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.
  • Blind Forecasters
    Hi Guys,
    I am an engineer by temperament, training, and experience. I like smart folks, especially those that develop sophisticated investment prediction models. In his "The Money Game" book, Adam Smith concurs that an investor should seek advice from smart people. Of course, one issue is how to identify smart market participants.
    One might suspect that carefully trained economists, who are hired by financial organizations, would nicely fit that framework. Maybe, but it's not that easy.
    In the early 1990s I counted Elaine Garzarelli as one such market-wise forecasting hero. She had an elaborate macroeconomic computer model that accurately forecasted the 1987 equity meltdown. Since that famous forecast, her record has suffered somewhat. According to one scorecard, she is correct about one-third of the time. Anyone for a fair coin toss projection?
    Equity returns forecasts for 2017 are presently dominating the media and investor exchanges. It's great sport, but it is highly likely that the projections are in serious error. The record, even for the most well informed cohort of professionals, is dismal. How dismal? Here is a Link to some research that was completed a year ago:
    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/25/the-blind-forecaster.aspx
    The findings are consistent with similar studies. Predicting returns is a challenging assignment, and most fail the task. A blind forecaster just might equal the accuracy of these highly paid experts. The author claims that emotional factors control the outcome, and these are impossible to forecast. I guess that means we should all keep a heavy reserve to protect against the uncertainty of the markets, regardless of professional opinion.
    Best Regards.
  • Art Cashin: " Waiting On Trump's Tax Policy"
    Bezos Got the Message Before the Tweet ?
    DEALS | Wed Jan 4, 2017 | 4:43pm EST
    Exclusive: Amazon, Forever 21 vying for bankrupt American Apparel - sources
    Reuters sources interest out of Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Forever 21 and others ahead of a deadline to submit offers for the bankrupt Los Angeles-based company set for this Friday.
    http://seekingalpha.com/news/3233531-reuters-amazon-among-possible-american-apparel-bidders
    By Jessica DiNapoli and Lauren Hirsch REUTERS
    The bankruptcy auction of Los Angeles-based American Apparel, which made its branding theme "Made in the U.S.A", will determine the future of a major clothing manufacturing plant in California, one of the most expensive U.S. states in terms of labor costs.
    Keeping jobs in the United States has become a hot button political issue since the presidential election. Ford Motor Co on Tuesday reversed plans for a $1.6 billion factory in Mexico and said it would add 700 jobs in Michigan after receiving criticism from President-elect Donald Trump.
    Amazon and Forever 21, as well as California-based apparel maker Next Level Apparel and brand licensor Authentic Brands Group LLC, are in talks with American Apparel and its financial advisers about submitting offers ahead of a deadline on Friday, the people said
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-americanapparel-m-a-idUSKBN14O281
  • "Thinking About Asset Allocation 2017"
    This newsletter update seemed to fit the thread:
    Prospects for International Stocks, Value Stocks, and Bonds in the New Year
    funds-newsletter.com/jan17-newsletter/jan17-new.htm
  • Keeping SFGIX?
    SFGIX (or SIGIX) is a very good option for investors who want EM with much lower-than-average volatility. It is one of a handful of EM funds with a positive 3-Yr Sortino Ratio. It will have a 5-Yr anniversary on 2/15/17 and will start showing up on a lot of radar screens. Fortunately, Andrew Foster will not hesitate to close the fund if asset flow is too much. It has the highest Alpha of the 40+ EM funds and ETFs we track. Because M* puts Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong in the developed intl category, the fund appears to be less EM than some others. I really like this fund and its manager.
  • M*: Who Should Take The Blame For Inferior Funds?
    FYI: It's difficult for mutual fund producers to lose a lawsuit, but it's a different story for corporate buyers.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=787188
  • Jack Bogle tells you the secret to becoming a winning investor
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jack-bogles-secrets-to-becoming-a-winning-investor-2016-12-20?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
    "Talk to Jack Bogle long enough and you get the idea that he never gets the answer wrong — he simply tells the right answer to come back when it’s ready for him. It’s not that Bogle, the venerable 87-year-old founder of the Vanguard Group, the world’s largest mutual fund company, has always been right, but investors have always been able to count on him for straight talk and answers that, when relied upon as investment advice, feel right over time. As the man who started the index revolution more than 40 years ago, Bogle is a one-of-a-kind investor resource, and he’s still as fiery as ever when it comes to his views about Wall Street and the mutual fund business, investors, the index revolution"
  • PTIAX Returns to No Fee/Low Minimum Status @ Schwab
    Weird. This fund was NTF early in 2016, then it was transfer fee, now back to NTF. All in less than a year.
