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.
  • Neuberger Berman Sued For Excessive 401(k) Fees
    FYI: Another financial services company has been targeted for costly proprietary investments in its 401(k) plan, leading to allegations of self-dealing at the expense of employees.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160804/FREE/160809954?template=printart
  • How are you investing in gold?
    @Bobpa: Suggest you look at Central Fund Of Canada (CEF), you get a twofer, gold and silver bullion, and a 15% tax rate. For you information I'm linking the fund's website for a straight foward look at what you getting. The funds is up 45% YTD
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.centralfund.com/
  • A $500 Billion Stampede In Money Markets Even Before New Rules Hit
    Another writer who can't communicate the new rules:
    " The new rules are focusing on so-called prime funds that invest in short-term corporate debt, typically with maturities of a few days to a year. Other types of funds invest in short-term municipal and government debt."
    No. The new rules have two foci:
    - "institutional prime money market funds (including institutional municipal money market funds)" (quote is from SEC)
    - retail non-government funds (including muni funds)
    There's no material distinction in the rules between corporate and muni.
    One dividing line is between government and everything else. Government MMFs can be owned by institutions, have fixed NAV, and no new redemption rules. (Minor tweaking in what defines a government MMF, as I recall.)
    The other dividing line is between retail and institutional. Retail MMFs can have fixed NAV so long as they may impose redemption fees/waiting periods in times of stress. (Apparently these fees are "too arcane delve into".) Institutional non-government funds must have floating NAVs.
  • The decline in interest continues to amaze me.
    I think you prove my point that you are included in the "people don't understand". It was Bretton Woods in 1944, not Brenton. And you evidently fail to note that I'm not talking about 1944, or 1971, but 1929. You may not understand, but the United States most definitely was on the gold standard in 1929.
    Read and learn: Gold standard, From Wikipedia
    Save your snotty remarks for someone else, Dex.
    OK, Don, if you say so, so it is.
  • V.G. target date funds ?

    * Note: Vanguard's target date funds only invest in the "Investor" class of Vanguard's index funds. The "Investor" class is the most expensive class available; this is price Vanguard charges for the convenience of the target date funds. Otherwise, an investor can get even closer to the benchmark by managing their own allocation and using a cheaper share class ("Admiral" or "Institutional"). But for most folks the difference will be trivial -- we're talking a difference of maybe $1 for every $10,000 you invest, depending on what share classes are available to you.
    That's one basis point (1% of 1%). Admiral (or ETF) shares save investors more than that, though still peanuts.
    The underlying funds currently used (per prospectus) are:
    • Total Bond Market II Index (VTBIX, ER 0.09%) - vs. VBTLX or BND (0.06%)*
    • Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX, ER 0.16%) - vs. VTSAX or VTI (0.05%)
    • STerm Inf Prot Securities Index (VTIPX, ER 0.17%) - vs. VTAPX or VTIP (0.08%)
    • Total Int'l Bond Index (VTIBX, ER 0.17%) - vs. VTABX (0.14%) or BNDX (0.15%, sic)**
    • Total Int'l Stock Market Index (VGTSX, ER 0.19%) - vs. VTIAX (0.12%) or VXUS (0.13%, sic)**
    * Total Bond Market II Index fund is "Available only as an underlying investment in Vanguard funds of funds or similar products." (Vanguard fund page). The closest equivalent is Total Bond Market Index.
    This illustrates a common problem in reproducing funds of funds - some underlying funds may not be available to retail investors. Here at least there is a virtually identical substitute. For other funds of funds, such as VPGDX (which makes extensive use of VASFX) there may not be reasonable facsimiles.
    ** The ERs for Admiral and ETF shares come from Vanguard's pages. These are funds where the ETF shares cost more than the Admiral shares.
  • The decline in interest continues to amaze me.
    I think you prove my point that you are included in the "people don't understand". It was Bretton Woods in 1944, not Brenton. And you evidently fail to note that I'm not talking about 1944, or 1971, but 1929. You may not understand, but the United States most definitely was on the gold standard in 1929.
