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.
  • FMI Third Quarter Report
    @Old_Joe. Exactly. Sometimes an observation is an observation. The extreme version of this is some people at work who say things like "I find this interesting" - means absolutely nothing and they could have just kept their mouths shut.
    Now I own all 3 funds, but frankly, one reason to own FMI is to not have to bother with knowing how they invest. Investing with an active manager means to trust them. It does not matter how intelligent they are as long as they perform for you.
    Finally, what I want to know is given S&P 500 is market weighted in first place, wouldn't it be normal to expect few stocks to dominate performance? Whether it is 5 or 15, both are fractions of 500. I really don't think it helps individual investor anyway regarding how to invest. I'm not any more appalled it is 5 stocks than it would be if it was 15 stocks.
    PS - I've been taking profits in FMI funds and buying back too? When my ANALysis told me international was tanking I sold. Recently I bought FMIJX again.
  • Free Mutual Funds Are Here
    Fidelity ZERO Total Market Index Fund & Fidelity ZERO International Index Fund filing:
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/35315/000137949118003935/filing836.htm
  • FMI Third Quarter Report
    Its interesting to contrast this view of the stock market with the one noted in @bee 's 7/31 post regarding earnings driven valuations (see The Tell: (Caution!) Morgan Stanley warns prepare for the biggest stock market selloff in months!!!) from which this is excerpted:
    https://content.screencast.com/users/smhag/folders/Jing/media/3c06eac0-2877-4204-8844-70ad2f41c607/2018-07-31_0954.png
    Perhaps the future will continue to be a little different this time for a while longer.
  • FMI Third Quarter Report
    An excerpt:
    Year-to-date, the five FAANG stocks account for 79% of the performance of the S&P 500. The market cap of FAANG is $3.2 trillion. For the same price, one could own every single company in the S&P 400 and S&P 600 and still have nearly $500 billion left over! That $500 billion could buy five blue chips such as Dollar General, Stanley Black & Decker, Honeywell, Bank of New York, and Aetna, leaving almost $250 billion to spare.
  • MFO Premium Site Webinar Charts & Video
    Thank you all for attending our recent webinars!
    Please find chart deck here.
    Please find link to video recording (of initial session) here.
    c
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Two sessions planned, one hour each nominally, on Tuesday 7 August 2018 at 2pm and 5pm eastern ... 11am and 2 pm pacific.
    Like last time, we will employ easy-to-use Zoom.
    Plan to illustrate numerous upgrades since our last webinar, including calendar year and period performance analysis, batting averages, Ferguson metrics, upside and downside capture, MultiSearch column organization and control, and the new Lipper Global Data Feed.
    Please register here for first session:
    https://zoom.us/meeting/register/6836e49b19b99183d746f627e8486654
    Or, here for second session:
    https://zoom.us/meeting/register/704989d8e7a8820ecde7dc3c8da9331e
    Thank you!
  • Dividend Investing Going The Way Of The Dodo
    Much of this trend is by design. That sharp drop in the 90s came when tax laws were changed so that corporations could no longer deduct executive compensation above $1M, except if it was in the form of pay for performance such as stock options. That was to "align" execs' interests with that of shareholders.
    So stock grants to execs soared. A natural consequence appears to have been a shift to distributing earnings as buybacks (boosting share prices) rather than as dividends. The latest tax cut built on this by giving corporations piles of cash that they have been using for buybacks rather than as special dividends.
    Buried in that statute is an undoing of the 1990s rule allowing companies to deduct pay-for-performance payments to execs. But that comes with some qualifications:
    - contracts in place as of Nov 2, 2017 are grandfathered (so these buybacks help all the current execs)
    - corporate tax rates were cut from 35% to 21%. Previously, the value of this pay-for-performance deduction to corporations was 35¢ on every dollar of compensation. Now it's only 21¢. That reduced the impact of removing the deduction.