  • PTIAX Returns to No Fee/Low Minimum Status @ Schwab
    PTIAX - Performance Trust Strat Bd Fd
    NAV: 22.36 +0.01
    POP: 0.00
    52 Week High: 23.09
    52 Week Low: 22.21
    Trans. Fee Fund: No
    Sales Load: None
    As of 01/03/2017
    Initial/Additional both regular and retirement
    Minimum: $100.00/ $1.00)
    http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/investment_help/investment_research/mutual_fund_research/mutual_funds.html?path=/Prospect/Research/MutualFunds/Summary.asp?symbol=PTIAX
  • "Thinking About Asset Allocation 2017"
    AMJVX is only 41% bonds. How does this fit with fixed income bond funds? M* classifies it as a 30-50% allocation fund.
    Bonds: low duration to me just means you will lose less than longer duration. But you are still going to lose. I think you have to be in the sweet spot for bonds, which happens to be floating rate right now and likely the near term future. My largest bond fund holding right now is PFIDX, fwiw. Daniel Ivascyn is a co-manager on this fund. You can't get any better manager than that.
  • metals outlook 2017
    SLVRX up 62,741% in one year. John, why didn't you mention this last year???
  • Keeping SFGIX?
    Yeah - I ran my own simulation and arrived at the same answer. Pretty much destroys everything I thought I knew about math. Still doesn't make sense to me - but never learnt much math after 8th grade. :) Thanks msf for the math lesson.
    Base amount $100
    Example 1:
    Year 1 experiences gain of 30% = $130
    Year 2 experiences gain of 10% = $143
    Year 3 experiences gain of 5% = $150.15
    Example 2
    Year 1 experiences gain of 5% = $105.00
    Year 2 experiences gain of 10% = $115.50
    Year 3 experiences gain of 30% = $150.15
    * Edit: In my (humbled) defense - and where I probably mis-learned something long ago - a lump sum dollar amount received early on (in say a pay scale) is more beneficial than the same amount received/contributed later on. Came up in contract negations once "many moons" ago.
  • Keeping SFGIX?
    This may not be hank's day for math. A 20% gain followed by a 10% gain is no different from a 10% gain followed by a 20% gain. Either way, one winds up with 132% of the original investment. That's because multiplication is commutative.
    120% x 110% = 110% x 120%.
    A reason why conventional wisdom says a large gain early is better is because in retirement you're bleeding off fixed dollar amounts each year. If the large gain comes early, then in the first year you're bleeding off a smaller percentage of the investment, leaving a bigger fraction to grow.
    Say you've started with $100K, and are drawing down $10K annually. If the 20% year comes first, then starting at year zero you have:
    0: $100K
    1: $120K - $10K = $110K
    2: $110K x 110% - $10K = $121K - $10K = $111K
    If the 20% year comes later, then starting at year zero you have:
    0: $100K
    1: $110K - $10K = $100K
    2: $100K x 120% - $10K = $120K - $10K = $110K
    The first sequence leaves you with more money.
  • Keeping SFGIX?
    @hank: Yes, I am absolutely paying attention... @BenWP: I see it...... But David and others here are in love with SFGIX. M* rates it highly, within its peer group. Great performance in a stinky category? Like YAZ winning the batting title at .301, in a year when pitchers, not hitters, dominated. Wasn't that Denny McLain's 30-win year? What's a mother to do?
  • "Thinking About Asset Allocation 2017"
    Hi @ron,
    Not JohnC,
    As of 12/30/2016 my average duration within my overall portfolio is 3.4 years with an average maturity of 5.7 years according to Morningstar Portfolio Manager. Within my income sleeve I'm finding an average duration of 2.6 years with an average maturity of 4.6 years.
    Since, I am not active on the fixed side of my portfolio like I am on the equity side I plan no changes on the fixed side in my funds; and, I will let my bond and hybrid fund managers determine how best to proceed concerning bonds.
    However, if I were to do anything, I would add to my bank loan fund.
    Old_Skeet
  • A Good Year and a Dire Forecast
    I will sometimes pare back but still a buy hold type. I still hold stocks owned as far back as 1978 1995, etc. some have merged, taken over but I never sell out a portfolio even during the worst crashes. So I guess I didn't mean when the trend changes I sell out, I've held when down 25- 45% because if I like what I have owned I will still own it. It has often been scary but almost always turns out for the better.
  • Keeping SFGIX?
    What I was demonstrating was how Hank's quick and dirty averaged total return (as contrasted with your averaged annual) figure compared with the true (geometric mean) annual return.
    BTW, the new base was $20K, as the hypothetical started from $10K and doubled each year. To get $25K, you're mixing and matching. You're computing intermediate values based on a multi-year annual rate (150%), and then turning around and using those intermediate values to compute piece-part individual annual rates.
    To be fair, that will tend to give a closer approximation of each year's rate. But at the expense of many calculations (each year's approximate value), still leading to an overestimation of annualized rate in most cases. If you're going to all that effort, you might as well look up the real annual rates.
    Since I picked a constant rate of growth (each year's rate of growth is 100%), the arithmetic average of those rates equals the geometric average. It's only when rates fluctuate that the former exceeds the latter.
  • Keeping SFGIX?
    The second year return would be 60%... $15k on the new base of $25k... So the "average" annual return would be 105% ((150%+60%)/2). Either way, "average" annual returns are worthless, IMO.