then want to undo that. It could be that a T-IRA contribution was made and then the taxpayer discovered that it wasn't deductible. Or until recently it could be a Roth conversion that the taxpayer wanted to reverse (recharacterize). Whatever.
    The amount one must withdraw is the original amount plus earnings. The earnings are computed by looking at the percentage gain of the whole account from the time the contribution was made until it was withdrawn.
    For example, say you had $7K in an IRA in a stock fund, and you contributed $7K to a new bond fund position inside the same IRA account. Suppose the stock fund went up 10% and the bond fund went nowhere. Now you want to undo that contribution. The account went up 5% on average. So you have to withdraw $7K +5% x $7K (earnings), even though the bond fund you put the money in earned nothing.
    But if you'd opened another IRA, a distinct account for the contribution, things would be different. The account would start with $7K total value (your contribution). Then when you decided to undo that contribution, the total value of the account would still be $7k. You'd take out the $7K and close the account. Your original account, now with $7K + 10%, or $7,700 in the stock fund would remain untouched.
    If you wanted to create a new account for an IRA contribution today, Vanguard would only let you open a brokerage account. Of course if you had an existing IRA on the old fund platform, you would have the option of adding to that existing account instead.
    msf in Fund Discussions
  • The Closing Bell: U.S. Stocks Slip Amid Conflicting Signals On Trade Talks
    Strange day. My funds, and those I track, are all over the place. Conservative (40/60) TRRIX dropped .26%, while Index 500 VFINX lost only .15%. Obviously rates somewhere along the yield curve spiked. T Rowe’s tech-heavy blue chip fund TRBUX held up reasonably well with a modest .23% loss, while Hussman’s defense oriented HSGFX lost more than twice that much. The REIT fund I formerly owned (OREAX) got clocked pretty good, down more than 1.5%, consistent with an increase in rates. And my usually sedate alternative fund TMSRX experienced a .30% loss, signifying that even five separate teams of brains working together couldn’t figure out how to profit from today’s market gyrations. Just a few observations here .... None of this should supplant @Ted’s rigorously thorough market summary.
    Edit: DODBX bucked the trend with a .30% gain. They’ve been overweight financial stocks that might benefit from higher rates. Generally, DODBX has been catching up with its peers after a slow start to the year. Overall, there seems to be much market fixation on where rates are headed. Federal Reserve is always front and center. Perhaps not unlike Alice in Wonderland - “Sentence first–verdict afterward."
    hank in Fund Discussions
  • BUY - SELL - HOLD - November 2019
    Pudd, Last year I saw how volatile Primcap Odyssey funds are in Sep-Dec quarter so I sold all of them when they showed a bit of recovery - POAGX, POGRX & POSKX - in 2019. I started moving to the 3 funds with the plan to be reach to 10% allocation. They will be my core funds. I do have others. I am still thinking we will see negative bonds rate and I don't know how to invest in when time comes so VWINX is the way to go for me at this time. Thanks!!!
    Kings53man,
    Yeah, I'm big on Wellesley. It's by far my largest holding, so I like this. Are you going with 3 funds or are these just your core? The reason I ask is bonds....
    God bless
    the Pudd
    kings53man in Fund Discussions
  • The Closing Bell: U.S. Stocks Slip Amid Conflicting Signals On Trade Talks
    FYI: U.S. stocks edged lower Thursday as investors assessed conflicting signals on prospects for the U.S.-China trade talks.
    The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 0.20%, a day after the gauge of blue-chip stocks logged its biggest fall of the month. The S&P 500 slipped 0.16%, and the Nasdaq Composite slid 0.24%. All three major U.S. indexes earlier this week notched the latest in a string of recent all-time highs.
    Investors continued to monitor the drumbeat of headlines on attempts to resolve trade tensions between the U.S. and China.
    China’s chief trade negotiator late last week invited his American counterparts for a new round of face-to-face talks, according to people briefed on the matter, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. Chinese officials hope the negotiations can take place before the Thanksgiving holiday, but the U.S. side hasn’t committed to a date.