    As it turns out, companies have gotten so used to paying out these huge grants that getting rid of their tax break doesn't bring about any change in policy. That's the conclusion of this Economic Policy Institute study. The ACA had already cut back the deduction for CEOs of health insurers as of 2013. Didn't change anything.
    https://www.epi.org/publication/does-tax-deductibility-affect-ceo-pay-the-case-of-the-health-insurance-industry/
  • Manning & Napier Fund, Inc.'s Strategic Income Conservative Series (I & S classes) to liquidate
    Update:
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/751173/000119312518231297/d566740d497.htm
    497 1 d566740d497.htm MANNING & NAPIER FUND, INC.
    MANNING & NAPIER FUND, INC.
    (the “Fund”)
    Supplement dated July 30, 2018 to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated May 1, 2018 for the following Series and Classes of the Fund:
    Strategic Income Conservative Series (the “Series”)
    Class I and S
    This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information, and should be read in conjunction with those documents.
    This supplement supersedes the supplement dated July 27, 2018.
    The Board of Directors of the Fund has voted to terminate the offering of shares of the Strategic Income Conservative Series and instructed the officers of the Fund to take all steps necessary to completely liquidate the Series. Accordingly, effective immediately, the Series will be closed to new investors. Effective September 20, 2018, the Series will stop selling its shares to existing shareholders and will no longer accept automatic investments from existing shareholders.
    The Series will redeem all of its outstanding shares on or about September 27, 2018 and distribute the proceeds to the Series’ shareholders (subject to maintenance of appropriate reserves for liquidation and other expenses).
    As is the case with other redemptions, each shareholder’s redemption, including a mandatory redemption, will constitute a taxable disposition of shares for those shareholders who do not hold their shares through tax-advantaged plans. Shareholders should contact their tax advisors to discuss the potential income tax consequences of the liquidation.
    As shareholders redeem shares of the Series between the date of this supplement and the date of the final redemption, and as the Series increases its cash positions to facilitate redemptions, the Series may not be able to continue to invest its assets in accordance with its stated investment policies. Accordingly, the Series may not be able to achieve its investment objectives during the period between the date of this supplement and the date of the final redemption.
    PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
  • Dividend Investing Going The Way Of The Dodo
    FYI: In the middle of the 20th century, it was possible to see a respectable nominal return from equity dividends, as measured by the aggregate market total return from dividends. In the chart below, Bespoke shows us the annual dividend-only return for the S&P 500 by decade.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/dividend-investing-going-the-way-of-the-dodo/
  • PRBLX finally dumps WFC
    @davidrmoran Beery's piece was a blog post, not really an intensely researched article, but the connection with many still-in-existence companies and the Holocaust is very real, so I don't find her thoughts on the subject fatuous at all. The question again is at what point has a company that behaved badly proven that it has truly reformed.? Is this less fatuous for you? https://nytimes.com/1999/11/16/world/germany-adds-555-million-to-offer-in-nazi-slave-cases.html
    One can do a similar analysis with the U.S. slave trade by the way:
    https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=89884&page=1
    I also can't agree with you that what Wells Fargo has done is remotely comparable with what Enron did. Yet the question remains: What will WFC need to do to prove itself again so that it can go back to behaving badly like every other bank? And I still believe because of this when the next major systemic banking scandal emerges WFC will end up looking better than its peers because of this current scandal.
    This in no way reflects on analysis of PRBLX. The fund waited far too long to dump WFC and should have when the news of the first account scandal broke. But now that all of these penalties have been imposed and the company is actively trying to right itself, does it make sense to dump the stock? The timing of the sale seems more done out of embarrassment than any real logic.
  • Barron's Cover Story: The Top Robo Advisors: An Exclusive Ranking
    FYI: Betterment unveiled its automated investing service in 2010. Within a few years, “robo-advisors” were threatening to upend financial services the way that Amazon.com undid retail. Sophisticated algorithms, the promise went, could provide customized portfolios to the masses, at a quarter of the price charged by human advisors.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-top-robo-advisors-an-exclusive-ranking-1532740937?mod=hp_highlight_2
  • Chuck Jaffe: How Long Can You Go Without Looking At Your Portfolio?
