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.
  • Is This The Perfect Investment Portolio ?
    Hi Guys,
    First and most importantly, I like Brett Arends’ MarketWatch columns. He is well informed and mostly writes intelligent articles. But the referenced piece is not among his finest. It is arrogant, shortsighted, and pretentious. In competition with the Permanent Portfolio, I choose to call his the Pretentious Portfolio.
    Allow me to explain why.
    The perfect portfolio is a moving, dynamic target; it’s elusive because, in truth, it is an idealized concept. The theoretical Efficient Frontier line is not really a single, invariant line. It is actually a cloudy, murky zone that is constantly shifting. The zone migrates to address developing technologies, strong competition, evolving demographics, and emotions.
    One major factor in that dynamic behavior is that category correlation coefficients are not nearly constant. They frequently change, and sometimes quite violently and unexpectedly. The perfect portfolio today will most certainly not be the perfect portfolio tomorrow. My guesstimate is that if Arends were to revisit his forever portfolio a year from now, some obvious amendments would be required.
    Arends chosen time frame is rather limited. Fifteen years of back-testing is only a small fraction of the marketplace’s well documented history. Depending on how his portfolio was actually assembled, it could be a product of data mining.
    At the very least, the robustness of his perfect solution should be tested against other time periods. Also, I hope he has the courage to monitor its future performance. Many of these perfect solutions dissolve almost as quickly as the print in the reporting article dries.
    Arends portfolio is much more complex than his benchmarks which also seem to be very inappropriate as measurement yardsticks against the many components of the Arends discovery. This is yet another illustration of inappropriately selected straw-man benchmarks which were carefully chosen just to show superior rewards.
    The portfolio is not the S&P 500 and is not a 60/40 Balanced fund. To be of any value whatsoever, a comparative benchmark measurement must be made against a real equivalent. As used in the Arends article, the comparisons simply demonstrate the merits of broad category diversification when cobbling together a portfolio.
    Overall. I do endorse the fundamental logic and thinking that supports Arends’ construction. I simply take issue with his exaggerated claims and his short test time horizon. It is a Bridge to Far in claims and far to short in terms of data challenges. Usually, he’s better than that.
    As an aside, if you want to explore the transient character of correlation coefficients, the “buyupside” website offers an attractive, easy tool for that purpose. Just input different dates for two investment products, and see the resultant change in their correlation coefficient valuation. Here is the generic Link to the site and to the specific correlation coefficient tool Link, respectively:
    http://www.buyupside.com/
    http://www.buyupside.com/calculators/stockcorrelationinput.php
    Huge changes in the correlation values are not uncommon. Remember, this is not an assignment. I don’t have that power or control. You do so as a learning lesson for your own benefit.
    My answer to the opening question is a firm NO. A perfect portfolio doesn’t exist, and if it did, it would be very transient.
    Best Wishes.
  • Is This The Perfect Investment Portolio ?
    @DaveC: Outstanding resource, thanks! A treasure trove.
  • Is This The Perfect Investment Portolio ?
    I think its safe to say that its best to keep things as simple as possible and as cheap as possible regardless if you prefer managed or index funds. Also diversification is important If you look at what Ted posted a while back :(http://www.callan.com/research/download/?file=periodic/free/757.pdf) , it clearing shows the importance of owning a little of everything. Definitely a case for diversification !
    If you get confused then you should follow John Bogle's advice. 3-4 buy and hold funds is all you need. While I know this site discusses mostly managed funds, its hard to dispute the data that index funds held in the right combination will outperform 70% of a managed fund portfolio. I struggle my self with the idea of indexing but the proof is in the performance numbers.
    Guido
  • Fund Manager Focus: Jason Brady, Manager, Thornburg Strategic Income Fund
    FYI: Times are tough for bond investors, but Thornburg's Jason Brady has a wide latitude in his Strategic Income fund. He's not seduced by the highest yields, and takes a conservative approach to risk
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://online.barrons.com/news/articles/SB50001424053111904651304579608060773638806#printMode
    M* Snapshot Of TSIAX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/tsiax/f?t=tsiax
    Lipper Snapshot Of TSIAX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/tsiax
    Fund Is Ranked # 6 In The (MS) Bond Category By U.S. News & World Report:
    http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/multisector-bond/thornburg-strategic-income-fund/tsiax
    Fund Website: http://www.thornburginvestments.com/funds/strategic_inc/strategic_inc_hlt.asp
  • Is This The Perfect Investment Portolio ?
