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.
  • Looking for a good High Yield Municipal fund.
    MMHAX and PYMDX look less risky than NHMAX because they are of shorter duration (8.6 and 7.0 years vs. 10.1 years). Neither existed in 2008 (though the institutional share class PHMIX did), which also tends to make them look better.
    In the case of PHMIX, even though it existed in 2008, M* does not incorporate that data into its calcuations, because M* generally bases its combined figures on 3, 5, and 10 year figures. PHMIX has not existed for 10 years, so only its 3 and 5 year data are included (conveniently skipping 2008 for now).
    The best one can do with these funds is look at 2013, the next worst year, to get some sense of risk. Again, I suggest looking at BCHYX. You'll see that these other funds fell over 5% (just a shade less than the category average), while BCHYX fell 3.17% and VWAHX was nearly a perfect match falling 3.22% for that year.
    For completeness, NHMAX fell 4.69%, an impressive one year performance for a fund that on paper has more risk.
  • The Lowdown On Adding Foreign Bonds To Your Portfolio
    MAPOX & PRWCX = 51.7% of portf. (Both are balanced funds)
    DLFNX = 2.5%
    PRSNX = 11%
    PREMX = 14.3%
    (Not the entire portfolio.)
    ***************************************
    M* X-RAY shows
    10% Cash
    43% US stocks
    8% foreign stocks
    37% bonds of all sorts.
    .....EM bonds are flying high.
    "World bonds" pretty alright, too.
    I won't be adding. What I will be adding to is a utility stock, to build quarterly divs. for current income in a taxable account. I have 8.5 years before RMDs kick-in on the IRA.
  • Beposke's Asset Class ETF Performance Matrix 6/3/16
    In a hurry to get out on the links this morning Ted? Beposke's indeed! Tee it up mister, I'll be waiting for you at the 19th hole. Just messing with you.
  • Informed Simplicity from Charles’ Balcony
    10 years ago I decided to simplify, for several reasons, by moving our investments from a handful of mutual fund companies and 10 mutual funds to 1 mutual fund company and largely 1 fund, a moderate allocation fund (PRWCX). Very simple and easy to manage.
    After about six years I found myself thinking that maybe it would be wise to be better diversified than basically being all-in on one fund, so I transferred all our investments to an online brokerage account to gain easier access to other fund families and funds.
    Today, I find myself slowly moving an increased percentage of assets back towards PRWCX as finding other MA funds or a combination of other funds to form a MA that comes anywhere near the performance of this singular, diversified fund difficult...including combinations of index funds.
    Our online brokerage account rep is trying to convince me to hand over at least a portion of our portfolio to him which would be invested in ETF's...and many of them. Past performance of these ETF portfolios with similar equity/bond ratio does not warrant it. Also, I can't help but feel that it would be just as good to be invested in a couple index funds rather than an array of 18 or more ETF's...only justification for that many funds seems to be to justify their management fees!
  • Looking for a good High Yield Municipal fund.
    @varmint &MFO Members: Varmint is correct that time is on you side, and VWAHX has a excellent long-term record. VWAHX is ranked #3 in the Muni High-Yield Bond Fund category by U.S. News & World Report.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/muni-national-interm/vanguard-high-yield-tax-exempt-fund/vwahx
    That's a ranking of investment grade bonds, not high yield bonds.
    This just goes to show that over the long term, if one rides out the ups and downs, junk bonds seem to do marginally better than investment grade bonds, commensurate with their higher risk.
    VWAHX, with its lower risk than typical junk, would be expected to return less over the long term than typical junk bonds. Yet it did outperform the HY average over 15 years. That is because of its 2008/2009 performance (and because of its much lower expenses). Like other investment grade bonds, it fared much better in 2008 than junk. So much so that its underperformance in 2009 (relative to junk) didn't wipe out this sizeable one-time advantage.
    But some good, inexpensive junk bond funds still outperformed cumulatively, even going back past 2008. BCHYX outperformed VWAHX over every time frame (though not on an individual year basis) - YTD, 1 week, 1 mo, 3 mo, 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 years. (Go to this M* page, and input BCHYX to compare.)
