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.
  • Massive Carnage In The CEF Space
    The guy who writes these articles is a very good CEFs analyst and sells his services. I love his writings and their depth. Late last year he was posting his portfolio results several times and how they did much better per risk/reward than stocks.
    The following is what I posted about the article we are discussing
    after years of great results, we are now seeing the real volatility of CEFs where many retail investors didn't understand the risk. While SPY lost over 30% PCI,PDI,PTY lost 43-46% and I'm guessing that your 3 portfolios were down accordingly at the bottom on March 23rd.
    Another interesting observation: 3 year annual average performance as of 3/27/20202 is ...BND(index) 4.8.......price return...PCI 2.3%...PDI 3%.......NAV return is even worse...PCI 0.1%...PDI 1.1%. It's an eye-opener.
  • Bond mutual funds analysis act 2 !!
    @FD1000 what muni funds are your highest conviction investments right now? Thanks for sharing your thoughts
    PTIMX Performance Trust. Almost back to flat for the year. Best I've seen. The standard, clickable spots which let you dive deeper, to see more granular detail at Morningstar seem not to be working properly, Saturday, late morning, here.
  • Bond mutual funds analysis act 2 !!
    @FD1000 what muni funds are your highest conviction investments right now? Thanks for sharing your thoughts
  • AGG Up 8.4% This Week

    DODIX, FTBFX, BOND are managed bond funds while AGG,BND and VBTLX follow the US Total bond index and why they are very close long term.
    Usually, but not always. Index funds, especially bond index funds, are also managed, though perhaps not in the way you are thinking. I'll just quote Vanguard from its 2002 annual report for VBTLX:
    Of course, the objective of an index fund is to track its target benchmark closely. On this score, three of our four funds came up significantly short. The Total Bond Market Index Fund--our oldest and biggest bond index fund--returned 8.3%, well below the 10.3% return of the Lehman Aggregate Bond Index. Our Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Bond Index Funds also trailed their target indexes by about 2 percentage points. The Long-Term Bond Index Fund's return was within 0.4 percentage point of the target.
    ...
    As we explained in our report to you six months ago, our funds' returns will typically differ from those of the indexes for two primary reasons: The funds incur expenses that the indexes do not, and the funds' holdings do not exactly replicate those held by the indexes. The expense difference will always work against us in our goal of providing close tracking. The difference in holdings arises from our "sampling" approach to indexing, which is necessary because it would be impractical and very costly to own all the bonds in the target indexes.
    Around that time, the WSJ wrote:
    Those are huge discrepancies in the bond world, and an embarrassment for the Malvern, Pa., firm whose name is practically synonymous with index funds. The flexibility to deviate from the benchmark index is disclosed in the Vanguard's prospectuses for its bond index funds, but nonetheless is surprising for those under the impression an index fund mechanically invests in the securities making up its benchmark.
    "Indexing" is not synonymous with "unmanaged". Vanguard had tinkered with sector weightings. As the WSJ notes later in the article, it didn't change the prospectus in response to the poor management performance. The prospectus remains the same to the current day.
    Prospectus wording then (April 2012) and now (April 2019):
    In addition, each Fund keeps industry sector and subsector exposure within tight boundaries relative to its target index. Because the Funds do not hold all the securities in their target indexes, some of the securities (and issuers) that are held will likely be overweighted (or underweighted) compared with the target indexes. The maximum overweight (or underweight) is constrained at the issuer level with the goal of producing well-diversified credit exposure in the portfolio.
    Italics in original. What's "tight"? At least Fidelity quantifies the guardrails for its "index" fund: "The Adviser expects the fund's investments will approximate the broad market sector weightings of the index within a range of ±10%."
  • IOFIX - I guess it works until it doesn't
    The following is a test I do every time for buy/sell/hold. Suppose I have 100% in cash now and want to invest, what are my best 2-3 mutual funds ideas?
    The answer is what I do! The past is dead for me.
    or another way to look at it is by using an NBA basketball team.
    I want my best team on the court at all times, I don't care if your name is Jordan or Lebron, I want my current players and team to be the best right now and my goal is to go to the playoffs every season. Winning the championship isn't guaranteed but I must be in the playoffs.