    @STB65:
    Many financial planners and financial advisers will not use high yield bonds in the mix, as they behave more like stocks and not much like Treasuries. They don't diversify away stock risk. And reducing stock market risk and diversification is the reason they are using bonds in a portfolio. So take for example David Swensen, who wrote Unconventional Success: A Fundamental Approach to Personal Investment by David F. Swensen (Aug 2, 2005). He goes into great detail about why he only recommends Treasury bonds in the bond allocation. He is the portfolio manager of the Yale endowment. Or Larry Swedroe, author of multiple books and articles. He will only use extremely high quality bonds in the bond allocation. Again, because junk bonds don't provide the diversification and risk reduction they are looking for. Take a look at how high yield bonds performed during the financial crisis of Oct 2007-March 9, 2009. Junk bonds performed like stocks, both on the way down and then on the way up after March 9, 2009.
    I have tremendous respect for Rick Ferri, who does include junk bonds in his allocation for clients, and also Larry Swedroe, who does not. And also for David Swensen, who, although I do not believe he has financial planning 'clients', wrote his book to advise the non-professional investor about how to construct their portfolios. David Swensen in his book recommends 15% in TIPS and 15% in Treasuries, 20% in REITS, the other 50% in globally diversified stocks (and he specifies the stock breakdown by US, developed foreign, and emerging mkt)
  • Vanguard Beats The Market Handily--That Is, Vanguard's Partnership
    While I wish Vanguard employes were more equitably compensated (but I wonder how many leave from the lower echelon), I'm happy with an ER <.5% average in Health Care, Capital Opps, and Primecap, plus others. Wish my 403b included the company. If I ever buy an annuity, it will probably be there.
  • Is This The Perfect Investment Portolio ?
    Depends on age and anticipated retirement age. 20 to 50 y.o. with retirement at 70 (probably the new normal for the younger generation): 10% short term bond and 10% high yield bond and remainder in stock funds. Would include mid-cap blend or value and/or small cap blend or value for this period of one's investing life (and might even extend it to retirement age)
    Age 50 and above: this distribution is logical, but I prefer ETFs that meet the criteria.
  • Pioneer High Income Trust Common (PHT)
    I'm looking for opinions about this bond ETF:
    Pioneer High Income Trust Common (PHT)
    http://cef.morningstar.com/quote?t=PHT&region=USA
    Returns:
    http://performance.morningstar.com/funds/cef/total-returns.action?t=PHT&region=usa&culture=en-US
    This fund's returns look great in the past 1, 3, 5 and 10 years. It took a hit during the 2007 (-13.49%) and 2008 (-33.42%), but the performance was not too bad in its own category (rank: 21 and 60 respectively). It's performance was off the charts in 2009: 105.92% vs. 78.41% for its category.
    Why can't this bond fund be considered a great fund in the ETF universe and also, in general, all of the mutual fund universe?
    Do you have any other ETFs or mutual funds that are comparable to this bond fund and why are they better than this one?
    Thanks.
  • TRAMX TRP Africa/Middle East
    I have this in wife's retirement portfolio. I was buying on the dips down in the $4-8 range and racked up quite a few shares. I would think around 5 or so plus years it will start moving upwards as a lot of US companies are investing heavily on infrastructure in that part of the world waiting on this frontier to take off.
  • The Closing Bell: U.S. Stocks Edge Higher
    Gold miners,solar,oil gain.India, Reits fall.
    Weekly ETF Gainers / Losers
    Jun 13 2014, 16:14 ET Seeking Alpha
    Gainers: GDXJ +13.01%. GDX +6.49%. TAN +5.42%. VXX +4.84%. OIL +4.29%.
    Losers: EPI -4.16%. VNQ -2.21%. IYR -2.02%. XHB -1.94%. MOO -1.77%.
  • The Closing Bell: U.S. Stocks Edge Higher
    FYI U.S. stocks rose Friday as investors shrugged off concerns about military tensions in Iraq
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-edge-lower-1402662259#printMode
    Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us
  • Is This The Perfect Investment Portolio ?
    Interesting. I need to watch out for confirmation-bias, and I don't have what he is recommending perfectly duplicated. But it makes sense, and my portfolio is ALSO "simple" yet diversified. No TIPS in my stash, and I am about 50/50 (equities) split between domestic and foreign.
