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.
  • The Stock Market's Wake Up Call
    FYI: Until recently we had gone several years without a double-digit decline in US stocks. For long-term investors, that length of time can lead to a false sense of security and entitlement—believing that stocks should always go up and they have a right to consistently-positive returns. But that has never been the case; if it were, long-term historical and future returns wouldn’t be as high as they have been or are expected to be. The chart below looks at the periodic returns of stocks, bonds and balanced portfolios from 1928-2014, net of inflation.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.servowealth.com/resources/articles/stock-markets-wake-call
  • Patterned By Birth
    FYI: What if stocks experience their third separate bear market in under twenty years? What would that do to the psychology of investors?
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://theirrelevantinvestor.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/patterned-by-birth/
  • Vanguard Group Hires A Smart Beta Expert From Pioneer Research Affiliates
    Okay. Now create a fund which as $3000 minimum investment, not $100,000.
  • Ashmore Emerging Markets Currency Fund to liquidate
    Ashmore is nevermore.
    ECYAX (Class A)
    Less than 5 years old.
    AUM $100,000.
    -15% (negative) return for 1 year
    1.12% net ER after a 1.6% waiver
    4% front load (Class A)
    A foreign currency fund, it's been going head-to-head against the strong U.S. dollar.
    Sign of the times.
    Thanks to The Shadow for posting.
  • 361 Managed Futures Strategy Fund to close to new investors by 12/31/15
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834415006178/fp0015970_497.htm
    1 fp0015970_497.htm
    361 Managed Futures Strategy Fund
    Investor Class (AMFQX)
    Class I (AMFZX)
    A series of Investment Managers Series Trust
    Supplement dated September 9, 2015
    to the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus
    dated March 1, 2015
    IMPORTANT NOTICE ON PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
    Effective as of the close of business on September 30, 2015 (the “Closing Date”), the 361 Managed Futures Strategy Fund (the “Managed Futures Strategy Fund”) will be publicly offered on a limited basis.
    After the Closing Date, only certain investors will be eligible to purchase shares of the Fund, as described below (the “closure policy”). In addition, both before and after the Closing Date, the Fund may from time to time, in its sole discretion based on the Fund’s net asset levels and other factors, limit the types of investors permitted to open new accounts, limit new purchases into the Fund or otherwise modify the closure policy at any time on a case-by-case basis.
    The following groups will be permitted to continue to purchase Fund shares after the Closing Date:
    1. Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date are able to continue to purchase additional shares in their existing Fund accounts either directly through the Fund or through a financial intermediary and may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions from shares owned in the Fund;
    2. Existing registered investment advisor (RIA) and bank trust firms that have an investment allocation to the Fund in a fee-based, wrap or advisory account, can continue to add new clients, purchase shares, and exchange into the Fund. The Fund will not be available to new RIA and bank trust firms.
    3. Approved discretionary fee-based advisory programs, in which the program’s sponsor has full authority to make investment changes without approval from the shareholder, may continue to utilize the Fund for new and existing program accounts.
    4. Approved brokerage programs where the Fund is currently included in a model portfolio may continue to utilize the Fund for new and existing program accounts.
    5. Fund of mutual fund sponsors that have an investment in the Fund as of the Closing Date can continue to purchase shares of the Fund.
    6. Certain financial intermediaries may continue to open new underlying customer accounts provided the platform on which they offer access to the Fund has an existing funded position.
    7. An institutional consulting firm that has previously directed client assets into the Fund may be allowed to recommend the Fund to its new and existing clients who may in turn purchase shares of the Fund, provided that, in the judgment of 361 Capital, LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser, the proposed investment in the Fund would not adversely affect the investment adviser’s ability to manage the Fund effectively.
    8. Group employer benefit plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457 plans, and health savings account programs (and their successor, related and affiliated plans), which make the Fund available to participants on or before the Closing Date, may continue to open accounts for new participants in the Fund and purchase additional shares in existing participant accounts. New group employer benefit plans, including 401(k), 403(b) and 457 plans, and health savings account programs (and their successor, related and affiliated plans), may also establish new accounts with the Fund, provided the new plans have approved and selected the Fund as an investment option by the Closing Date and the plan has also been accepted for investment by the Fund by the Closing Date.
    9. Members of the Fund’s Board of Trustees and persons affiliated with the Fund’s investment adviser and their immediate families will be able to purchase shares of the Fund and establish new accounts.