  • Stocks close sharply lower after massive 3-day rally fizzles out
    "Stocks ended sharply lower Friday, giving back some of the strong gains from the previous three days to cap another volatile week on Wall Street.
    Sentiment took a hit as investors focused back on the coronavirus outbreak as the U.S. became the country with the most confirmed cases.
    The Dow closed down 915 points, or 4%. The S&P 500 slid 3.3%, while the Nasdaq shed 3.8%."
    Article From CNBC
  • When to start buying
    I'm not in a hurry to buy any stocks because 1) we are in a bear market 2) VIX > 60 is still very high 3) We got the bounce we expected 4) usually, bear markets don't end with a V shape recovery and why I expect stocks to fall back.
    But, I think that Munis represent the best risk/reward option and why I'm back invested at a very high % (bought in mid last week) mainly in HY MUNIS.
  • AGG Up 8.4% This Week
    Hi @davidrmoran
    Just for the heck of it. From your list and few more.
    Some bond funds, 1 year to date
  • Timeless advice from Peter Bernstein
    Timeless advice from Peter Bernstein - bumped into this interview via Seeking Alpha
    https://jasonzweig.com/a-long-chat-with-peter-l-bernstein/.
    Timeless advice from Peter Bernstein
    Peter Bernstein Interview. — Money.com, Oct. 15, 2004
    Quotes:
    Because the more you think this is easy, the more you persuade yourself that you can take the heat. And then, the sooner the oven gets hot, the more shocked you are and the worse you get burned. After 50 years in the investment business I still haven’t got it all clear.
    Understanding that we do not know the future is such a simple statement, but it’s so important. Investors do better where risk management is a conscious part of the process.
    Somebody once said that if you’re comfortable with everything you own, you’re not diversified.
    The great Michigan economist Paul MacCracken, at the blackest moment of 1974, told me never to believe in apocalyptic scenarios.
  • 20 years at 4%
    Yes, exactly. That's why I love looking at rolling returns. You can't decide the year you were born and the 20-year period(s) you were invested. Going back 60 years through February, the S&P 500 delivered anywhere from 5.6% to 18.3% annualized over 481 20-year rolling periods. Timing is everything.
  • All Wasatch Funds are open except International Opportunities (unless directly from Wasatch)
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806633/000119312520017093/d842170d485bpos.htm
    From the 1/31/2020 prospectus:
    Open/Closed Status of Funds. The Emerging India Fund, Emerging Markets Select Fund, Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund, Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund, Global Opportunities Fund, Global Select Fund, Global Value Fund, International Select Fund, Micro Cap Fund, Micro Cap Value Fund, Small Cap Value Fund, Ultra Growth Fund, and U.S. Treasury Fund are each open to investors.
    The Core Growth Fund, International Growth Fund, International Opportunities Fund and Small Cap Growth Fund are each closed to new purchases, except purchases by new or existing shareholders purchasing directly from Wasatch Funds, existing shareholders purchasing through intermediaries, and current and future shareholders purchasing through financial advisors and retirement plans with an established position in the Fund. Fund officers may waive or revise the conditions of a closed fund for an intermediary depending on its ability to systematically apply the conditions .
  • 20 years at 4%
    I've asked for permission to reproduce the two graphics from today's Research Note in our April issue. One gave the returns for about 20 assets or indexes and the other compared current valuations to today's. I'll share if I'm allowed.
    Other highlights from today's Leuthold note:
    ... these results mostly reflect how exorbitant valuations were at the start of that 20-year span, and not how depressed they are today.
    ...the S&P 500 isn’t yet statistically cheap, but it is vastly more attractive than it was just five weeks ago.
    ... not a single equity sector generated a double-digit annualized return over the last 20 years, nor did any major asset class.
    Incredibly, the S&P 500 Energy sector (+2.4%) and Technology sector (+2.7%) delivered about the same results to those who bought them in March 2000 and held on for the ride.
    In sum, initial valuations matter, and the only good thing to come out of the last five weeks’ action is that the “cost of entry” into the S&P 500 has finally closed in on its historical average, and almost all other stock market cohorts (domestic and international) are well below their averages. Veteran investors will recall that the Y2K peak proved to be an excellent time to shift into Mid and Small Caps, and it’s worth noting that median valuations for these stocks are 15-25% below those prevailing at that historic turning point. Keep this good news in mind when dealing with the coming onslaught of bad news.
