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.
  • Michael Hasenstab’s Bond Fund: Buy Or Sell?
    I really cannot put my finger on this. We have always though of the fund as more of a large value fund, even though John and his team use a multi-cap approach. Why M* labels it mid-blend is beyond me. It is definitely not mid-blend. The fund was hurt by its Valeant position, but unlike Sequoia, OSTFX dumped its shares quickly. Nevertheless 3rd qtr 2015 really hurt them. And its large cash position this year as the market recovered has been problematic. I don't question the cash holding, since the fund has always been a cautious one. We will see how they fare going forward compared to the large value class.
    On the other hand OSTIX is doing fine, pretty much as we would expect. Comparing it to other high-yield funds is wrong, in our opinion. Its duration is quite low and it has really short average maturity. A 5.7% yield with very low risk is darned attractive to us. Carl does a great job, and we have a lot of confidence in his team.
  • Michael Hasenstab’s Bond Fund: Buy Or Sell?
    One of our big concerns has been the size of the fund, and the total amount of assets that Hasenstab manages, which at one time got close to $100B. We confirmed that he is compensated on the amount of assets he manages, so there has been no incentive to close the fund to new investors to keep the fund from becoming unmanageable. With the parent company being publicly traded it is also in their best interest to keep the fund open.
  • Michael Hasenstab’s Bond Fund: Buy Or Sell?
    Comparing TGBAX to Barclays Agg makes no sense to me. We use the Citi World Govt Bond Index as a benchmark, and it stacks up well. Under-performs for 1 and 3 year (mostly because of last 12 months), beats 5 years and wallops 10 years.
    Yup, that's the benchmark used by the fund in the prospectus.
    The current (Jan 1, 2016) prospectus shows the benchmark comparisons through the end of 2014 (not 2015), confirming that all of the underperformance came since then:
    (as of 12/31/2014) 1 year/5 year/10 year annualized:
    TGBAX: 1.84% / 6.01% / 7.64%
    Index: -0.48% / 1.67% / 3.08%
  • John Waggoner: Invesco, Longleaf Funds Stashing Cash As Bear Market Cushion
    FYI: You might have clients who want to get in to the stock market, but don't want to take much risk, particularly as the Standard and Poor's 500 stock index flirts with new highs.
    Your first job, of course, is to explain that this is like wanting to go swimming but not get terribly wet. Risk and reward are tied at the hip.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160608/FREE/160609918?template=printart
  • Michael Hasenstab’s Bond Fund: Buy Or Sell?
    I agree the Barclays Agg makes no sense as a 'benchmark.'
    I've held TGBAX for ... something like 8, 9 years. Love the insanely-tiny duration of its holdings.
    TGBAX has gone nowhere for 1 and 3 years, and 5 years returned 1.57% according to M*. It's 10-15 year returns are nice, but am *very* close to culling it down to a foothold in my portfolio based on that performance, its recent 30%-ish distribution cut, my expectations on its future performance, and because it's still sitting on nearly 50% cash ... which is nice for when opportunity arises, but still. (I think MH and SD are okay managers though.)
    As someone said on the M* article, at times TGBAX looks more like a currency hedge fund than a global bond fund.
  • Michael Hasenstab’s Bond Fund: Buy Or Sell?
    Comparing TGBAX to Barclays Agg makes no sense to me. We use the Citi World Govt Bond Index as a benchmark, and it stacks up well. Under-performs for 1 and 3 year (mostly because of last 12 months), beats 5 years and wallops 10 years. We have captured gains that have accumulated for the last 10 years in client accounts, but continue to hold the fund. We are not blind to its very recent stumbles, however, and are watching and staying in touch with our Templeton connection. Honestly we like smaller funds better, and there was a tone of hot money that came in since 2010. Some of that has left (moving on to the now-hot sector), which is fine by us.
  • Laura Geritz (Wasatch) is out
    If not a Frontier fund, she can still join their EM fund, right?
    It is a bit underwhelming fund so far based on its performance, and probably needs a good hand, though I am not sure how much she can help.
    Sure that would work and if her path is to GP it would make more sense because they haven't registered any new funds that you might think would happen if she was going to run a Frontier fund.
    I'm not sure I'd agree with "underwhelming" for GPEOX so far. The history is short so I don't think it means much in the bigger picture, but it's beating its primary and secondary benchmarks since inception and with the exception of YTD 2016 it has also beaten both of the benchmarks each year by a pretty wide margin.