    That report came less than a day after President Trump criticized China’s efforts to reach a trade agreement, escalating concerns that the world’s two biggest economies won’t reach a deal this year.
    Overseas, the pan-continental Stoxx Europe 600 index retreated 0.4%, led by losses in sectors most exposed to the global economic impact of worsening trade tensions.
    Investors who parsed Federal Reserve meeting minutes released Wednesday found central bank officials said little about what would prompt them to resume interest-rate cuts when they signaled a pause following last month’s rate reduction.
    The health of the U.S. economy has been a focus of investors, and a recent drive into shares of economically sensitive companies, like banks and manufacturers, has suggested optimism about the economic outlook. New data Thursday showed the number of Americans applying for first-time unemployment benefits held steady at a near five-month high last week, above the level expected by economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal. The recent rise in jobless claims could be an early indication of a cooling labor market, or it could reflect seasonal volatility around the holidays.
    The yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury was 1.781%, up from 1.737% Wednesday. Bond yields rise as prices fall.
    Energy shares led gains among S&P 500 sectors, rising 1.1% as U.S. crude oil rose 2.3%.
    Company-specific news drove swings in individual stocks. Shares of Charles Schwab jumped 6.6% after CNBC reported that the brokerage is in talks to buy TD Ameritrade Holding and a deal could be announced as early as Thursday. TD Ameritrade surged 18%. Rival E*Trade Financial dropped 9%.
    Shares of Tiffany rose 2.6% following a Reuters report that LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE has gained access to the jewelry retailer’s books after it improved its takeover offer to nearly $16 billion.
    Regards,
    Ted
    Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-21/your-evening-briefing
    MarketWatch:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-pare-losses-after-report-chinas-liu-cautiously-optimistic-over-trade-deal-2019-11-21/print
    WSJ:
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-fall-on-dimming-hopes-for-u-s-china-trade-talks-11574315113
    Bloomberg:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-20/asia-stocks-set-for-caution-on-u-s-china-tensions-markets-wrap
    IBD:
    https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-down-239-points-for-week-china-concerns-tesla-stock-hits-buy-point/
    CNBC:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/us-stocks-wall-street-in-focus-amid-earnings-data-and-trade-talks.html
    Reuters:
    https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-muted-on-doubts-over-progress-in-u-s-china-trade-deal-idUKKBN1XV1GM
    U.K:
    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/uk-stocks-fall-as-trade-fears-labour-manifesto-weigh-idUKKBN1XV0UN
    Europe:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/trade-woes-knock-european-shares-for-the-fourth-day-thyssenkrupp-slumps-idUSKBN1XV12X
    Asia:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/asia-markets-november-21-us-china-trade-hong-kong-protests-currencies.html
    Bonds:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/us-treasury-yields-amid-us-china-trade-tensions-jobless-claims.html
    Currencies:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/forex-markets-us-china-trade-deal-in-focus.html
    Oil
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/oil-markets-us-china-trade-deal-in-focus.html
    Gold:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/gold-markets-us-china-trade-deal-in-focus.html
    WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
    https://markets.wsj.com/us
    Major ETFs % Change:
    https://www.barchart.com/etfs-funds/etf-monitor
    SPDR's Sector Tracker:
    http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
    SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
    Current Futures:
    https://finviz.com/futures.ashx
    Ted Ted in Fund Discussions
  • Big Stocks Give S&P 500 An Edge: SPY vs. RSP
    FYI: Bigger is better in the stock market—for now.
    Shares of Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. , Facebook Inc. and other large market-cap stocks have risen significantly this year, as investors show clear signs of continuing to favor the stock market’s biggest cohorts.
    All three stocks are up at least 52% this year, contributing heavily to the S&P 500’s nearly 25% gain since the end of December. The broad stock-market index weights its constituents by market cap, giving the biggest companies in the index more influence than smaller ones. It is outpacing for a third consecutive year its equal-weighted counterpart that avoids playing favorites based on size.
