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.
  • 3 out of 4 retirees receiving reduced Social Security benefits
    "If you guys want to continue this discussion, that’s fine." "Everyone is free to disagree."
    "I note that in your comment, you use the plural “we” when recording “our” disapproval." "Given your choice of pronouns, you presume to be speaking for the bulk of the MFO community."

    @MJG- Well now, you gave "you guys" permission to continue the discussion, with an ever-so-slightly condescending "that's fine". And while I make no presumption about speaking for "the bulk of the MFO community", I thought that I was included in "you guys". Maybe not.
    Never did put much stock in your "Best Wishes", actually, especially when used to end one of your many polemics. Kinda sounds insincere, if you follow me. By the way, I've been noticing a bit of self-plagiarism in your recent replies to other MFO folks. And here I thought that you reserved all of that vituperation just for me. Yet another let-down.
    "Best Wishes"
  • Your favorite One Star (M* rated) Mutual Fund
    Spot on Bee with FAIRX.
    I'd say RPHIX is another one.
    Hmmm...not a 1 star, but they never warmed to OAKBX, even during its amazing period last decade.
  • 3 out of 4 retirees receiving reduced Social Security benefits
    Hi Old Joe,
    To quote Ronald Reagan from the 1980 Presidential debates with Jimmy Carter: “There you go again”.
    What pleasure do you take in building a straw-man (that’s me), and then meaninglessly attacking that straw-man? That could be a dangerous practice for you. This straw-man chooses to fight over either flight or freezing. My posting record shows that over and over again.
    In this instance, you purposely misinterpret simple declarative statements that I wrote: "If you guys want to continue this discussion, that’s fine. Everyone is free to disagree." I meant nothing more than what I said. There is no deep hidden meaning that lurks below the surface.
    Somehow, with malicious intent, you distort and insinuate my real meaning to declare that I hold MFOers postings as “substandard commentary”. That’s a total fabrication that was invented in your own mind. That’s sad indeed.
    But I do appreciate this addition to your continuing and gratuitous tirade directed at me.
    It further documents your spiteful and nasty nature. Your written words say much more about your character than they identify my shortcomings. It permits seasoned MFOers to compare and judge the merits of your superfluous assertions against my posts. I’m sure they recognize and measure the quality to these exchanges.
    I note that in your comment, you use the plural “we” when recording “our” disapproval. Given your choice of pronouns, you presume to be speaking for the bulk of the MFO community.
    To satisfy my curiosity, I wonder how you assembled this imagined cohort. Did you conduct a comprehensive and independent survey? Did Professor Snowball provide you with some statistical documentation? Or are these the rants of a lone dissenter who has an old, rusted axe to grind? I suspect the latter.
    Why you persist in your ill-conceived vendetta totally escapes me. But I still hope for your rapid and complete recovery from this wasteful malady.
    Best Wishes (sort of since my patience is thinning but my resolve is not).
  • 3 out of 4 retirees receiving reduced Social Security benefits

    http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security
    The amounts are so much higher when you wait, seems like a no-brainer if you can swing it from other resources and are unlikely to die soon.
    Check out Junkster's post above about his friend.
    Also, when computing when do take SS it isn't only what is mentioned in their article.
    When you delay taking SS; you have to take into consideration the opportunity cost of using your $ for expenses.
    So, using the schwab example, if a single person could get $2,000/mo or $24K/year from SS but use their money the interest or capital appreciation would have to be added to the years to break even.
    e.g. 10% interest = 2,400 x 5 year delay = 12,000
    Divide the 12,000 by the SS they would get per month at 67 for the number of months. Let's say 2,600. Then you have to add 4.6 months to the break even point.
    Other factors you have to take into account:
    -Opportunity cost above - compounding of int/cap gains, add more time for that? .
    -401K mandatory withdrawals, if you take SS later + you have 401K withdrawals you may pay more taxes than taking SS early + the 401K because your tax base would be lower- add more time for that?
    e.g. 600/month x 12 = 7,200 higher base x tax rate 20% =1,400/2600 = .5 month every year 15? = 7.5 months.