  • Don't Fear Risky Assets
    FYI: Copy & Paste 6/13/14: Zachary Karabell: Barron's
    Regards,
    Ted
    Editor's Note: Karabell is head of global strategy at Envestnet, a leading provider of wealth management technology and services to investment advisors.
    We live in a world that emphasizes risk. That is true in general, but is especially so in the financial world. Since the financial crisis of 2008–2009, financial professionals have been acutely attuned to risk—and for good reason. Too many felt they were caught off-guard and unprepared by the near-implosion of five years ago. That in turn followed volatile periods from the Internet bubble of 1999 into early 2000, through the events of 9/11, and then a sharp market contraction until October 2002. After nearly 15 years of drama, it is hardly surprising that the financial world is primed for risk.
    Hardly surprising, but a problem nonetheless. The heightened sensitivity to hidden risk muddies analysis, and can potentially lead to mispricing of assets and hence, less-than-optimal investment decisions.
    The current yields and attitudes towards both high-yield ("junk") bonds and emerging-market debt are prime examples. Both are seen as risky assets with both known and unknown pitfalls. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in April warned that many investors in emerging-markets bonds may be unaware and unprepared for a combination of slowing growth and rising rates that could impact many portfolios negatively, especially given the surge of money into emerging-markets bonds since 2008. There is now $76 billion in retail mutual funds focused on the space, up from $12 billion before 2008. The IMF also emphasized the increase in issuance, with $300 billion in emerging-market corporate bonds coming to market last year alone. That is frequently interpreted as a sign that the market is—to use a common cliché—"getting frothy."
    But is it? It is too easy these days to make the argument for bubbles, bubbles everywhere, and for overpriced assets at every turn. In light of a volatile 15 years, where the downs have felt more severe than the ups, such arguments are intuitive and have emotional resonance. That does not, however, make them correct.
    A Matter of Perceptions
    Both high-yield ("junk") bonds and emerging-market debt are perceived as inherently more risky than many more vanilla investment options. There are at least two types of risk: greater chance of loss (more downside) and greater volatility. Compared with, say, blue-chip large cap companies such as IBM (IBM) or Walmart (WMT), or with investment-grade bond portfolios, or with U.S. Treasuries, junk and emerging-market debt are understood as riskier and hence provide higher returns to lenders in the form of higher-interest rates. They are also susceptible to price swings that can be intense.
    Last June of 2013, when then chairman of the Federal Reserve (Fed) Ben Bernanke hinted that the Fed would begin to pare its bond-buying program, emerging-market debt sold off very hard, with prices dropping in many instances by more than 10% in the space of weeks. The reason was not a sudden change in the fundamentals of Turkish or Brazilian bonds, but rather the market perception that those bonds had seen strong inflows based largely on the presence of so much money in the global system as a result of Fed policies. The concern was that when the Fed began to trim the easy, easy money, those bonds would see both outflows and a drop in demand.
    And yet, a year later, the Fed is aggressively trimming its bond-buying program, having reduced its monthly purchases almost in half and on a glide path to reducing them entirely by year-end. Emerging market bonds, meanwhile, have recovered all of what they lost in June 2013 and yields are actually lower after the recent run since May. The market interpretation that these assets were simply a derivative of a Fed bubble was wrong.
    Of course, it may only be temporarily wrong. Another shock to the global system could well prove the risk interpretation correct. The ever-present concern that all financial assets are still being artificially boosted by central bank liquidity won't fully dissipate until central banks tighten globally. With the actions by the European Central Bank (ECB) announced on June 5, however, we are nowhere near an end to these policies. In fact, the ECB, led by its president Mario Draghi, is now embarking on its own policies of quantitative easing just as the U.S. Fed is pulling back.
    Combined with the easy money policies of Shinzo Abe in Japan, we are in for a considerable period of significant liquidity. And then there is the surfeit of liquidity in sovereign wealth funds—well in excess of $5 trillion—and in corporate balance sheets which add trillions more. If you are waiting for a liquidity squeeze, you might be waiting for a long, long time.
    The market price for high-yield and emerging-market debt suggests that the prices being paid and the rates being offered for these instruments are not pricing in much risk. Low-rated bonds still bear the moniker "junk" from a time in the 1970s and 1980s when low-rated or questionable businesses simply could not get financing from banks at any price and had to pay much more generously to investors to compensate them for the risk.