    Read and learn: Gold standard, From Wikipedia
    Save your snotty remarks for someone else, Dex.
  • The decline in interest continues to amaze me.
    "the monetary and fiscal tools used in that system"
    Yes, those worked particularly well in 1929.
    I think you prove my point that people don't understand - the 1944 Brenton Woods agreement was what the USA ended in '71.
    Read and learn
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
    PS - I hope that spanking won't leave a mark.
  • The decline in interest continues to amaze me.
    "the monetary and fiscal tools used in that system"
    Yes, those worked particularly well in 1929.
  • 'Sell Everything,' DoubleLine's Gundlach Says
    @Bitzer: Does Kathleen's YTD 14% up count ?
    Regards,
    Ted
  • Bill Gross's Investment Outlook For August: Masters And Johnson Q&A: Buy Gold. Real Estate
    FYI: Sex is a three-letter word that has rarely appeared in an Investment Outlook until now. I may be risqué and delve into the forbidden territory of politics and religion, but "SEX"? — Never. But here goes! Actually, my own personal history of sexual edification was probably like many of yours. My mother asked me at age 14 if I knew where little kittens came from and when I answered "the pet store", I never got an additional query or piece of information on the subject. I suspect she had written me off as hopeless long before.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.janus.com/insights/bill-gross-investment-outlook
    English Translation:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-03/gross-says-i-don-t-like-bonds-most-stocks-favors-real-assets
  • The decline in interest continues to amaze me.
    A lot of it has to do with the U.S. depegging from gold in 1971 creating a system of floating currencies, and the subsequent trade imbalances created with first, Japan, then China
    True but most people don't understand that. They hear gold standard and think it is a stupid idea. They don't understand the monetary and fiscal tools used in that system.
  • Oakmark reopens three funds to all investors
    Selling OAKBX was good for my portfolio. M* had this to say about the fund very recently:
    "Silver-rated Oakmark Equity & Income (OAKBX) has had only middling results since Ed Studzinski retired in late 2011…"
    At the time of Mr. Studzinski's retirement, I commented here that I thought Oakmark was not "transparent" (to use some jargon) about the management change. I believe others have noted unusual manager changes at the company (Rob Taylor, for example).
    Now with Mr. Studzinski writing about the MF industry on our side of the street with more-than-healthy skepticism, I'm glad my previous decisions to sell several Oakmark funds were not wrong-headed.
  • The decline in interest continues to amaze me.
    A lot of it has to do with the U.S. depegging from gold in 1971 creating a system of floating currencies, and the subsequent trade imbalances created with first, Japan, then China ( and creating of credit bubbles; Japan in late 80's and China now ? ). They've "printed" in order to keep their currency from falling ( has kept their products cheap ) , then use the money that they make from the U.S. ( and other trade partner countries, U.K. ) buying their products / manufacturing capacity / resources to buy equities, bonds ( pushing rates lower ), real estate, etc.
    Unless an investor/retiree can: 1) successfully navigate and ride / has ridden the "gravy" train of asset / real estate bubbles and busts successfully 2) has real estate rental income, then the reliance on the "yield" delivered from debt instruments ( and the variability in payouts of dividends ) is somewhat futile
  • 'Sell Everything,' DoubleLine's Gundlach Says
    From my post in January 2016
    EVBAX
    Gaffney increased her exposure to energy bonds overall in the fourth quarter from 11.2 percent to 16 percent, with the fund's bets on high-yield energy bonds increasing from 3.3 percent to 5.8 percent.
    She reiterated a call she made in October to Reuters that a number of her fund's holdings could gain by 30 percent or more over the next two years.
    Investors pulled $856 million from Gaffney's fund last year, slashing the fund's assets by over 40 percent to $780 million from a peak of about $2 billion last February, according to Lipper data.