    4.6 opportunity cost
    .4 compounding interest
    7.5 extra taxes
    12.5 months.
    So deferring may not be financially advisable. In the Schwab example the break even is between 15-16 years - Between 77 and 78
    If you want to do the calculations I'd help in reviewing them for you.
  • Your favorite One Star (M* rated) Mutual Fund
    AIG has perked up YTD and may help FAIRX (My "silver" 1 star fund) gather some additional stars.
    What fund do you own that M* loves to hate?
  • the May issue is up
    Joe Bradley, Towle's head of client relationships and my contact with the adviser, writes: "Thanks for asking. We take pride in having a true team effort, meaning all five guys are viewed as portfolio managers rather than having an analyst/PM hierarchy you see elsewhere. We work together to build consensus around all decisions and all members of the team have input. The young guys have been there less that five years, but Peter’s been managing the portfolio with Woody for 14+ and Chris has been doing it for 20+. We believe we have refined the Towle “process” and are not dependent on any one individual."
    On the question of benches, Towle has one strategy and five guys. Huber has three strategies and six guys (four PMs, two analysts), according to the Hubercap website.
    For what interest that holds,
    David
  • 3 out of 4 retirees receiving reduced Social Security benefits
    It takes 12 years to break even if you don't take SS early, figure it out...I did....
    I have made very good use of my Gov. Checks for last 4 years 62 to 66yo, the money is well invested to make much more money (income) in the future, While late collectors 66/70 are still trying to get even.....go figure
  • 3 out of 4 retirees receiving reduced Social Security benefits
    @Crash
    As msf wrote; there are many choices. Time to get studying on all of this now. Not sure if you can have some of the supplemental coverage plans (i.e., Plan F) if you are "expat" status living in another country. And your stated $1,000 becomes $896 as a direct deposit, as Medicare part B (currently $104) will be pulled from your SS each month. Plan D, the meds/drug is another situation with many choices to help cover meds costs. Michigan has 36 vendor choices for this plan. msf also noted about delays of acceptance/choice by you of some of these plans. If you "opt out" and delay and then want Plan D in the future, you will incurr a permanent penalty which = higher rates.
    The internet is your best friend right now. All of this is available for research and study to determine what might suit your future needs.
    Not sure what your Mickey Mouse is about with this.................
  • 3 out of 4 retirees receiving reduced Social Security benefits
    Are you sure Social Security is taxed in Mass? From Mass.gov:
    21. Are Social Security benefits taxable in Massachusetts? Is the Medicare tax withheld from my Social Security benefits deductible on my return?
    Massachusetts does not tax benefits received from U.S. Social Security, Railroad Retirement (Tier I and II), Public Welfare assistance, Veterans' Administration payments or workers' compensation. Any portion of such income, which may be taxed under federal law, is not subject to Massachusetts's income tax.
    Regarding the parts of Medicare - A is hospitalization, 100% covered (once you begin SS benefits or apply if you don't claim SS benefits by age 65); B is doctor services, typically 80% covered, and you pay a premium (currently $104/mo). That premium is inflation adjusted and may be higher for high income retirees. The premium also goes up, permanently, if you don't start part B within roughly a year of eligibility (unless you're still working w/group coverage).
    D is for 'D'rugs. Since these are private insurance plans, their premiums vary, but are still subject to penalty and high income premiums like part B. And since these are nonstandardized, each insurer has a different formulary. Like employer plans, those are subject to change with little notice.
    C is Medicare Advantage. Like the group PPO/HMO plans you're familiar with, they (usually) cover everything (including drugs) but have their own networks of physicians and hospitals. So it replaces A/B/D if you use it.