    Today, however, many, many low-rated bonds have only a slightly higher level of actual risk—as defined by default risk—than bonds considered "safe." Over the past three years, the default rate for bonds rated "junk" (i.e. those rated 'BB' or lower by Standard & Poor's, or 'Ba' or lower by Moody's) has been only a few percentage points worse than those rated investment-grade. Except for a spike in 2009, in fact, when low-rated bonds had a default rate of more than 8%, so-called "junk" bonds have had a default rate of less than 5%, and in the past few years less than 2.5%. The very lowest ratings, C and less, have had higher default rates, as to be expected. But bonds with a B rating have had default rates of less than 1.5% since 2003.
    The picture is similar with emerging-market bonds. Yet both emerging market and high-yield still trade at a significant premium to treasuries and investment-grade corporate bonds. Yes, those spreads have been compressing, and as more money has poured into these bonds in the past few years, they have compressed further.
    The modest spread between high-grade bonds on the one hand and emerging markets and high-yield on the other is itself taken as an indication that investors may be investing too much in higher-risk assets. As more money has poured into funds that invest in those assets, prices have risen and yields have therefore dropped. The question for many now is whether those yields are appropriate given the nature of the risk.
    Staking the Middle Ground Between Risk and Return
    There is, of course, no easy answer here. There is the very low default rate, save for the worst credit quality. There is the reality that many emerging-market bonds, whether corporate or sovereign, are issued by countries and companies that are risky only because countries such as Mexico, Turkey, and South Korea were once considered riskier. And there is the fact that we live in a world suffused with capital with low inflation, which means that legitimate entities do not need to pay exorbitant rates.
    If you believe that we remain in an artificial lull of easy money provided by central banks, that rates will rise sharply soon enough, that markets will roil, and that there is some new crises just beyond the advent horizon, then yes, emerging market and high-yield debt will suffer disproportionately.
    If not, however, these assets may not have significantly greater downside than U.S. Treasuries and investment-grade corporate debt even as they carry a risk premium that assumes they are. Until the investing world stops fixating on risk and focuses more prominently on return, that will remain the case.
  • The Four Best Bond Funds To Own Now

    Templeton Emerging Markets Income Fund ("TEI") Announces Dividend (Cut)
    Fri June 13, 2014 10:41 AM|Marketwire
    Beginning with the June dividend, the Fund's quarterly dividend will be adjusted from $0.25 to $0.20 per share. Dividends may vary based on the Fund's net investment income. Past dividends are not indicative of future trends. Over the past few years, interest rates around the globe have decreased in response to the slow growth economic environment. The Fund's dividend adjustment reflects the current environment of historically low interest rates and reduced yields available in government bonds.
    The Fund's investment team continues to believe that the current period of accommodative monetary policy by central banks will eventually need to end, resulting in rising interest rates from current record low levels. This poses downside risk for bond prices, so the Fund has been positioned in very low duration and short maturity bonds to mitigate downside risk should interest rates rise. In general, shorter duration and maturity bonds have lower yields than longer duration/maturity bonds.
    http://seekingalpha.com/pr/10210743-templeton-emerging-markets-income-fund-tei-announces-dividend
  • Gold Set For First Back-To-Back Weekly Gain Since April
    Hi Folks,
    Dealing with an elderly parent has kept me far away from the internet and this site.
    Hope all is well.
    When it comes to PMs I take a slightly different stance than the above posters.
    Manipulated? Like the rest of the market? Of course. When has that stopped us from investing? My only way of seeing value these days is through price discovery. As equities are discovering their tops the PMs have been discovering their bottoms.
    PM prices are at 1 and 5 year lows. I would say more deflationary pricewise.
    Could a lack of inflation or slow growth push PM prices lower? Probably.
    Can you make short term profits with lower risk than most other equity investment right now? I think so.
    My suggestion:
    Learn how PM and PM Miners move (charts help) and let the market price determine if you hold 'em or fold 'em...multiple days or weeks of higher lows (hold 'em) vs multiple lower lows (fold 'em).
    Here's a recent article and maybe a way to follow PMs if you have an interest:
    shortsideoflong.com/2014/06/portfolio-big-move-coming-pms/
  • The Four Best Bond Funds To Own Now
    FYI: Bond yields have nowhere to go but up, and that means bond prices will fall. These funds take unconventional approaches to avoiding losses and boosting returns.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://portal.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=12521