    Per M* today 8/02/2016
    Category
    Multisector Bond
    Total Assets
    $ 659.2 mil
    Lipper's Tjornehoj said that managers may eventually be right, and energy spreads will narrow. "But by that time they may have very little money in the portfolio to crow about."
    http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/01/20/bond-funds-remain-confident-as-crude-rout-worsens.html
    Original
    Loomis Sayles Is Bullish On Junk Debt
    http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/74133/#Comment_74133
  • 'Sell Everything,' DoubleLine's Gundlach Says
    @Ted Her EVBAX was down 17.24% during 2015...quite a wild ride for a "bond" fund. His NEZYX was down 7.42% for the same period
  • Investors Stampede Into These Funds As Stocks Hit All-Time Highs
    Punch Bowl More than Half Full ?
    Net flows into ETFs totaled $52.6B in July, according to FactSet, with just about every asset class seeing fresh money, particularly U.S. equities, which drew in $30.1B.
    U.S. fixed-income saw a robust $11.6B of inflows - a possible source of concern for some analysts, noting high demand for both "risk-on" and "risk-off" assets. It wasn't just Treasurys though, as the data shows plenty of demand last month for investment-grade corporate paper, emerging-market bonds, and high-yield debt.
    http://seekingalpha.com/news/3198724-etf-inflows-soar-july
    Graphics from @Ted's original article from MarketWatch
    image
    image image
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/3994368-major-asset-classes-july-2016-performance-review
    BEIJING (Reuters) - A raft of global risks that could adversely affect the United States remains on the horizon and requires close monitoring, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Robert Kaplan said on Tuesday.
    Kaplan, along with several other Fed policymakers, has urged renewed caution in trying to lift rates again...
    "I am closely monitoring how slowing growth, high levels of overcapacity and high levels of debt to GDP in major economies outside the U.S. might be impacting economic conditions in the U.S.," Kaplan said at an event in Beijing.
    In his second appearance within a week, Kaplan, a centrist at the U.S. central bank, repeated that he continues to back tightening monetary policy in a gradual and patient manner.
    Chief among his concerns is sluggish U.S. growth exacerbated by a changing world in which economies are more globally interconnected.
    "It's going to take many years and maybe decades for China to manage through overcapacity and high levels of debt to GDP," Kaplan added. "I think sudden jarring traumas ... may make that adjustment more challenging."
    On Monday New York Fed President William Dudley, a permanent voter on the Fed's rate-setting committee, said that while it was "premature" to rule out a rate increase this year, negative economic shocks were more likely than positive ones.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/feds-kaplan-urges-patience-raising-rates-points-global-115047772--business.html?ref=gs
    A Brief Note From G M O's Ben Inkster in their 2nd Quater Newsletter
    "So what can we do to protect portfolios ..."
    "a deeper analysis of what led returns to be disappointing for
    the asset classes that have lagged may help investors avoid the error of abandoning decent assets just when their time may be about to come."

    This is the nature of the discount-rate-driven gains for asset classes such as equities, bonds, and real
    estate. Beyond the discount rate change, it is still true that US equities have done surprisingly well,
    emerging equities surprisingly badly, and so on. But even if those “surprises” are permanent (and
    our guess is that for the most part they are not) the fact that the valuation of US equities has risen
    guarantees that the future returns to US equities from here will be lower than they would have been
    otherwise, and the same is true for all of the long-duration assets whose discount rates have fallen
    over the period.
    The most shocking hole that will be blown through people’s portfolios is if discount rates rise again
    fairly quickly. Even if the circumstance is one in which the global economy is doing well, the impact
    of a 1.5% increase in the discount rate on equities from here is a fall of over 30%, which would
    almost certainly be enough to swamp the earnings impact of the decent growth. For bonds, of course,
    there would be no possible counter to the discount rate effect. For a portfolio that is fully invested in
    long-duration assets (i.e., consists of a combination of stocks, bonds, real estate, and private equity),
    the possible performance implication is on the order of the falls experienced in the financial crisis –
    perhaps a 20-33% fall depending on the weightings – despite the fact that the global economy was doing just fine.