    VWAHX straddles junk and investment grade. That's why it makes such a good entry into junk. M* calls it "conservative, and so much so, that it places in the muni-national intermediate-term category". Comparing it with either junk or investment grade, without adjusting for its distinctive mix of quality grades, can lead to wrong inferences.
  • Looking for a good High Yield Municipal fund.

    The three funds are all BB rated by M*, with the longest duration fund (NHMAX, 10 years) having a disasterous 2008 and a spectacular 2009, not surprisingly. BCHYX's duration is in the middle (7.8 years) with 1, 3, and 10 year performance in the
    NHMAX also has a 4% front load!
  • The Lowdown On Adding Foreign Bonds To Your Portfolio
    FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
    In 2013, Vanguard Group announced a big change in the bondholdings in its target-date and target-risk mutual funds: It shifted 20% of each fund’s bond allocation to foreign debt from U.S. bonds—a proportion it boosted to 30% last year.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.google.com/#q=The+Lowdown+on+Adding+Foreign+Bonds+to+Your+Portfolio++wsj
  • Beposke's Asset Class ETF Performance Matrix 6/3/16
    FYI: Below is a look at the recent performance of various asset classes using key ETFs tracked by Bespoke on a daily basis. While the S&P 500 (SPY) closed the week up 2 basis points, we saw weakness in sectors like Energy, Financials and Telecom, and we saw strength in Consumer Staples, Health Care, Materials and Utilities. Outside of the US, Brazil and China both posted big gains this week, while Italy, Mexico, Spain, Russia and the UK fell. Oil fell as well, while natural gas saw a big move higher. Treasury ETFs rose significantly on Friday following the weak jobs report. They’re now up solidly on a year-to-date basis as well.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.bespokepremium.com/bespoke-report/the-bespoke-report-6316/
  • Looking for a good High Yield Municipal fund.
    Did I read you right, that you want to use muni bonds in IRAs? Some custodians won't even allow this. For example, Fidelity does, but not online:
    "The security you are attempting to trade is a tax-free mutual fund. Retirement accounts are prevented from buying or exchanging into tax-free mutual funds through the electronic channels. "
    That said, given your last comment ("MUB might be the way for lowest risk"), I would also ask what you are looking for in terms of risk/reward. If you're even comparing MUB with junk bond funds, then it may be that you're not comfortable enough with junk. I find that over the long term the volatility doesn't matter (to me), but each person has his own comfort levels and objectives.
    Bonds (and bond funds) are at one level pretty simple vehicles. As quality goes down, risk and reward go up. (If one wants to minimize this type of risk, one can stick with investment grade funds). As duration goes up, risk and reward go up.
    Quality and duration, along with cost, are the three main levers. These levers determine the vast majority of a vanilla fund's performance. You pick the risk level and source of risk you want and then go fund a low cost fund matching that. Sure issue selection matters, especially with junk, but broad diversification can paper over a lot of problems there.
    To make things interesting, let me toss in another fund - one that isn't classified as high yield - BCHYX. It's a single state junk bond fund. But given that the state's California, (with an economy approaching the size of the UK's), you still get a fair amount of diversification. Also, the fund fits midway between your two other funds.
    The three funds are all BB rated by M*, with the longest duration fund (NHMAX, 10 years) having a disasterous 2008 and a spectacular 2009, not surprisingly. BCHYX's duration is in the middle (7.8 years) with 1, 3, and 10 year performance in the middle. DVHIX with its shorter duration (6 years) tends to give a smoother and more muted performance. All of these are still much longer than MUB's 4.7 years, if you're focused on minimizing interest rate risk.
    I have a hard time with bond funds, especially munis, that have ERs over 0.50%. High ER and long duration would be my concerns with NHMAX. For an index fund, one hopes to do better on cost, but HYMB barely beats this target with 0.45% ER. Nevertheless it gets you higher quality bonds (BBB), albeit still with a somewhat long duration (8.2 years).