    You always pay your Part B premium to Medicare (even if you take Medicare Advantage instead of vanilla Medicare parts A/B/D). Some Medicare Advantage plans charge extra (and provide extra benefits), some do not. The networks are the major drawback; IMHO the major plusses are a cap on out of pocket expenses and no additional part D (drug) premium. (Under "original" medicare, you'd need a Medicare Supplement - Medigap - plan for an out-of-pocket cap.)
    Medicare has standardized Medicare Supplemental Plans, so what one insurer offers must be the same as what another insurer offers for the same plan. These plans go by letters - too complicated to go into here. Since new Medigap plans (starting in 2020) cannot cover all your deductibles (new law), Medigap plans C and F will be changing, though no one knows exactly how yet. To that extent, MJG is correct, you cannot know the future exactly. But you can still have a pretty good idea of what's coming down the (Mass) Pike.
    Good luck.
  • The Breakfast Briefing: U.S. Time For Large Stocks Pullback?
    Looks like everything is pulling back this morning.
    Bonds in some turmoil, sending futures lower.
    Whole Foods spoiled to the tune of 11% after earnings yesterday. However, Priceline and Alibaba bearing this AM.
  • 3 out of 4 retirees receiving reduced Social Security benefits
    I was told not to wait. Take SS at 62. That source told me that if you wait until 66, it will take 8 years to make up what you left on the table, as opposed to starting at 62. I've signed into the SS.gov thing and saw my "account." At 62, I'd be due a bit over $1,000.00 per month, gross. But SS is taxed in MA. And I might just move far away where it's warm. Then there is the cost of medical insurance. This old dog does indeed consume multiple scripts. What is all this stuff about Medicare Part A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J.... ???
    ("M-I-C------ K-E-Y......... M-O-U-S-E.")
  • the May issue is up
    David -- TDVFX has piqued my interest. Any idea as to what extent they are team managed, vs. Mr. Towles (elder or younger) being the key person?
    In the SV space I've got HUSIX. I don't mind the past year's poor performance (that will happen to any true value fund now and then) but the 1.85% ER has always left me queasy. TDVFX seems like a similar fund, but with a small asset base (about half as big, including both the mutual fund and separate accounts for both fund familiies) and their 1.2% ER strikes me as reasonable. What's not to like?
    But I am increasingly wary about funds with a "great" man or woman running them, rather than a team with a deep bench. That probably is true for HUSIX too, but glancing at their website they at least have a bigger team behind Joe Huber.
  • 3 out of 4 retirees receiving reduced Social Security benefits
    Hi Catch22,
    I have few problems when discussing religion. I am a practicing Roman Catholic and am at peace with it.
    Investing is a horse of a different color. Perhaps I should have qualified my comment about supporting opinions with hard data. I was referring only to investment matters, decisions, and opinions in that instance.
    I have no quarrel with investing opinions. All investors ultimately form them and should act on them. That’s what makes a marketplace. As a general rule, I just don’t trust opinions that are offered without supporting documentation. I’m surprised that some MFOers take exception to something as basic as that rule.
    The marketplace is awash in a tsunami of statistical data. I expect that almost all investors use some portion of that data in making investment decisions. I do.
    I surely agree that investing is not all stats; it is part analytic and part gut feelings. Analyses can be overdone. Correlation is not necessarily causation. There are countless examples of chasing ghost patterns.
    Remember in the 1990s Harry Dent projected a Dow 41,000 because of a faulty population aging/spending argument. It was a badly flawed model.
    With the abundance of market data, reasonably high correlations can always be “discovered” to project future market prices.
    Remember David Leinweber’s discovery that the butter production in Bangladesh could predict 75% of the equity market’s returns. Add the Sheep population in that Country to the correlation parameters, and the correlation coefficient advances to 99%. Of course, subsequent out of sample data convincingly disproved that nonsensical correlation.
    Enough. Please attend to your paint fumes while I do the same.
    Best Wishes.
  • 3 out of 4 retirees receiving reduced Social Security benefits
    @MJG
    You noted:
    "But I don’t like just opinions that are not backstopped with applicable data and informed references."
