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.
  • Bitcoin Slumps Just Hours After Topping $11,000 Milestone
    FYI: Bitcoin exhibited its trademark volatility Wednesday, plunging back toward $9,000 just hours after topping the $11,000 milestone for the first time.
    A single bitcoin BTCUSD, -0.94% changed hands in recent action at $9,428.54, according to tracking site CoinDesk, a decline of 4.1% from Monday.
    Earlier, bitcoin traded as high as $11,377.33. The move came just a day after the cryptocurrency hit $10,000 for the first time, adding to a rally that saw its year-to-date gains briefly exceed 1,000%. It’s still up sharply from its 2016 finish just below $1,000.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bitcoin-within-touching-distance-of-11000-just-one-day-after-taking-out-10000-milestone-2017-11-29/print
  • Vanguard: Explore The Surprising Savings Opportunities Of An HSA
    And yet Vanguard doesn't offer an HSA to individuals.
    https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/overview/healthsavings
    They just refer you over to Health Savings Administrators, that charges you $45/year plus the equivalent of a 12b-1 fee (0.25%/year) to invest in Vanguard funds:
    https://healthsavings.com/vanguard/fees/
    or to Health Equity that charges $36/year plus virtually the equivalent percentage fee, here 0.24%/year.
    https://healthequity.com/indexinvestor/
    These aren't even the cheapest ways to get Vanguard funds in HSAs through third parties. For example, The HSA Authority, like Health Equity, offers 17 vanguard funds (not all the same), for $36/year. Rather than charge 0.24%/year, the share class it offers (often Admiral) may charge a couple of basis points more than the Institutional class shares that Health Equity offers for a few of the funds. Still cheaper all-in at HSA Authority.
    https://hsainvestments.com/fundperformance/?p=TBH (HSA Authority fund list)
    https://healthequity.com/indexinvestor/ (Health Equity Vanguard fund list)
  • A Bond Fund To Be Thankful For: (DODIX)

    BCOIX is $50 TF at Fido, but it says $25k min (self retirement accounts $500). PONDX, arguably better than any of these, is free, or, as noted if you're sure you're going to hold for the long run, PIMIX.

    >> It looks like you may be forgetting things. Here's your own post on how to circumvent that fee at Fidelity:
    https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/77431/#Comment_77431
    ?? It is unlike you to misunderstand or misread something so. Unless of course I'm mistaken again. Changing class within Doubleline shows how to avoid or reduce TF on DODIX? Can you share the exact steps to achieve this wrt D&C? I am missing something. Unless conceivably you did.
    What you missed is what you last posted - transaction fees on Baird Core Plus and PIMCO Income Funds' institutional class shares. This shows why I suggested that if you want to talk about other funds outside of DODIX, it would be a good idea to do that in a different thread. Everything gets mixed together and confused in this DODIX thread.

    As for the heart of PONDX, check its top sectors at M*. (As of midyear.)
    For the sake of argument, let's grant your implication (that I was mistaken about PONDX being built around MBS). That doesn't diminish the other concerns I raised regarding this fund.
    When I see people ask whether they should invest in a multisector fund or a short term fund or a core fund, one of the first questions that comes to mind is "what are you looking for", since these serve different functions and behave differently. They are simply different animals.
    If one's objective is to goose yield, one can buy a leveraged fund. Most of those are closed end funds, so that's a good starting place. People seem to be happy with the boost they get from the leverage until they get burned, if they get burned. ("Industry studies show that over a long period of time, the benefits of leverage outweigh the drawbacks.") One can also buy OEFs that use leverage, like PONDX.
    That gets us to your snapshot in time glance at its portfolio. Comparing the March 2015 annual report data with the 2017 annual report (from the M* site), one sees a big shift that comes in two parts:
    - borrowing heavily:
       $1.9B liabilities vs. $46B assets(2015) compared with $27B liabilities vs. $106B assets (2017),
    - using that debt to buy government bonds ($0 Treasuries in 2015, 25.2% Treasuries in 2017).