    I think the confusion comes because M* lumps all diversified emerging markets funds together but the reality of the last few years has been that larger cap funds have done far better than smaller cap funds. If you look just at the emerging markets funds M* says are true small cap funds, of which there are very few, GPEOX is winning each year pretty easily. Even if you include mid-cap funds, of which there are more to compare, GPEOX is winning each year against most of those too. There's no question they've been in a tough place to play for a while now but in my mind they're doing really well against those they're competing with directly.
    They have 2.5 years under their belt so far and it'll be more interesting to talk about their performance after at least 5 years but if the goal is to be exposed to true small cap emerging markets, which mine certainly was, then I think this has been a good choice so far even with the high expense ratio.
  • Michael Hasenstab’s Bond Fund: Buy Or Sell?
    FYI: Michael Hasenstab’s $50 billion Templeton Global Bond Fund (TPINX) has had a rough go.
    The fund has been wrong-footed on emerging-markets for a while, and a reversal in currencies has hurt bets against the euro and yen. Over the past year, Hasenstab’s flagship has lost 5.9%, one of the worst international bond funds tracked by Morningstar. It trailed the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index in 2014, 2015 and again this year. What now? Well, if you want to take risk, then perhaps it’s time to buy.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/06/08/michael-hasenstabs-bond-fund-buy-or-sell/tab/print/
    M* Snapshot TPINX:
    http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/TPINX/quote.html
    Lipper Snapshot TPINX:
    http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/tpinx
    TPINX Is Ranked #22 In The (WB) Fund Category By U.S. Nesw & World Report:
    http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-bond/templeton-global-bond-fund/tpinx
  • Stonebridge Small-Cap Growth Fund to liquidate
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580216000164/stickerstonebridgeliquidatio.htm
    497 1 stickerstonebridgeliquidatio.htm
    FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
    STONEBRIDGE SMALL-CAP GROWTH FUND
    Supplement dated June 8, 2016
    to the
    Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated August 31, 2015,
    for the Stonebridge Small-Cap Growth Fund,
    a series of Financial Investors Trust (the “Trust”)
    The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Trust, based upon the resignation of Stonebridge Capital Management, Inc. (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Stonebridge Small-Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust, has determined to close and liquidate the Fund. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed and liquidated as series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on June 27, 2016.
    The Board approved a Plan of Termination, Dissolution and Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Fund will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Fund’s liquidation, the Fund will be closed to new purchases effective as of the close of business on June 8, 2016. However, any distributions declared to shareholders of the Fund after June 8, 2016, and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on June 27, 2016 will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Fund unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. Although the Fund will be closed to new purchases as of June 8, 2016, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Fund after June 8, 2016, as provided in the Prospectus. Please note, however, that the Fund will be liquidating its assets as of the close of business on June 27, 2016.
    Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on June 27, 2016, the effective time of the liquidation, your shares will be redeemed, and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund as of June 27, 2016, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax adviser for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
    All expenses incurred in connection with the liquidation contemplated by the Plan will be paid by the Fund, and are estimated to be approximately $13,000.
    Please retain this supplement with your Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.
  • M*: What Is An Emerging Market ?
    FYI: MSCI will answer this question with its June 14 announcement regarding changes to its indexes
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=756187
  • Ratings Posted Through May ... 3 Bottom Fund Families Each With $1B AUM
    Posted yesterday 7 June, please find all MFO ratings and fund metrics updated on MFO Premium site through month ending May.
    I continue to marvel at results of Fund Family Scorecard. How do poor performing fund management companies persist? Could be that absolute return is not a concern, that it's all about risk adjusted return. Could be that some of the funds did well initially, then went south but investors are too stuck to change. Could be that these firms just have strong marketing and, my friend Ed offers, "write good newsletters." Could be that they are just having a run of bad luck and stuck in an uncooperative and "irrational" market ... but given enough time and a return to sanity, the Great Pumpkin will appear.
    There are 30 fund families that have failed to beat their peers with every fund they manage ... 135 funds (oldest share class only) that underperform against their category averages on an absolute return basis since inception, measured from first full month of offering through May 2016.
    Three of these families each manage assets of $1B or more ... Dunham, Hussman, and Domini.
    image
    Dunham & Associates Investment Counsel, Inc. is a San Diego based firm with a line-up of of 16 funds that "...operate on performance-based advisory fees, also commonly known as Fulcrum Fees, and feature objectives ranging from capital preservation to aggressive growth." Average age 9 years. Average annual expense ratio 1.90% (all share classes). These 16 funds have nearly $1B in assets under management (AUM). None of the 16 have beaten their category averages. How can that be ... ? One clue: 1.9% across 9 years represents a drag of 18%.
    image
    Another is Hussman Strategic Advisors Inc. Four funds. $1.1B AUM. I suspect in this case, Dr. Hussman would argue it's about risk adjusted return: "Investing for long-term returns while managing risk". Certainly that appears to be the case with its Strategic Total Return Fund (HSTRX), but what about the other three funds? Like, its flagship Strategic Growth Fund (HSGFX) ... it has been underwater for 92 months now and counting.