    HYD does better on cost (0.35%), but still at the longer end of duration (8.7 years), and appears to have the lowest quality portfolio (eyeballing its fact sheet).
    If you really want junk and also want to dial down risk, look for funds with BB or better credit and shorter durations. The obvious choice if you want to have a "high yield" muni fund with training wheels (that's not a pejorative, just a colorful description) is VWAHX/VWALX.
  • Fund Family Scorecard
    Added Fund Family Scorecard, which measures how well funds run by the same management company have performed against their peers since inception. We've published the scorecard yearly on MFO main site since 2014 (latest in May 2016 Commentary). The card is now published monthly on our premium site, along with a data table showing key fund family metrics. Here is sample output.
  • Ben Carlson: Bill Gross & The 40 Year Black Swan
    Hi Guys,
    Bill Gross is a smart investor and has an impressive, but certainly not perfect, forecasting record. That’s true for everyone in the chaotic investment universe. The guru scorecards maintained by CXO Advisory Group clearly demonstrate the limited successes of the market wizards. Here is a Link to their final scorecard summary:
    http://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/
    A 60% to 70% correct scorecard range roughly defines the upper limit of forecaster’s accuracy. The overall cumulative score was slightly under 50% accuracy That doesn’t match a fair coin toss odds. Over the entire rather long time span of the study, 68 gurus were monitored. Only 8 tested at the elevated plus 60% accuracy level. That’s only 11.8% of this elite population.
    Would Mr. Gross make that highest grade? I don’t know since he was not included in the study. But he most certainly would not score any higher. So his predictions are just that - simply a professional’s predictions. Seasoned investors accept the fact that wrong predictions and wrong investment decisions will be made. That’s an integral part of the investing discipline. We all do it.
    The most simplistic argument that motivates the Gross forecast is the regression-to-the-mean principle. Taken over a rather extended timeframe, equity returns have been in excess of the overarching historical long term averages. Well he might be right, but he also might be wrong.
    I was surprised that both the Gross analysis and the Ben Carlson column did not say much about the influence of inflation rate on market returns. Statistically, it’s an important factor in terms of adjusting nominal returns to real returns, and in terms of gross equity market rewards. Here is a Link to a Carlson article, published about a year ago, that addresses the significant impact of inflation rate on annual returns:
    http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/08/how-inflation-affects-market-returns/
    These data demonstrate that inflation rate is an important factor in propelling the equity battleship. High inflation decreases that battleships forward speed. Given today’s inflation, that’s at least one positive signal for a healthy stock market return.
    Unfortunately, the market battleship is influenced by a number of other governors. The stock market will always be somewhat speculative because of a host of uncertain and interacting elements. Too bad, but the CXO guru grades consistently showed just how challenging market predictions are, even for experts. Inflation matters.
    Best Wishes.
  • Ben Carlson: Bill Gross & The 40 Year Black Swan
    FYI: (Scroll down to read Bill Gross's Investment Outlook for June)
    In his latest monthly missive, Bill Gross shares some thoughts on financial market returns from the past four decades.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2016/06/bill-gross-the-40-year-black-swan/
  • Informed Simplicity from Charles’ Balcony
    Hi Mona,
    Over time my disenchantment with active funds grew with their lackluster performance. About one year ago, I decided to take action. As a goal, I decided to reduce the active fund components of my portfolio to approximately the one-third level. A precise level is not warranted because of the uncertainties in any investment decision.
    Before acting, I needed empirical data on which asset classes were best served by active fund management. Luckily, Morningstar did the heavy lifting for me. Here is a Link to the Morningstar study that provided me with the requisite data:
    http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=701736
    These data guided my decisions. I used the 10-year data sets. Take note of the improved odds when focusing on low cost funds. Management consistency is also a factor. I agree with MikeM's observation to minimize the number of active funds in any and all fund categories. That's solid advice.
    I own active funds in the large and small cap value areas, in the foreign fund group, and in some bond holdings.
    It is my policy not to name specific funds or specific percentages. Given my advanced age and the size of my portfolio what I do in detail is not likely applicable to others.