    Hi Hank,
    You claim that their study is flawed, but don't directly identify the flaws.
    @MJG - You’re somewhat correct. I posed five caveats re the Betterment study. Since the third addressed their business model, I’ll omit it here. Here are the other four caveats which you may consider to be “flaws” in the Betterment study:
    First, Betterment commenced operations in 2010. That’s one year into the current ten-year bull market in equities. Those who stayed the course and remained invested in the most aggressive portfolios would be expected to have outperformed. However, that’s a very short time frame on which to base conclusions.
    Second, It appears there’s a high probability many of those logins to Betterment’s site were related to changing investment goals or transferring funds. That’s much different than just checking your returns using M* or a portfolio app. In the case of Betterment logins may well signal some type of investment action initiated by the the client (exchange, purchase, sale, withdrawal, etc.) Whereas the simple act of accessing a portfolio tracker does not signal any action - just looking.
    Fourth, Betterment automatically rebalances portfolios. While rebalancing actions would in-fact constitute “trades” (among different asset classes), they would not not show up in the account login statistics Betterment is using to bolster its overall conclusions. Therefore, the extent of trading within individual accounts would be distorted towards the low side if only logins were counted.
    Fifth, as a broker skimming a set percentage off investors’ assets, Betterment has a vested interest in encouraging clients to remain aggressively invested at all times (increasing its AUM more over time than would otherwise be the case).
    My first reference, which you did not address, was a study conducted in the 1990s by university professors.
    MJG - I think the following excerpt you posted (from a 35-page chapter) pretty much sums up what the U of M professors were getting at.
    "Our most dramatic empirical evidence is provided by the 20 percent of households that trade most often. With average monthly turnover of in excess of 20 percent, these households turn their common stock portfolios over more than twice annually. The gross returns earned by these high-turnover households are unremarkable, and their net returns are anemic."
    I agree with those findings, except I’d put it the other way around. Frequent trading is often the symptom of an uninformed and undisciplined investor. Likely these people have the same failings when it comes to saving in general, managing debt and maintaining a household budget. But do note that the thread is not about frequent trading (touching). It’s about checking one’s portfolio (looking). I know of no other aspect of human existence where ignorance is considered bliss, where not knowing is preferable to knowing, where remaining unaware is preferable to observing. Not in medicine, not in engineering, not in caring for our loved ones.
  • WealthTrack Interview: The Shale Oil Revolution
    Related Story...interesting geo-political dynamics when it comes to the production and trade of resources:
    For too long, Russia has enjoyed near-monopoly status as the main supplier of natural gas to our European allies, and wielded that power as a means of political coercion.
    Simply stated, the United States wants to help our partners increase their energy security by increasing the diversity, not only of their supply, but of their suppliers as well.
    energy-secretary-perry-true-energy-independence-is-finally-within-our-grasp
    Forbes Article:
    The U.S. may continue to lead the world in natural gas production for a few more years, but the level of proved natural gas reserves implies that our lead could be short-lived.
    The Middle East's proved natural gas reserves at the end of 2017 were 2.8 quadrillion cubic feet, nearly ten times U.S. proved reserves of 309 trillion cubic feet. For perspective, U.S. proved reserves are only 4.5% of the global total.
    Russia has more proved natural gas reserves than any other country with 1.23 quadrillion cubic feet, followed by Iran with 1.17 quadrillion cubic feet. Total proved natural gas reserves at the end of 2017 were enough to satisfy 2017 global production rates for 52.6 years.
    the-u-s-is-still-the-global-natural-gas-king
  • Chuck Jaffe: How Long Can You Go Without Looking At Your Portfolio?
    @Hank:
    your interpretation does correspond to how it is with me and it is part of what I meant to convey, but not all of it.
    This was my original statement: "About 3 or 4 days a week I spend about 4 minutes checking my investments. Sometimes it's less. Once a month I spend as much as an hour. It's not because I feel compelled. It's because it's fun!"
