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.
  • 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.
  • 'Sell Everything,' DoubleLine's Gundlach Says
    Well-said. Which also underscores the reason for the vast majority of retail investors should IGNORE the whatever-way-the-wind-is-blowing nature of the financial media puditocracy and get their investing analysis from more responsible organizations and sources. Like, oh, I don't know .... MFO, among other places. ;)
    Perhaps there are two types of investors, those who want to get rich and those who want to stay rich? Gundlach, with a net worth of $1.4 billion, is certainly in the latter camp. He can achieve his personal goal by staying high and dry, others cannot. I get the impression from Ed that a number of the other folks in the "stay rich" camp (Mr. Soros and Dr. Druckenmiller among them) have reached a similar conclusion; in consequence, they're more exposed to gold and/or gold miners than to other asset classes.
    The common adage is "being early is the same as being wrong." Perhaps they're more comfortable taking the risk of being that kind of wrong rather than the other kind?
    Just pondering,
    David
  • V.G. target date funds ?
    Thanks for your replies. The bench mark used by 401-k was Dow Jones target .... Index.
    Checked on another 401-k & it was using 70% Barclays US Gov/Credit Interm TR USD & 30% S&P TR USD for VTINX , (target date retirement income). % changed as target date was increased. I'll check out other retirement funds & see how they performed.
    Derf
  • V.G. target date funds ?
    I looked quickly through Vanguard's fund pages, all of which conveniently show bar graphs comparing each fund's performance with their benchmarks, as of Q2 2016 (June 30).
    I didn't see a single target date fund where the fund's performance has exceeded the benchmark for any period. All of them are lagging the benchmarks over all periods. In Vanguard's defense, the lag is very small and could possibly be entirely attributable to the expense ratio -- in other words, it is about as close to the benchmark as an actual investor can reasonably expect to get.*
    The fund pages also further explain that that benchmark is derived "by applying the fund’s target asset allocation to the results of the following benchmarks", meaning that Vanguard must be adjusting their benchmark whenever the fund allocation is changed. So that wouldn't explain any differences. Perhaps your 401k statement is using another benchmark?
    * 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.
  • 'Sell Everything,' DoubleLine's Gundlach Says
    Perhaps there are two types of investors, those who want to get rich and those who want to stay rich? Gundlach, with a net worth of $1.4 billion, is certainly in the latter camp. He can achieve his personal goal by staying high and dry, others cannot. I get the impression from Ed that a number of the other folks in the "stay rich" camp (Mr. Soros and Dr. Druckenmiller among them) have reached a similar conclusion; in consequence, they're more exposed to gold and/or gold miners than to other asset classes.
    The common adage is "being early is the same as being wrong." Perhaps they're more comfortable taking the risk of being that kind of wrong rather than the other kind?
    Just pondering,
    David
  • V.G. target date funds ?
    I received 2/nd Qt. 401-k statement & noted their target date returns for one year & ytd had fallen below their benchmark. 3, 5, & 10 year returns were above benchmark.
    Was this slip age due to V.G.'s reallocation from 30% to 40% in international equities, plus increase from 20% to 30% in fixed international income exposure during 2/2015 ?
    Thanks for any replies.
    Derf
  • High Yield Closed End Bond Funds question for the learned
    You're getting lost in the weeds.
    Here's a simple math problem to illustrate: Two trains are 100 miles apart, each traveling at 50 MPH. A bee, flying at 100 MPH starts at the first train, flies to the second train, reverses direction until getting back to the first, and so on, until it is squashed between the trains. How far does the bee fly?
    One could calculate the sum of the infinite series of flights that the bee makes from one train to another, or one could simply observe that the trains meet in an hour, in which time the 100MPH bee will have traveled 100 miles.
    Same idea here. You could calculate how much you'd make with what investments with what trades at what times, or you could simply ask: with the $70K you have now (7000 @ $10), what is the better investment - the fund you're in or a different fund? You could be holding the wrong fund at the wrong time whether that's the fund you currently own or a different fund.
    Your numbers do help with this decision. Consider: if your fund is currently yielding 14% ($10K/year on $70K market value), and the alternative funds are currently yielding 8%-10%, what is the market telling you?
  • High Yield Closed End Bond Funds question for the learned
    lets put some bad math to it. Bought 7000 shares at $7 in 2008. Rose to$17 in 2013. Roughly $70k profit plus $10k/yr in dividends (@20% yield) = $120k. The fund is choppy up and down since $17 peak but lowest it goes is $10. So at $10/sh I got $21K cap gain plus $50k dividends (not reinvested)= $71k plus $10k/yr for the foreseeable future. I get 20% yield at a $7 cost basis that will be tough to create a cap loss, while others get 8-10% yield reinvested in a new fund plus the chance of buying the wrong fund at the wrong time at a loss. At what point (timeframe) do I overtake the people who wanted to sell at $17 and attempted to reinvest? By now all you math majors are cringing at my mistakes, but you get my point. 401k so no taxes. You would be able to buy more shares of the new funds with the $120k profit if you sold. This would be a good website calculator ....assuming a constant share price and yield of the new fund purchased for the sake of answering the timeframe question.
  • 'Sell Everything,' DoubleLine's Gundlach Says
    “The artist Christopher Wool has a word painting, 'Sell the house, sell the car, sell the kids.' That’s exactly how I feel – sell everything. Nothing here looks good,” Gundlach said in a telephone interview. "The stock markets should be down massively but investors seem to have been hypnotized that nothing can go wrong."
    Just who is Gundlach addressing here?
    (A) 30-year old workers socking away money in a 401k or buying their first home?
    (B) 85-year old widows living on social security and pension?
    No to the first group and Yes/Maybe to the second.
    I'm always suspicious of these everything or nothing approaches. You're really exposing your *** big-time if you bet wrong.