    So what can we do to protect portfolios against this possibility? One answer would be to hold cash, which, as a zero-duration asset, would be a beneficiary of rising discount rates. The trouble with cash, of course, is that if the discount rates do not rise, it is doomed to deliver little or nothing. What
    we would ideally like is to hold a short-duration risk asset – one where if nothing changes we are getting paid a decent return but where a rising discount rate will not destroy multiple years’ worth of
    returns. We believe alternatives fit the bill pretty well. If things hold together, we should expect to
    make money from activities such as merger arbitrage or exploiting carry trades or global macro. If the
    world does surprisingly well and causes investors to raise their expectations for discount rates, these
    strategies should be largely unaffected and could still make money. If we head into a severe recession
    or financial crisis, they will presumably lose money, as we saw in 2008, but that is no different from
    other risk assets. To be clear, I’m not arguing that the returns to alternatives are likely to be a lot
    higher than we have seen since 2009-10. Alternatives have been mildly disappointing since 2009, doing almost 1% worse than one might have expected. The more sobering truth is that the 4.2% return they have achieved since then simply looks pretty good given the other choices on offer, and
    their lack of vulnerability to rising discount rates is a comfort in a world where almost everything in
    a traditional portfolio is acutely vulnerable to discount rate rises should they happen.
    Today does not look like a great opportunity to reach for risk, despite the temptation in the face of unprecedentedly unattractive yields on government debt.....
    The charm of alternatives today is that we believe they should perform similarly in either the
    temporary or permanent shift scenario, and there are almost no other assets with expected returns
    above cash for which that is the case. The problem with alternatives is that they are more complicated
    to manage than traditional assets, generally have higher fees associated with them, and require more
    oversight. Normally, those problems are enough to make them less appealing than traditional risk
    assets such as equities and credit. Today, however, they seem well worth the extra effort. Their
    generally disappointing performance over recent years, rather than a sign to dump them once and for
    all, should probably be recognized as a signal of their potential utility in the market environment we face in the coming years.
    There is no panacea for the low returns implied by asset valuations today. Anyone suggesting
    differently is either fooling themselves or trying to fool you. But piling into the assets that have been the biggest help to portfolios over the past several years, as tempting as it may be, is probably an even worse idea than it usually is. And a deeper analysis of what led returns to be disappointing for
    the asset classes that have lagged may help investors avoid the error of abandoning decent assets just when their time may be about to come.
    https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/public-commentary/gmo-quarterly-letter.pdf?sfvrsn=30
    A Q R funds
    http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/aqr-funds/0C000021ZL/fund-list.aspx
    Arbitrage funds
    http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/arbitrage-fund/0C00001YYL/snapshot.aspx
    Long-Short Equity: Total Returns
    http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/long-short-equity/$FOCA$LO.aspx
    Multialternative: Total Returns
    http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/multialternative/$FOCA$GY.aspx
  • Investors Stampede Into These Funds As Stocks Hit All-Time Highs
    FYI: Forget Brexit, lackluster economic data and a contentious U.S. presidential election campaign, investors jumped into exchange-traded funds with both feet in July, with more than $50 billion flowing into every asset class, according to data provider FactSet.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/investors-stampede-into-these-funds-as-stocks-hit-all-time-highs-2016-08-02/print
  • Ariel Global
    Was reading through the profile and just wanted to confirm something...
    Does Rupal really aim to hedge currency most of the time? My understanding was that she would hedge currency differences from the benchmark, and only when the currency is overvalued on a PPP basis and it's cost effective. For example, if the Fund was overweight 10% the U.K. she would attempt to hedge back ~10% of the Pound to keep currency exposures in-line with the index (in USD terms). She would not, however, hedge all of the exposure back to USD, making the local currency return more relevant for evaluating performance.