    In general, the Fund will rely on a financial intermediary to prevent a new account from being opened within an omnibus account established at that financial intermediary if the account would not otherwise satisfy the conditions outlined above. The Fund’s ability to monitor new accounts that are opened through omnibus accounts or other nominee accounts is limited and the ability to limit a new account to those that meet the above criteria with respect to financial intermediaries may vary depending upon the capabilities of those financial intermediaries. Investors may be asked to verify that they meet one of the exceptions above prior to opening a new account in the Fund. The Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. If a shareholder opens a new account in the Fund and is later determined to be ineligible for investment, the Fund reserves the right to redeem the shares at their original NAV. The Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these exceptions. If all shares of the Fund in an existing account are redeemed, the shareholder’s account will be closed. Such former shareholders will not be able to buy additional shares of the Fund or reopen their account.
    Please file this Supplement with your records.
  • Long/Short Doesn’t Mean 'Hedged'
    ... well then, there is an UN-asked question:
    1.What good are they?
    2. What is the benefit derived (vs. sticking with a "long-only" fund)?
    3. All things being equal, isn't a (typical) long-only fund, a more straightforward, less complex fund to manage -- with a long-only fund, the manager only needs to be right about his/her longs. In a long-short fund, if either your longs OR your shorts don't deliver on-balance, investors are looking for disappointment.)
    4. How many really good "shorting" investors are managing public/retail funds?
    5. What is the raison d'etre for a long-short fund in a retail investor's portfolio, which doesn't serve as a hedge?
    With a few exceptions, these long-short products strike me as being "sold" (to investors) rather than bought. -- A characteristic I see of most alternative-strategy funds.
  • If The Bear’s Near, Which Assets Protect You?
    +1 for Sven.
    Remember, investors cannot buy low if their capital is all, already deployed. (Unless of course they use margin, which is not my recommendation).
  • Vanguard Group Hires A Smart Beta Expert From Pioneer Research Affiliates
    FYI: The Vanguard Group Inc., which has for years voiced skepticism about the fast rise of exotic index-investing strategies, has hired a top researcher away from one of the best-known promoters of smart beta, Research Affiliates.
    Valley Forge, Pa.-based Vanguard, the largest mutual fund firm and the second-largest ETF manager, is bringing Research Affiliates analyst Denis B. Chaves to its quantitative equity group, according to the leader of that group, John Ameriks.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150908/FREE/150909935?template=printart
  • Water: The New Screen For Investment Risk
    FYI: Focus on potential water shortages is part of investors’ interest in ‘sustainable’ investing.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/water-the-new-screen-for-investment-risk-1441768915
  • Pfau & Dokken: Why 4% Could Fail - Rethinking Retirement
    Hi msf,
    It is quite possible that we interpreted the Rethinking Retirement document differently or even that we went to a different reference from among those posted by ibartman.
    I pulled the 3% number from the “whitepaper” link in ibartman’s original post. That click accessed the 14 page Rethinking Retirement report
    On page10 of that document, the authors said: “These initial spending rates are specifically calibrated to include a 3% annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), rather than having spending adjust precisely with the realized inflation experienced over retirement.”
    In doing any forecasting analyses, I always postulate a positive risk return premium for both stocks and bonds over inflation. Reasonable approximations are 6.5% and 1.5%, respectively. But these are easily adjusted when doing Monte Carlo simulations to suit your preferences.
    The primary purpose of my post was to reintroduce Monte Carlo simulators to the MFO population. Any input numbers that I suggest or that Pfau and Dokken actually used are nice as a generic guideline or a departure point, but do not necessarily reflect the specifics that each investor needs for his personal portfolio. That’s why I consistently recommend that each investor become familiar and comfortable enough with the Monte Carlo tool to do his own analyses.
    That comfort level comes with practice. With sufficient practice comes confidence in the assembled portfolio and whatever withdrawal rate is being planned. Since plans are never perfectly realized, revisions will be needed as a function of time, so the Monte Carlo tool needs to be revisited.
    The specific quoted numbers are not important; the tool and the process are the essential ingredients to exploring the robustness of any portfolio, and an acceptable withdrawal rate that might need adjustments over time.
    Best Wishes.
  • How much Emerging markets is in your portfolio. Buy, sell or hold.
    According to M* x-ray portfolio, I have about 10% exposure in EM, mainly through SFGIX and RNWGX (also some thru several diversified international funds). Active management is what I prefer in this asset class. Sold majority of Matthews funds and reallocated them to Seafarer.
  • Pfau & Dokken: Why 4% Could Fail - Rethinking Retirement
    Pfau & Dokken also assumed that long-term bond returns would be perturbed modestly from its present low rate of return. But they also hypothesized that annual inflation rates would average 3%. That’s lower than the historical average, but is not consistent with the postulated depressed long-term bond annual rate of return.
    We are reading the paper differently. They are treating both inflation rates and bond yields similarly, which to my ears sounds like each is starting at its respective current value and gradually regressing toward its historical mean:
    With the correlated error terms, inflation is modeled as a first order autoregressive process starting from 1.58% inflation in 2013 and trending toward its historical average over time with its historical volatility. Bond yields are similarly modeled with a first order autoregression with an initial value of 1.88% (the 10-year Treasury rate in January 2015).