    The S&P 500 Equal Weighted Index is up 23% in 2019. It puts the same emphasis on clothing retailer Gap Inc., which is worth $6.2 billion, as Apple, which is valued at $1.2 trillion, a factor that helps investors avoid the pain caused by sharp swings in individual stocks, money managers have said.
    But that also means investors in funds that track equal-weight indexes missed out on some of the rewards from large-cap tech and communications shares’ strong run in recent years.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-stocks-give-s-p-500-an-edge-11574185528
    Last 12 Mo:
    SPY 18.27%
    RSP 14.95%
    3 Years:
    SPY 51.31%
    RSP 39.32%
    5 Years:
    SPY 67.33%
    RSP 53.90%
    Source Bespoke:
    Ted Ted in Fund Discussions
  • M*'s The Long View: Guest: Charles de Vaulx, Manager, IVA International & IVA Worldwide: Podcast
    FYI: Our guest on the podcast this week is Charles de Vaulx. De Vaulx is chief investment officer and portfolio manager at International Value Advisers, where he is also a partner. With his colleague Chuck de Lardemelle, de Vaulx manages the IVA International and IVA Worldwide strategies. Before forming IVA in 2008, de Vaulx was the portfolio manager of First Eagle Global, First Eagle Overseas, First Eagle U.S. Value, and First Eagle Variable. For his accomplishments, Morningstar has recognized de Vaulx and his comanager de Lardemelle several times in the past, awarding them our International-Stock Manager of the Year Award in 2001 and nominating them for the same award in 2006. De Vaulx began his career at Societe Generale Bank as a credit analyst in 1985. He graduated from the Ecole Superieure de Commerce de Rouen and holds the French equivalent of a master's degree in finance.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.morningstar.com/podcasts/the-long-view/30
    Ted Ted in Fund Discussions
  • Social Security ‘Bridge’
    Sometimes things are simpler than they appear. Just own the annuity inside the Roth IRA. That preserves its Rothiness.
    There is one instance in which annuity payments could be tax free: if you bought an annuity within a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k). In that case, you use after-tax money to buy your annuity and, because it's a Roth, the earnings will grow tax free, as opposed to just tax deferred the way they are in most other annuities.
    https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/11/pf/taxes/annuities-taxes/index.html
    You can do something similar with a traditional IRA. Taxes are due as the annuity pays out income. The annuity satisfies RMD requirements basically by definition. But what happens in the year you first annuitize if you're already subject to RMDs is less clear. Something for another post.
    msf in Fund Discussions
  • Baird Funds Adds Two New Municipal Bond Funds: (BSNSX) - (BTMSX)
    Shadow's post: Baird Municipal Bond Fund & Baird Strategic Municipal Bond Fund in registration
    https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/52558/baird-municipal-bond-fund-baird-strategic-municipal-bond-fund-in-registration
    McAllister, Schleicher, and Czechowicz are a great team that came over (together) from BMO in 2015. Here's Baird's notice at the time giving their background:
    http://www.rwbaird.com/news/baird-advisors-adds-municipal-bond-team
    I don't know as much about Fitterer. He's not coming over from WF with a team, so it's a bit harder to sort out his contribution to the WF team-manged funds. One of the funds he co-manged (for two decades) was SMAVX. Ages ago, when I followed SMUAX (the Strong predecessor ticker) it was well run, a tad aggressive, though tame compared with its taxable peer STADX (now SADAX).
    VMPAX, also co-managed by Fitterer (since 2010) may be the closest match to BSNSX. They both appear to be short term "core plus" muni funds (junk up to 35% and 30% respectively). Though the former is allowed 10% investment in inverse floaters. That does not appear in the prospectus of the Baird fund.
    BTMIX can serve as a "cash plus" alternative to MMFs. BSNSX appears to be a step up in risk and possibly a bit longer duration (remains to be seen). Should be worth a serious look.
    msf in Fund Discussions
  • Social Security ‘Bridge’
    No.