    That's almost a dollar for dollar pairing. Honestly, I'm surprised the numbers work out that way. Nothing in real life is supposed to be that neat. But it seems that that the fund is continuing to focus on securitized debt for its core investments. Leverage is being used on the side to boost returns.
    You're comfortable with increased leverage in a rising interest rate environment. I'm not. Sometimes it can still work, depending on how the yield curve moves - how fast and how the slope/curvature changes. Sometimes you can get badly burned. Best of luck.
  • Dukester's Fund Corner III
    Thanks @Old_Skeet. Yes, my "whoops" was from hitting the "post comment" button well before my information was ready. I do have 2 retirement accounts, an IRA at Schwab and a 401K at TRP, and I was trying to combine both in the post, but I didn't have the percentages correct yet. So, I tried to quickly delete with the edit function.
    In any case, I would like to start a thread, maybe early next year, on how other retiree's withdraw from their nest-eggs. Exactly the kind of info you offered above. I have done some research on my own so I have some ideas. I will likely meet with my Schwab adviser early next year to talk over options and hear what he has to say.
    Thanks again skeeter!
  • A Bond Fund To Be Thankful For: (DODIX)
    @msf May I ask which (if any) bond funds you own?
    Good question @expatsp. I’ll be interested in @msf’s response as well.
    Another thought here ... Where does one draw the line in classifying a fund as a bond fund? I think that’s more than academic and results in a lot of confusion among investors. I guess, technically, an ultra-short like TRBUX is a bond fund. Yet, its risk/reward profile is markedly different from a long-term treasury fund, an intermediate-term muni, or a high yield fund. All are bond funds - but quite different.
    FWIW - I own DODIX, but actually count it along side my cash positions. D&C doesn’t even offer a money market fund. They call DODIX an income fund. Of course it invests in bonds. Another I own and puzzle over is RPSIX. It may correctly be termed bond fund. But due to the very diverse mix of bond funds it holds, along with as much as 15% or more in a dividend paying stock fund, it displays a much different type of behavior than an intermediate or long-term corporate or treasury fund. In a bond rout, I’d feel safer holding RPSIX than a plain vanilla bond fund.
    Too long winded here - In a nutshell: Should we distinguish between bond funds and an income fund like DODIX?
  • Dukester's Fund Corner III
    Hi @MikeM,
    Wishing you the very best in your coming retirement.
    If my memory is correct from viewing the now removed whoops portfolio the yield was at about 1.56% per my Instant Xray analysis; and, it was geared towards growth over income. Since, I am in retirement myself the yield is a little low for me. I take no more distribution than 1/2 of what my five year average return has been. In this way, my portfolio grows over time. In addition, you can (I believe) get your broker to set your account to where you can take all mutual fund distributions (interest, dividends and capital gains) in cash. This should raise your portfolio's income stream and prevent you from having to, perhaps, sell securities (piecemeal) to raise cash. I have found Morningstar's portfolio manager a good way to track a consolidated portfolio of multiple accounts. And, I have found it to be most reliable in tracking long term investment performance. Sure, it may have some short term glitches but overall it has been a good investment management tool.
    Again, wishing you the very best as you approach retirement.
    Old_Skeet
  • A Bond Fund To Be Thankful For: (DODIX)
    @msf
    >> It looks like you may be forgetting things. Here's your own post on how to circumvent that fee at Fidelity:
    https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/77431/#Comment_77431
    ?? It is unlike you to misunderstand or misread something so. Unless of course I'm mistaken again. Changing class within Doubleline shows how to avoid or reduce TF on DODIX? Can you share the exact steps to achieve this wrt D&C? I am missing something. Unless conceivably you did.
    As for the heart of PONDX, check its top sectors at M*. (As of midyear.) You like to cite M* sometimes. But that article is fascinating. '... while we expect PIMCO Income to remain a very attractive option, the level of its past success is likely to be almost impossible to replicate...' Okay. Does it shortchange PONDX flexibility and adaptability?
    Regardless, appreciate tip that PONDX time is up and there are no other right places; lots of people better bail.
    @hank, concur in take on msf work; you take your life in your hands querying or even responding.