    The difference, or error, to the extent there is one, is not in how the two data sets were treated, but in their starting points.
    The 1.58% inflation rate is the 2013 annual inflation rate (for January - December 2013) as of January 1, 2014. Had the same Jan 1, 2014 date been used as the starting point for bond yields, the methodology would seem to have been okay. That rate was 2.86%. Instead, they chose to start the Treasury rates from a later date, Jan 1, 2015 (1.88%).
    The 2.86% figure might have been considered a little high, as it was virtually the peak for 2013 (the actual monthly maximum was 2.90% on Dec 1, 2013). But the figure selected, 1.88%, was the lowest monthly figure since 2012. (Yields in 2013, 2014, and 2015 to date have all been at least as high as the Jan 1, 2014 yield.) It was not representative either.
    So I don't believe they used historical average for inflation rates while perturbing (regressing) the current bond yield, which would be wrong, but it does appear that they fudged the starting yield on the bonds a bit.
  • Pfau & Dokken: Why 4% Could Fail - Rethinking Retirement
    Hi Guys,
    The recent paper by Professors Pfau & Dokken on the erosion of the 4% retirement drawdown rule allows me to get out my old broken record that extols the virtues of Monte Carlo analysis.
    I have done this so any times that MFO members must be tired of my pontifications on the subject. No matter, this is an important topic that should encourage those not mathematically inclined to use the Monte Carlo tool. Mathematical sophisticated is not required.
    What is required is the persistence and the thought process to define some plausible what-if scenarios for the long term marketplace. You guys do this all the time when committing money to various financial products. The Monte Carlo tool will do the needed calculations. It is not necessary to look under the hood to comprehend the machinery. That only depends on your interest level.
    For the purposes of exploring the various dimensions of this retirement withdrawal issue, I recommend the Monte Carlo code accessible on the Portfolio Visualizer website. Here is a direct Link to their version of a Monte Carlo simulator:
    https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
    I encourage you to visit this tool and play games with it. With just a little effort you can easily examine numerous scenarios that will permit you to develop a feel for which parameters are important and which are not. Have some fun.
    The conclusions that Pfau & Dokken reached were basically preordained by the conservative assumptions that they made. The old 4% drawdown rule was doomed by their pessimistic assumptions. I actually agree with some of them, but not all. You must decide for yourself both the merits and shortcomings of them.
    Understand that Pfau & Dokken postulated a 30 to 40 year portfolio survival requirement. They presumed a 95% portfolio survival criteria. You get to choose these based on your own situation. They assumed that the equity market is too high based on the current Shiller’s P/E10 ratio, and simultaneously projected an equity regression-to-the-mean.
    Pfau & Dokken also assumed that long-term bond returns would be perturbed modestly from its present low rate of return. But they also hypothesized that annual inflation rates would average 3%. That’s lower than the historical average, but is not consistent with the postulated depressed long-term bond annual rate of return.
    Since most retirement analyses make adjustments for the inflation rate, this is a critical paired set of inputs. I recommend you play what-if games with these parameters, especially the inflation rate. The Portfolio Visualizer tool allows this parameter to be easily changed. Just do it.
    Pfau & Dokken are smart, experienced researchers. But recognize that their findings were predetermined by a set of conservative assumptions. It’s likely that you agree with some but take issue with others. The Portfolio Visualizer tool will allow you to measure the impact of this plethora of assumptions.
    In the Simulation Model box of the code, I recommend you click to the “Parameterized Returns” which will permit you to input your estimate of annual “expected return” and “volatility” (standard deviation) for your portfolio. You can change these to explore how survival outcomes change. Also try different Inflation estimates to test their impact on portfolio survival rates. Enjoy.
    I hope you find my post useful, but more importantly, I hope you visit and try the referenced Monte Carlo code.
    Best Regards.
  • How much Emerging markets is in your portfolio. Buy, sell or hold.
    I cut way down on foreign. Not because I was spooked, but because I was tired of waiting for my Asia fund to start producing. The vast majority of it was in PRASX. I still own a tiny position. Since I'm a long-term type, I was riding out the volatility until I just finally became too disgusted with the fund. Some recent advice in here at MFO finally pushed me to sell PRASX and put most of it into PRWCX. My foreign stake is now down from 28% to 10% of portfolio.
  • How much Emerging markets is in your portfolio. Buy, sell or hold.
    Re: EM Bond funds,
    I have indirect exposure only: mainly through RPSIX (my single largest holding) and DODLX. Am I ever tempted to make a speculative play! When these funds turn, they can bounce 10, 20, 30% in a single year.
    However, it would put me far outside my normal pre-determined perameters.