    Record 2019 MLR Rebates Of $1.3 Billion
    Section 2718 of the Public Health Service Act, as added by the ACA, establishes an MLR for all health insurers offering individual or group health insurance coverage. This provision applies to grandfathered plans but not self-insured plans, and states can opt to set a higher minimum MLR.
    Under Section 2718, insurers must spend a certain percentage of their premium revenue—80 percent in the individual and small group markets and 85 percent in the large group market—on health care claims or health care quality improvement expenses. The remainder of premium revenue can go towards other expenses, such as administrative expenses, profit, and marketing. Insurers must report this information to the Department of Health and Human Services each year, and the data is made publicly available.
    If insurers fail to meet an MLR of 80 or 85 percent (meaning they spend too little of their premium revenue on health care claims or quality improvement), insurers must rebate the difference to their enrollees.
    https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190923.51067/full/
    msf in Fund Discussions
  • BUY - SELL - HOLD - November 2019
    Hi @Starchild,
    Thanks for your comment and question that you directed my way. Many of my American Fund holdings came to me via gift and inheritance with some of the funds dating back a couple of generations thus being in family hands all the way back to my great grandfather. As my great grandfather and grandfather sold off farm land they invested the sale proceeds and spread it out among family members with some of it being invested in American Funds. We also have a policy of not putting all of our eggs in a single basket.
    Starchild I'd like your thoughts on where I overlap. Please consider manager stradegy with your answer as the funds might occupy the same style boxes, etc. but the managers themselves differ using many different investment strategies. Notice I've got growth, value, momentum, contrarian, equity dividend, fixed income of many types, special opportunity, etc.
    I'm posting my sleeve management system along with portfolio positions so you have an understaning of what I actually do own for a better understanding of how I govern family money.
    Consolidated Master Portfolio & Sleeve Management System ... Last Revised on 11/15/2019
    Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a Cash Area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the Income Area which consist of two sleeves ... an income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the Growth & Income Area which has more risk associated with it than the Income Area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. Then there is the Growth Area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves ... a global growth sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, an other investment sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. The size of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held and their amounts. By using the sleeve management system I can get a better picture of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly for analysis. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the Cash Area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the Cash Area to meet the portfolio's disbursement needs (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the Cash Area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place. My rebalance threshold is + (or -) 2% of my neutral allocation for my Income Area, Growth & Income Area and Growth Area while I generally let the Cash Area float. However, at times, I can tactically position by setting a target allocation that is different from the neutral weighting to overweight (or underweight) an area without having to do a forced rebalance. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market(s), my goals, my risk tolerance, my cash needs, etc. I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve, by each area and the portfolio as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements, Morningstar fund reports, fund fact sheets along with their annual reports to follow my investments. In addition, I use my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system as a guide to assist me in throttling my equity allocation through the use of equity ballast, or a spiff position, when desired. I also maintain a list of positions to add (A) to, to buy (B), to reduce (R), or to sell (S). Generally, funds are assigned to a sleeve based upon a best fit basis. Currently, my investment focus is to position new money into income generating assets. The last major rebalanced process was started during the 4th Quarter of 2018 and was completed in the 1st Quarter of 2019 with some sleeves being reconfigured along with the movement to a new asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity.
    Portfolio Asset Allocation: Balanced Towards Income ... 20% Cash, 40% Income, 30% Gr & Inc and 10% Growth
    CASH AREA: (Weighting Range 15% to 25%, Neutral 20%, Target 15%, Actual 14%)
    Demand Cash Sleeve ... Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual
    Investment Cash Sleeve ... MMK Funds: AMAXX, GOFXX(B), PCOXX, CD Ladder(R) & Savings
    INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 35% to 45%, Neutral 40%, Target 40%, Actual 39%)
    Income Sleeve: APIUX(A), BLADX(A), GIFAX, JGIAX(A), NEFZX, PGBAX, PONAX & TSIAX
    Hybrid Income Sleeve: AZNAX(A), BAICX, CTFAX(A), DIFAX, FBLAX, FISCX, FKINX, FRINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PMAIX
    GROWTH & INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 25% to 35%, Neutral 30%, Target 30%, Actual 32%)
    Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX(A) & SVAAX
    Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, HWIAX & LABFX
    Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, DWGAX(A) & EADIX
    Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, TEQIX & TIBAX
    GROWTH & OTHER ASSET AREA: (Weighting Range 5% to 15%, Neutral 10%, Target 15%, Actual 15%)
    Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
    Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
    Global Growth Sleeve: ANWPX, NEWFX & SMCWX
    Other Investment Sleeve: KAUAX(A), LPEFX & PGUAX
    Equity Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: No position held at this time.