    I hope you find this reply a little useful. That's my singular purpose. Thanks for reading my post.
    Best Wishes.
  • Alpha Female
    Hi heeSafe,
    The English language is dynamic. I would be careful about what is and what is not acceptable usage today or even tomorrow. English in the USA is different from English in England. I sure am not an expert in this field, but some experts might take exception to your conclusion. Here is a Link to one such source:
    http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/is-have-got-acceptable-english?page=1
    From my unworthy and uninformed perspective, it doesn't matter. What did you think about my simplistic assessment of the subject?
    Spike Lee has made a zillion dollars playing loose with the English language in this and a number of other movie sequels:
    https://www.google.com/search?sclient=tablet-gws&site=&source=hp&q=spike+lee+he+got+game&oq=spike+lee+he+got+game&gs_l=tablet-gws.3..0l2j0i22i30.13996.25350.0.27498.21.9.0.12.12.0.62.360.9.9.0....0...1c.1.64.tablet-gws..0.21.454...0i131.jIydINizNAY#imgrc=ammZQWBqnrcM9M:
    Edit: I have got to repost the Spike Lee reference. Sorry for my earlier error.
    Best Wishes
  • Bill Gross's Investment Outlook June 2016: Bon Appetit!
    FYI: My basic thrust in this Outlook will be to observe that all forms of “carry” in financial markets are compressed, resulting in artificially high asset prices and a distortion of future risk relative to potential return that an investor must confront.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.janus.com/bill-gross-investment-outlook
  • Alpha Female
    Hi Guys,
    Comparing women’s skills and contributions against men’s skills and contributions in any competitive industry is always entering controversial and dangerous waters.
    Simple explanations are easy, but are often wrong. Complex explanations likely improve the odds of a meaningful answer. On the top of that decision pyramid, informed simple solutions are most likely to provide the best odds and the why insights. Here is my attempt at an informed simple explanation.
    Women are an underrepresented population in the financial advisory industry because of 3 interactive reasons: (1) they lacked motivation and opportunity in the past, (2) they lacked the requisite education, and (3) industry adjustment time lags.
    This is an informed simple explanation based on a single set of curves that summarized women’s education participation and levels over the last 5 decades. Here is the Link to the data sets that I referenced:
    http://www.russellsage.org/blog/rise-women-seven-charts-showing-womens-rapid-gains-educational-achievement
    These data sets are quite revealing. Young women have historically done better in High School than young men. Yet, those with advanced degrees, that would make them attractive to the finance advisory industries, have only arrived in sufficient numbers in the last several decades.
    The financial industries are tradition bound. They make tons of money with little capital investment, and are reluctant to change this profitable equation. But it is changing slowly, ever so slowly, as more and more women are entering the business, are demonstrating their dedication and skill sets, and are moving up the corporate ladders. Inertia is a powerful drag. It just takes time.
    Today, women only compose roughly 10% of the financial wizards in the USA; in some European countries, that percentage approaches 20%. In 2 decades, I predict those percentages will increase to 50% worldwide. I don’t fear long range predictions because nobody worries, nobody cares, and nobody remembers anyway.
    As an aside, I was not surprised that girls outscore boys at the High School level. That’s been a truism forever. But I was surprised by the increase in overall grades over the last 50 years. Are we getting smarter? My answer to that question is a sharp “No”. The timeframe is too short. My answer is that the grading system has become softer. That’s not an especially good motivator; a more demanding score keeper will provide stronger incentives.
    What do you think? Your comments are encouraged.
    Best Wishes.