    You must have or have had some interesting discussions involving religious beliefs and other topics where opinion may not always have solid data and informed references .....
    Fact and Opinion descriptive
    Perhaps I will withdraw from opinion(s), before causing harm. You have caused me to rethink the way I think.
    Okay. Return to breathing latex paint fumes, for me.
  • Vanguard Officially Launches Its Robo Adviser, Drops Minimum Investment To $50,000
    As a long-time Vanguard owner/customer, I would like to see them offer this kind of service with the option of paying a flat dollar amount instead of a percentage fee. I've never understood the fairness of advisers' charging ten times as much to suggest how a $1,000,000 portfolio should be invested vs. a $100,000 portfolio. In other words, I'd love to see Vanguard offer a "fee-only" service at a set flat $fee rather than % of portfolio fee. I wouldn't expect any financial services firm other than Vanguard to even consider it.
  • Suggestions for "Near-Cash"
    Here's a quora post on these bonds; it does a good job of enumerating the issuer-specific risks:
    http://www.quora.com/How-good-or-bad-an-investment-is-SolarCitys-Solar-Bonds
    These bonds are not the same as typical corporate bonds. A couple of decades ago, some corporations started selling bonds direct to the public, marketing them as CD alternatives. Instead of buying bonds on the secondary market, with market discount/premium, commissions, and accrued interest costs, small investors can buy them at issue and at par (albeit at a lower coupon rate than the bonds bought by the "big boys").
    They are (were?) known as InterNotes, DirectNotes, and a slew of lesser marketing names. You'll find the Solar City notes under InterNotes' unrated offerings.
    But they come with a downside - they're generally not marketable - you can't get out of them until they mature or default. (See Direct Purchase Notes in this LA Times article.) That's different from typical bonds that trade through networks of brokers.
    I've tended to be skeptical of these offerings - they seem to be attempts by companies to borrow from small investors when they can't borrow (at least at rates they accept) from institutional lenders. That certainly proved to be the case in 2008, when the Lehman InterNotes as well as CIT InterNotes and others went bust:
    Targeting bonds to individuals “was part of a proliferation of gimmicky devices which on the surface looked attractive but was nothing more than high-pressure marketing tools,” said Arthur Levitt, a former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
    That's not to say that all InterNotes are bad products, but that one needs to look at them closely, and ask why the issuer is borrowing through the retail market.
  • 3 out of 4 retirees receiving reduced Social Security benefits
    Hi Guys,
    My general feeling is that as a group, we are overthinking and overreacting to the SS question.
    There are far too many uncertainties and personal preferences to reach any definitive resolution. It all depends because there are to many variables and far too many uncertainties.
    One of the major uncertainties are the ever changing laws, rules, and regulations. If they don't change today, they are sure to change in the future.
    When asked to count Federal and State laws, experts conclude that it is an impossible assignment. The estimated numbers are all over the map, and are likely in the multiple tens of thousands. Additionally, a hundred more are proposed each day. Lucky for us that only 10% of these become law.
    Good luck on forecasting which of these will be on the books a decade from now. Projecting any financial SS break-even point, given these uncertainties, is an impossible task.
    I suggest we just move-on.
    Best Wishes.
  • Suggestions for "Near-Cash"
    >> Are you seriously suggesting that this poor fellow put $100,000 into a single bond offering issued by this company?
    Sure. Have you slogged through the details of many corporate bond prospectuses?
    Thanks for the official rating info, and yes, I agree it is best to forget it for someone 'very cautious, conservative' to that degree.
    >> signing away any bankruptcy rights
    Usually the case, no? I lost quite a bit of money with very safe Lehman bonds, so yeah, I am aware they're not like a bank CD.
    My thinking was that SC, with all of its contracted gov work (DoD housing), is not about to die in the next five years, Cruz or no Cruz (not gonna happen, but someone almost as bad is a possibility, I suppose).
    And not a poor fellow by my standards :)