    Then later I made another longer statement in which I compared being aware of baseball scores as a kid, and how being aware of the state of funds in which I am invested or am considering an investment feels to be like the same sort of activity. The frequency of checking is for the pleasure of the experience. (I don't mean that finding I have paper losses is pleasurable but I do know that with a solid investment the numbers are liable to rise again in due course). Another thing I used to do as a kid was check the temperature on a thermometer outside a window in the front of the house. I might check it 5 times a day. It had nothing at all to do with taking subsequent action based on the temperature. I just liked knowing the temperature. Similarly the primary reason for checking my portfolio numbers is not so that I may take action. And the frequency of checking does not seem to cause me to take more actions.
    I am busy with all sorts of things in my life. I also do not use any mobile device for email or internet. So I do not check the state of my investments daily. But if I wasn't busy I might check it daily in the early evening just for the sake of doing it.
  • Chuck Jaffe: How Long Can You Go Without Looking At Your Portfolio?
    Just checked out @MJG’s earlier linked study. https://www.betterment.com/resources/high-frequency-monitoring/. It was conducted by Betterment Investing and purports to show a relationship between frequency of logging in to the Betterment account website and success as an investor (The “superstar” investors logged in less often.)
    About Betterment : https://www.investopedia.com/updates/betterment-review/
    Some caveats here.
    First, Betterment commenced operations in 2010. That’s one year into the current ten-year bull market in equities. Those who stayed the course and remained invested in the most aggressive portfolios would be expected to have outperformed. However, that’s a very short time frame on which to base conclusions.
    Second, It appears there’s a high probability many of those logins to Betterment’s site were related to changing investment goals or transferring funds. That’s much different than just checking your returns using M* or a portfolio app. In the case of Betterment logins may well signal some type of investment action initiated by the the client (exchange, purchase, sale, withdrawal, etc.) Whereas the simple act of accessing a portfolio tracker does not signal any action - just looking.
    Third, Betterment markets to investors several different risk adjusted portfolios, charging between .25% and .50% annually to manage accounts.
    Fourth, Betterment automatically rebalances portfolios. While rebalancing actions would in-fact constitute “trades” (among different asset classes), they would not not show up in the account login statistics Betterment is using to bolster its overall conclusions. Therefore, the extent of trading within individual accounts would be distorted towards the low side if only logins were counted.
    Fifth, as a broker skimming a set percentage off investors’ assets, Betterment has a vested interest in encouraging clients to remain aggressively invested at all times (increasing its AUM more over time than would otherwise be the case).
    Still, It’s an interesting study and the only one I’ve seen which even attempts to demonstrate a direct correlation between investor “looking” and net investment returns (flawed though it may be).
  • PRBLX finally dumps WFC
    @davidrmoran
    Two strolls down memory lane:
    https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-195229/
    https://som.yale.edu/blog/the-nazi-corporate-connection-facing-the-ethical-challenges-of-business-head-on
    Since unlike our Supreme Court I don't believe corporations are people, there is an interesting question as to how long a company's image should be tarnished for its misdeeds, especially when different people are in charge or different policies are in place than when the company behaved badly. An excerpt from the article on the really bad historical actors a long time ago:
    Business played an essential role in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. IG Farben (Bayer's predecessor) supplied the patent for deadly chemicals used to exterminate millions of Jews. Financial institutions like Allianz and Deutsche Bank meticulously transferred Jewish assets to German hands. Technology developed by IBM tracked and managed the "evacuation" of Jews across Europe. The hair of Jews who were gassed and burned to ash was sold in bulk to textile manufacturers.
    This paragraph actually understates what Allianz did by the way. It was actually far worse:
    https://nytimes.com/1998/05/18/world/insurers-swindled-jews-nazi-files-show.html
    Yet I wouldn't necessarily hold that against Allianz funds or Pimco today. The question I think with analyzing companies for socially responsible criteria is what are they doing now and going forward? But maybe you are right in that it's too soon to forgive WFC and they need to prove themselves truly reformed.