  • Reorganization of some LKCM Aquinas Funds
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/918942/000119312516610671/d205847d497.htm
    497 1 d205847d497.htm 497
    LKCM FUNDS
    LKCM Aquinas Small Cap Fund
    LKCM Aquinas Growth Fund
    LKCM Aquinas Value Fund
    (the “Funds”)
    Supplement dated June 1, 2016
    To the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectuses and Statement of Additional Information
    dated May 1, 2016
    The Board of Trustees of LKCM Funds (the “Trust”), upon the recommendation of Luther King Capital Management Corporation (“LKCM”), the investment adviser to each Fund, has approved a Plan of Reorganization and Dissolution (the “Plan”) pursuant to which the LKCM Aquinas Small Cap Fund and the LKCM Aquinas Growth Fund (each, an “Acquired Fund” and collectively, the “Acquired Funds”), each a series of the Trust, would be reorganized into the LKCM Aquinas Value Fund (the “Acquiring Fund”), also a series of the Trust (the “Reorganizations”). Consummation of the Reorganizations will be subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the Plan by shareholders of each Acquired Fund.
    If the Plan is approved by shareholders of each Acquired Fund, at the time the Reorganizations are completed, it is anticipated that: (1) the Acquiring Fund will change its name to the “LKCM Aquinas Catholic Equity Fund,” (2) the cap on the net expense ratio of the Acquiring Fund (excluding interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, indirect fees and expenses related to investments in other investment companies, and extraordinary expenses) under an expense limitation agreement with LKCM will be reduced from 1.50% per annum to 1.00% per annum, through at least December 31, 2017, (3) the Rule 12b-1 distribution fee rate payable by the Acquiring Fund will be reduced from 0.25% per annum to 0.10% per annum, and (4) certain investment strategies of the Acquiring Fund would be modified.
    At the time the Reorganizations are completed, the Acquiring Fund would adopt the following principal investment strategies:
    The Acquiring Fund would invest, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities. This policy would be non-fundamental, which means that it could be changed by the Board of Trustees of the Trust without shareholder approval, but the Acquiring Fund would notify its shareholders at least 60 days before it changes the policy.
    The Acquiring Fund would primarily invest in companies that LKCM believes are likely to have above-average growth in revenues or earnings, above-average returns on shareholders’ equity, potential for above-average capital appreciation, and/or companies that LKCM believes have attractive relative valuations. The Acquiring Fund would invest in equity securities of small, mid and large capitalization companies.
    The Acquiring Fund would seek to invest in equity securities of high quality companies that typically exhibit certain characteristics, including high profitability levels, strong balance sheet quality, competitive advantages, ability to generate excess cash flows, meaningful management ownership stakes, attractive reinvestment opportunities, and/or strong market share positions. These equity securities would include common stocks, preferred stocks, securities convertible into common stock, American Depositary Receipts, real estate investment trusts, rights and warrants.
    The Acquiring Fund would continue to practice socially responsible investing within the framework provided by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Socially Responsible Investing Guidelines.
    If shareholders of each Acquired Fund approve the Plan, at the time the Reorganizations are completed, shares of each Acquired Fund would be exchanged for shares of the Acquiring Fund with an aggregate net asset value equal to the aggregate net asset value of the shares of each Acquired Fund as of the scheduled close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange on the closing date of the Reorganizations. The Reorganizations are expected to be tax-free to each Acquired Fund and its shareholders. No sales loads, commissions or other transaction fees will be imposed on shareholders of an Acquired Fund in connection with the Reorganizations.
    Shareholders of each Acquired Fund will be asked to consider and approve the Plan at a special meeting of shareholders scheduled to be held on July 20, 2016. Detailed information about the Plan and the Reorganizations, including the similarities and differences between each Acquired Fund and the Acquiring Fund, will be discussed in a combined proxy statement/prospectus to be distributed to shareholders of record of the Acquired Funds as of the close of business on May 20, 2016.
    In the “Potential Changes to the Funds” sections of the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information, the fifth word of the seventh paragraph is deleted and replaced with “Acquired.”
    * * * * *
    Please retain this supplement for future reference.
  • Bill Gross Says Historic Investment Returns Are Impossible To Repeat
    Sometimes I think some high profile managers say things to draw attention to themselves to keep them in the spotlight. Is Bill Gross even relevant anymore?? We have been hearing for more than a few years now how low returns going forward will be the norm. That high profile manager from GMO (among others) was saying that back in 2010. As for the present, seems like small and mid cap biotech has been having a stealth rally. Maybe those closer to that area can confirm. SUPN anyone?