  • 20 years at 4%
    I’d love to see the details! Low volatility & dividend aristocrats beat the S&P 500 by 2:1? Obviously, significant. And mid caps & small caps also significantly beat the S&P 500? I guess it’s value & SCV that has done poorly.
  • 20 years at 4%
    Nope, not a bond yield.
    Today is the 20th anniversary of the peak of the dot-com bubble. According to the Leuthold Group, returns for the S&P 500 have averaged 4.4% per year from that date to this one. The MSCI Emerging Markets and Barclays Bond Aggregate have had identical 5% returns. Mid-caps and small caps have substantially bested all three.
    Among the sliced and diced domestic sub-sectors:
    S&P 500 High Beta: -1.4% annually
    S&P 500 Low Volatility: 9.2%
    S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats: 9.3%
    FSTE NAREIT Index: 9.0%
    Spot gold: 9.0%
    Of course measuring for the moment before one market collapse to a moment somewhere within another one is weird and unrepresentative. We ought all remember that the next time someone tries pedaling an investment based on its 3- or 5-year returns when those returns fall within a window of steadily rising prices.
    See? I'm an optimist! I'm foreseeing the New Bull and the New Bull marketing campaigns.
    Cheers!
  • Massive Carnage In The CEF Space
    How has the correlation between price and NAV been working out in the current market volatility?
    In typical trading days when there are ample buyers and sellers, bond prices are traded with narrow spread in relation to their trading volume. The bond prices are summed up at end of the day and posted as the NAVs. According to Dan Fuss of Loomis Sayles Bond fund, a number of his high yield bonds cannot be sold due to the lack of buyers. This situation further exacerbated when some of these bonds are thinly traded with large spreads. At the end of the day the bond prices went through a free fall, and they were calculated into the NAV at the end of the day. He had two choices: (1) sell the bonds at an higher loss, or (2) hold them and calculated into the NAV at the end of the day. He described the latter choice as as mark-to-market condition. Some calls this the liquidity issue. A sizable portfolio at that time held sizable % of high yield bonds and he simply cannot sell. 2008 was brutal for Loomis Sayles bond fund.
  • Massive Carnage In The CEF Space
    RiverNorth, whose strategy centers on CEF arbitrage as the key to their competitive advantage, posts the following "Cliff Notes" version of their recent conference call.
    The following provides a brief recap of the RiverNorth conference call held on March 19th.
    Capital markets and economic volatility/uncertainty has led to unprecedented volatility in the CEF markets
    RiverNorth estimates that 90%+ of the CEF market is owned by retail – and they are in full retreat
    Co-portfolio manager Steve O’Neill described some of the CEF price action last week as a “9.5 out of 10 on the CEF panic scale”
    Discounts hit (and in some cases exceeded) levels last seen during the Global Financial Crisis of 2008
    To keep investors appraised of the opportunity set, RiverNorth started posting discount data here: rivernorth.com/cef-discount-info
    The opportunity is broad based – nearly all CEF asset classes trading at historically wide discounts
  • Infinite QE Is Destroying Traditional Bond-Fund Strategies
    My head shook when the Fed undertook massive QE during the Great Recession. I was surprised to see the markets full embrace of it. But the Don't Fight The Fed logic prevailed. I have gradually accepted the notion that there is no turning the clock back and that the Feds intervention in the economy will likely increase through time as they continue to implement their dual mandates. (The Powell Put of February 2019 reinforced this acceptance.) Perhaps "true demand" estimates just need to incorporate a BIG AND INCREASING Fed factor.
  • If today's gains hold up....
    Per the tsunami reference, you could argue that the market is forward looking and earning drops and unemployment were priced into stock prices in the 1st tsunami wave of this. If some how encouraging news emerged that showed light at the end of the tunnel, a vaccine available with specific dates for instance, or an easy and available way to test for the virus, or a flattened curve on new cases, I could see the market drift higher for the same reason it dropped, future earnings looking more optimistic.
    Now I don't readily believe that is going to happen, but it isn't unrealistic.