    Currently, I'm heavy in equity awaiting December mutual fund capital gain distributions that will preform an automatic rebalance of sorts by raising my cash allocation as I recieve all mutual fund distributions in cash. This should bubble me back towards a 20%/40%/40% asset allocation. Equities, indeed, had a nice run this year.
    Well ok then Skeet!
    Starchild Starchild in Fund Discussions
  • Social Security ‘Bridge’
    @msf: Does this apply to self insured companies, or in my case unions that are self insured?
    "Health insurance companies are required to spend at least 80% (85% in the case of large employer plans) on actual health care (Medical Loss Ratio."
    thanks, Derf
    Derf in Fund Discussions
  • Social Security ‘Bridge’
    I gather you've been watching the esurance commercials ("Let's be honest. Nobody likes dealing with insurance.") :-) See video below.
    That aside, IMHO people focus too much on cost as opposed to value received, but only from some products and services. Do people complain about how little Apple products cost to manufacture compared with the price they're paying? To keep it in the financial industry, does it bother you that banks pay you so much less in interest than they make by lending your money out? Or do you just shop for higher APYs?
    Rational life cycle consumers with no interest in leaving a bequest would always choose to annuitize 100 percent of their wealth. After all, they face a choice between a traditional investment with a market return and an annuity with a market return plus a mortality credit.
    You appear to be saying that because the insurance company is skimming some unknown ("true cost") amount, you're getting less than "a market return" with the annuity. Fair enough, but because of mortality credits, one still comes out better than making "a traditional investment with a market return." The paper uses the net value of immediate annuities, so its results do incorporate their underlying costs.
    Health insurance companies are required to spend at least 80% (85% in the case of large employer plans) on actual health care (Medical Loss Ratio). The amount they are allowed to spend on administrative costs and profits combined is limited to 20%. These figures are already audited, and I've received checks back from my insurer because it spent less than 80% for a couple of years.
    msf in Fund Discussions
  • Baird Funds Adds Two New Municipal Bond Funds: (BSNSX) - (BTMSX)
    FYI: Baird Funds today launched the Baird Strategic Municipal Bond Fund (BSNIX/BSNSX) and the Baird Municipal Bond Fund (BMQIX/BMQSX). These are the first new bond funds introduced by the Baird Advisors team since launching Baird Short-Term Municipal Bond Fund (BTMIX/BTMSX) and Baird Core Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (BMNIX/BMNSX) in 2015. Both funds will be co-managed by Lyle Fitterer, CFA, Duane McAllister, CFA, Erik Schleicher, CFA, and Joseph Czechowicz, CFA.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191118005541/en
    Ted Ted in Fund Discussions
  • Jeez Sequoia
    More troubling to me is paying 1% fees for a manager to put 25% of assets in Google, Berkshire Hathaway and Mastercard. There are thousands of stocks in the world and yet I often see these concentrated managers put significant assets in the most obvious ones. I can understand the high quality stock argument, but surely there are smaller lesser known high quality companies with maybe better growth projections than these behemoths to merit investors paying high fees for active management. I think if I were an institutional investor sitting across the table from these managers I would feel like asking, "I'm paying you 20 times the fee of an index fund and the best you could come up with to invest in is Google?" And while Google might continue to be an excellent investment, why pay 1% for a manager to buy it? Go to your broker and click buy on Google. Done. That trade by the way now costs you nothing in commissions at most brokers.
    LewisBraham in Fund Discussions