    Here are some risk profile metrics for HSGFX since inception and across various time frames, including the last two business cycles ... something appears to have gone terribly wrong this cycle.
    image
    image
    Finally, at $1.7B AUM ... "Invest in a greener, more peaceful future with Domini Social Investments." Three funds. Average age nearly 17 years.
    image
    Its front-loaded, 9-year-old International Social Equity A (DOMAX) has done pretty well the past three and five years, so Amy Domini is quick to post its five star status on her web site ...
    image
    Here's a closer look ...
    image
    image
    As always, if you see anything amiss with this month's update or have recommendations for improvements, please do not hesitate to email us.
  • Looking for a good High Yield Municipal fund.
    Wondering as to how the conversation ever got this far? 1. Placing Muni's in an IRA is an unusual approach. 2. MUB (benchmark) is making all time highs right now. IOW's I believe a better approach to investing for total return in any form of bond funds is thru well managed junk CEF's timed during big selloff's. Yields can go 10-13% (I have seen over 20%) plus cap gains in the 10-15% range on average. My experience has been outperformance compared to other approaches with bond funds. Hard to beat but requires patience. The question was about Muni's but money is money and there are other options.
  • Longterm LC choices for 30yo
    >> A low cost S&P 500 Index fund is highly likely to have a better 10 and 20 year return than any other fund you choose....
    I cannot find a period where PRBLX has not surpassed SPY. Can you? Not saying that it's highly unlikely, but.
    >> SCHD SDOG
    DVY is at least a good so far as I can see. Usually better. What am I missing ?
    (If she is going to pay commission, I was thinking NOBL, OUSA, and/or CAPE over these.)
  • Longterm LC choices for 30yo
    A low cost S&P 500 Index fund is highly likely to have a better 10 and 20 year return than any other fund you choose....
  • Fidelity 401(k) Lawsuit Could Up Ante For Plan Advisers
    Vanguard pitched Financial Engines for my Vanguard 401K. I wondered why a low cost fund family would want me to pay 0.4% extra in fees. It seems that Financial Engines was one of the first robo advisors.
  • Thoughts On Intrepid Funds?
    @Pop Tart: Here is Intrepid Fund Family data Snapshot from M*. ICMTX is lees that a year old, and so far, so good, 16% + YTD return.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://quicktake.morningstar.com/FundFamily/Snapshot.asp?Country=USA&Symbol=0C00001Z1Z
    2011 Barron's Article On Mark Travis:
    http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424053111904210704576357734148684372#printMode
  • Fidelity 401(k) Lawsuit Could Up Ante For Plan Advisers
    FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
    A lawsuit filed recently against Fidelity Investments, the largest record keeper of defined contribution plans in the U.S., highlights the growing scrutiny on 401(k) plan costs and increased need for retirement plan advisers to evaluate all tranches of fees paid to plan providers
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160606/FREE/160609945?template=printart
  • Yacktman Special Opportunities Fund
    High expenses, a manager with no track record and just out of college, and a horrible loss of almost 20% in first 18 months. No wonder the fund has no assets. Run Toto, run!
  • U.S. Municipal Debt Draws Rush Of Investors
    Sure Makes Sense in These States
    The U.S. States With The Highest Tax Burdens In 2016
    by Tyler Durden - Jun 6, 2016 10:40 PM
    Published on Zero Hedge
    Across the United States, some residents have to pay far more state and local tax than others. The amount you pay depends heavily on the state you reside in with New Yorkers suffering under the heaviest tax burden according to website Wallethub.
    As Statista details, the tax burden measures the percentage of a person’s income which goes towards state and local tax, different to the tax rate, which depends heavily on income and personal circumstances
    http://www.zerohedge.com/print/562876
    image
    Possible relief for us and @Ted residents ?
    Muni Single State Long Maturity
    http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/muni-single-state-long/$FOCA$SL.aspx
    Muni Single State Intermediate Term
    http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/muni-single-state-interm/$FOCA$SI.aspx
    Muni Single State Short Term
    http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/muni-single-state-short/$FOCA$SS.aspx
  • Longterm LC choices for 30yo

    PRBLX is a solid fund that held up nicely during the '08 GFC - I own it and still add to it.
    For large or megacap check Bridgeway 35 (BRLIX too -- only .15 ER (cheap!) and a nice allocation/weighting of companies.