  • Investors Are Piling Into This Hot Real Estate ETF
    Hi @bee
    Per your question about rising rates and effects upon RE related, I will offer a chart and a few thoughts. You and all others must keep in mind that I have no formal training in this area. My self - issued and printed "School of Hard Knocks" diploma is placed upon the wall as a reminder about not getting sassy. :)
    Knowing you enjoy fiddling/viewing this type of data (I do, too) I have used the same chart from the earlier post for selected RE funds, but have removed SPY and placed $UST30Y. So, keep in mind while viewing the chart that the turquoise line for the 30 year bond is "YIELD" and not price.
    Wait, wait.....there's more, so be patient before clicking that chart link.
    Notes:
    --- I'm leaving this chart at the 200 days default in the slider bar. This is automatic after entering tickers and clicking "GO".
    --- The dates just below the chart are 7 day periods.
    --- In this 200 days chart, one may discover 2 cross over periods immediately which reflect the change in the 30 day yield and the price changes of included RE funds. Period 1: = early March, 2017 and moving to the left, Period 2: = early November, 2016. You'll have to move the left bar of the slider to the left to get to November, 2016.
    --- Relative to these cross over periods, and to view others moving left on the chart to early years; left click and "hold" on the 200 days section and drag this days time frame.
    @bee etal, not unlike cross over "price" points in charts you have posted previous, just keep in mind the 30 year yield "when moving towards the top of the chart is an increase in yield" and not a price as is indicated with the RE funds.
    --- Cursor on any of the chart lines. Place the cursor upon a chart line, anywhere; and the price and date will display. This includes, for this chart; the yield and date for the 30 year Treasury.
    --- You may also "right click" on the 200 days slider section to display preset time frames which may then be selected/clicked upon.
    --- This chart is active and you may enter which ever tickers you want to examine. Save the site page in favorites or where or however to revisit and play with other tickers.
    NOTE: tickers less that 3 years old will not generally be found for display at this site; at least as a "free" user.
    http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?VGSIX,FRIFX,CSRSX,FRESX,$UST30Y&n=200&O=011000
    Short and quick answer appears, that yes; "long term" interest rates do cause reactions to real estate funds.
    Been a long, long day. I will do my best to revisit sometime tomorrow about other aspects of what these charts sometimes show to me and viewing with investment fundamentals and technicals in mind.
    Good night,
    Catch
  • Ping the Shadow
    This may help as well. Apparently Carillon was recently formed by Raymond James to serve as an umbrella for its management companies, including Eagle Asset Management.
    The name Carillon may have come from Eagle's address: 880 Carillon Parkway, St. Petersburg, Florida 33716 (just guessing).
    http://www.pionline.com/article/20160222/PRINT/302229999/raymond-james-creates-firm-to-help-support-affiliates
    Finding this was pure serendipity. I was glancing at another Carillon fund; SCPZX.
  • Josh Brown: It Just Got Real
    I actually thought of buying 1 bitcoin about two weeks ago but I have never made an investment backed by the greater fool theory (well actually I did but that was tech stocks in 2000 and I didn't then realize the greater fool concept applied
  • A Bond Fund To Be Thankful For: (DODIX)
    It looks like you may be forgetting things. Here's your own post on how to circumvent that fee at Fidelity:
    https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/77431/#Comment_77431
    Regarding PONDX: It's different, not comparable and so not better (or worse). As already noted, such investments may make sense if all one cares about is raw performance, though past performance yada yada.
    - Taken to the extreme, comparing it to DODIX (as you did originally) or to BCOIX is somewhat like comparing a junk bond fund to a Treasury fund
    - PONDX is at its heart an MBS fund, which will usually do better (due to risk premium) over full cycles
    - it appears to be heavily leveraged (-48.57% net short term duration investments; see Excel cell AQ18 here) which entails another set of risks; and
    - The fund owes much to having been in the right place at the right time; time is up and there are no other right places. See this M* column. It's a good column touching on several points, that apparently got little attention here, as it is sitting in the bullpen.
  • Ping the Shadow
    @Puddnhead
    I just found this...it may provide some information.
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1105128/000160900617000066/scoutfunds485b10272017.htm
    I just found this under Carillon (Eagle Series Trust) in the Edgar database. It was filed 11/20.
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/897111/000089843217001084/a497.htm
  • JPMorgan Tax Aware Income Opportunities Fund reorganized
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217286/000119312517353626/d450598d497.htm
    497 1 d450598d497.htm 497 TRUST I
    JPMORGAN TRUST I
    JPMorgan Tax Aware Income Opportunities Fund
    (All Share Classes)
    JPMORGAN TRUST II
    JPMorgan Tax Free Bond Fund
    (All Share Classes)
    Supplement dated November 28, 2017
    to the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectuses and
    Statements of Additional Information dated July 1, 2017, as supplemented
    Merger Proposal
    At a meeting held on November 15, 2017, the Board of Trustees of JPMorgan Trust I (“Trust I”), on behalf of JPMorgan Tax Aware Income Opportunities Fund (the “Acquired Fund”), and the Board of Trustees of JPMorgan Trust II (“Trust II”), on behalf of JPMorgan Tax Free Bond Fund (the “Acquiring Fund” and together with the Acquired Fund, the “Funds”), approved the merger of the Acquired Fund with and into the Acquiring Fund. The merger will only be completed if approved by the Acquired Fund’s shareholders. This merger was recommended by the Funds’ adviser, J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc. (“JPMIM”), based on the belief that the Acquired Fund has limited opportunities for future growth and, as a result, the proposed merger has the potential to take advantage of operational and administrative efficiencies that may result from the reorganization of the Acquired Fund with and into the Acquiring Fund. After determining that (1) participation in the merger is in the best interests of the Funds and (2) the interests of each Fund’s existing shareholders would not be diluted as a result of the merger, each Board of Trustees approved the merger.
    Operating expenses vary between the Funds and distribution and service fees differ among share classes. In connection with the proposed merger, JPMIM and JPMorgan Distribution Services, Inc. (“JPMDS”), the distributor for the Acquired Fund and the Acquiring Fund, have contractually agreed to waive their fees and/or reimburse the expenses of the Acquiring Fund, as needed, in order to maintain the total annual fund operating expenses after fee waivers and expense reimbursements (excluding acquired fund fees and expenses other than certain money market fund fees, dividend and interest expenses related to short sales, interest, taxes, expenses related to litigation and potential litigation, and extraordinary expenses) of each class of shares of the Acquiring Fund at or below the level in effect immediately prior to the merger for the corresponding class of shares of the Acquired Fund. These contractual fee waivers and/or reimbursements will stay in effect until May 4, 2019 for the Acquiring Fund. There is no guarantee that such waivers and/or reimbursements will be continued after May 4, 2019. The expenses of the Acquiring Fund’s classes may be higher than disclosed if the expense limitation expires after May 4, 2019.
    It is anticipated that the merger will qualify as a tax-free reorganization for federal income tax purposes. Prior to Closing, any net investment income and/or net realized capital gains will be distributed to shareholders of the Acquired Fund and may be distributed to shareholders of the Acquiring Fund in order to seek to avoid any negative tax impact to any of the Funds’ shareholders as a result of the reorganization.
    Completion of the merger is subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the shareholders of the Acquired Fund. The merger is not contingent upon the approval of any other merger of JPMorgan Funds. Shareholder approval will be sought at a special meeting of shareholders expected to be held on or about March 28, 2018. If you own shares of the Acquired Fund as of the record date for the special meeting for shareholders, you will receive (i) a Proxy Statement/Prospectus describing in detail both the proposed merger and the Acquiring Fund (including, among other things, any differences in strategies, risks and fees between the Acquiring Fund and the Acquired Fund), and summarizing each Board of Trustee’s considerations in recommending that shareholders approve the merger and (ii) a proxy card and instructions on how to submit your vote.
    If the merger is approved by the shareholders of the Acquired Fund, each holder of a class of shares of the Acquired Fund will receive, following the transfer, on a tax-free basis for federal income tax purposes, a number of full and fractional shares of the corresponding class of shares of the Acquiring Fund having an aggregate net asset value equal to the aggregate net asset value of the shares of the Acquired Fund held by that shareholder as of the close of business of the New York Stock Exchange, usually 4:00 p.m. Eastern time, on the closing day of the merger. The merger, if approved by shareholders, is expected to close after the close of business on May 4, 2018 or on another date as the parties to the transaction shall agree.
    SUP-TAIO-1117
    The foregoing is not an offer to sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy, shares of the Funds, nor is it a solicitation of any proxy. The Proxy Statement/Prospectus will be available for free on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website (www.sec.gov), once it is available. Please read the Proxy Statement/Prospectus (when available) carefully before making any decision to invest in the Funds or when considering the merger. For additional information relating to each Fund, please refer to the Fund’s prospectus, which is available by visiting www.jpmorganfunds.com or by calling 1-800-480-4111.
    INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT
    WITH THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUSES, PROSPECTUSES AND
    STATEMENTS OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
  • Emerging Europe anyone?
    Not that one, so far as I could tell with various browsers; I checked first.
    @MikeM,
    Ted or someone has probably posted this one too, but I thought of your questions when I read it:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/five-lessons-from-a-seasoned-fund-manager-who-knows-how-to-beat-the-stock-market-2017-11-28
  • A Bond Fund To Be Thankful For: (DODIX)
    @MikeM - yeah, we're both being a bit pedantic here. Though there are differences, notably that I've no horse in this race, so I'm not looking to validate FTBFX (or to discredit it).
    It's got its virtues. It's smaller than DODIX (though at $30B+, I'm not sure that makes a difference). In some respects it's more aggressive (why get an actively managed fund that's going to just lie there?).
    Though part of that is simply a matter of recognizing that it's a core plus fund. If that's your objective, one should be comparing it to funds like BCOIX (another five star, lower cost competitor, and another 2016 M* fixed income manager finalist).
  • New Vanguard Fund and ETFs in registration
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/105563/000093247117005685/mergefinal.htm
    Vanguard U.S. Multifactor Fund Admiral Shares
    &
    Vanguard U.S. Liquidity Factor ETF Shares
    Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF Shares
    Vanguard U.S. Momentum Factor ETF Shares
    Vanguard U.S. Multifactor ETF Shares
    Vanguard U.S. Quality Factor ETF Shares
    Vanguard U.S. Value Factor ETF Shares
  • A Bond Fund To Be Thankful For: (DODIX)
    This is a thread about DODIX. If you want to talk about another fund in a different context, i.e. that fund's performance/investment strategy without comparing it to DODIX's, that is irrelevant to DODIX. There's always the option of starting another thread.
    At least in this last post, you got back to asking about why one would prefer DODIX over fund X.
    What you wrote was not bald preferring, it was preferring within a context unstated at that point - that you won't plunk down $5 to get a comparably performing (superior on a risk-adjusted basis) fund, or complicate life by simply buying (not even holding) something "for free" elsewhere (outside of Fidelity). Unless that elsewhere is ML.
    You make tradeoffs between simplification, costs, and performance that are personal to you. You're the only one who can address those.
    I don't want a fund that is required to keep its duration on a leash. Not simply by using its benchmark as a starting point to inform (i.e. as "guidance"), but by keeping it close ("similar"). I'll repeat that this isn't just my interpretation but M*'s as well. However, M* also misread the prospectus - a fact I missed the first time.
    The analyst wrote: "Ford O'Neil and the management team aim to keep duration close to their bogy, the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index. They avoid duration bets ..." The prospectus does name the Aggregate Bond Index as one of two fund benchmarks (as reflected in its average annual returns table), the other being the U.S. Universal Bond Index. It is the latter, not the former, to which the fund must keep duration close ("similar").
    For a variety of reasons, including its relative duration inflexibility, FTBFX isn't a fund high up on my list to research (it's lower than most of the other 2016 M* fixed income manager finalists).
    That said, bond portfolio management isn't rocket science. There are lots of different attributes that one can adjust. For instance, even a cursory look at FTBFX's portfolio reveals how it is playing the yield curve while keeping its duration within its required window of similarity. Whether that particular decision has helped or hurt the fund (or had no effect), you can research yourself. Same with average credit quality and credit distribution among holdings, sector selection, etc.
    All deviate from the US Universal Bond Index. At least some of them must accounti for the fund's higher risk relative to DODIX, without adding to performance. As the saying goes, past performance does not guarantee future results.
  • What’s Really Driving The Emerging Markets Boom?
    @LewisBraham said,
    The question for investors isn't how fast the economy is growing, but how much of an economy's revenues corporations can extract in the form of profits to distribute to shareholders.
    Your thoughts on this upcoming event (repatriation of corporate profits from overseas) with regard to "profits to shareholders"?
    My Take:
    As the Corporate Tax (repatriation of corporate profits from overseas) holiday unfolds US companies have many options as to where these profits go.
    1. Hire additional US workers- Grow & re-base some production here in the U.S. - maybe, but additional reasons need to also be in play like lower energy costs, SALT breaks, etc..this takes time. I'm hopeful, but skeptical.
    2. Buy Back Company Stock - This has been the game plan for many companies with some of their profits. Buy back of stock makes remaining stocks more valuable and usually paves the way to higher share prices and/or lower PE. I see a "piling in" dynamic if this unfolds quickly with overseas profits and maybe even a capitulation of markets if it happens over many companies or sectors of the market.
    3. M&A - Money repatriated could be used to buy/merge the competition. This often is a boon for small company stock that are bought, but often is a wash for the stock prices of two large companies becoming one Mega-company. My unscientific observation is that, often times, the purchasing company's stock will initially fall during the M&A event.
    4. Global M&A - Repatriating profits doe not preclude a U.S. company that is global from deploying these profits overseas to hire more workers in non US locations or buy/merge (M&A) with companies outside of the US markets. Foreign & Emerging Markets (getting back to this thread) could be another place where these repatriated dollars go especially if that is where these global companies future growth is most profitable.
  • Investors Are Piling Into This Hot Real Estate ETF
    A nod for High Yield in a Rising rate environment:
    https://invesco.com/pdf/HYBRR-FLY-1.pdf
    Where's @Junkster when you need him...probably kneeing up a High Yield mountain trail.
    Another nod for High Yield:
    high yield bonds have historically not only provided investors with solid returns during periods of rising interest rates, but have also dramatically out performed its investment grade counterpart. While we do not expect to see a rapid rise in rates (again see our article from last week for our take on rates), we do believe that the high yield bond market provides a compelling fixed income opportunity for those concerned about rising rates.
    https://seekingalpha.com/article/2499395-high-yield-in-a-rising-rate-environment-a-perspective-on-historical-performance
  • A Bond Fund To Be Thankful For: (DODIX)
    Shoot, I should have anticipated more hairsplitting: 'The excess return of an investment relative to the return of a benchmark index is the investment's alpha.' And more insulting, now irrelevance in addition to silliness.
    What I wrote was not bald preferring, just that it was 'hard to see' why one would want DODIX, per the article. I thought it was an interesting question given the Fido lower rating. Why do you think one would or should want D&C instead? Second, why do you suppose FTBFX outperforms IUSB? The funds' names are 'income' and 'total'. Nothing about short or intermediate durations. Money/USN notes this:
    This fund’s ability to venture into high-yield and emerging-market debt differentiates it from more typical corporate bond funds. ... [As for its index] Here, too, fund performance has bested that of the [Barclays U.S. Universal Bond] index.
    So I thought you might have more interesting things to say about this lower-rated fund. Almost 2y ago the manager was interviewed:
    https://www.barrons.com/articles/morningstar-talks-fidelitys-fixed-income-outlook-for-2016-1455898972
    Since then he was named M* FI MoY, it says.
    I guess I will see if this last-January interview of him and Pohl (DODIX) reveals anything:
    https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/01/25/meet-morningstars-best-bond-fund-and-asset-allocation-fund-managers.html
    Edit: Not all that much, except for the usual Fidelity touting of their specificity of bondpicking, more than any macro guidelines.