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.
  • RPHYX downgraded by Morningstar (to three stars)
    David, so it should come down to 3 1/2 stars for both !!! LOL
    Derf
  • M *: It's Flowmageddon!
    FYI: Something big is happening.
    A striking 18 Morningstar 500 funds suffered outflows of at least 40% of assets under management in the trailing 12 months ended February 2016, 61 shed 25% or more, and 168 had outflows of 10% or more.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=747879
  • RPHYX downgraded by Morningstar (to three stars)
    Right, the change simply reflects the fact that the average high-yield bond fund made 2.5% in the first quarter while RPHYX made 1%. As it turns out, this fund has virtually nothing in common with the average high-yield fund (the correlation between the two is 0.09), so its star ratings - high or low - are perpetually misleading.
    David
  • Any thoughts on High Yield Muni Funds?
    There is something that happens with municipal bonds in the Spring--- April, May, June--- but I can't remember what it is (and from this you can infer correctly that I have only pedestrian experience with muni's). Is it peak-season for new issuance, or is it when things dry up? If the former, may want to wait and see what the quality and quantity of new issuance is, identify muni PMs whose opinions you respect and see what they think of it, etc. before committing fresh funds to the asset class. My impression is (1) HY muni has had more than a good run and is getting richly valued, and (2) HY muni has very poor liquidity, and when things go south it can have a "mind of its own" and behave quite differently than investment-grade (which is why I have avoided it).
    @DanHardy You might check out this Thornburg white paper I posted awhile back re. liquidity concerns:
    http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/16211/municipal-bond-market-risk-liquidity#latest
  • Snowball's great commentary
    A curious juxtaposition - a completely liquid MMF (even more liquid than a savings account) and a CD with a redemption fee (except at maturity).
    Personally, I prefer I-bonds to 1 year CDs. What I give up in short term liquidity (no redemptions in the first year) I gain in a better rate, inflation protection, state tax exemption, potential to defer taxes for years (until redeemed), and greater safety (theoretical only) than an FDIC-insured CD.
    - I bonds have no redemption fee once held for 5 years, so if one is expecting to roll over CDs, holding the I bond is slightly easier and more liquid over the long term.
    - The FDIC is not officially backed by the full faith and credit of the US government; savings bonds are treasury securities that have this backing.
    One can purchase $15K of I bonds/year per SSN. Current yield is 1.64%.
  • Snowball's great commentary
    Good site for best rate 1 yr CD's for those inclined. 1.33% better than 0.30%.
    https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/
  • Snowball's great commentary
    So for a declining cash nut (being used for a year or two's living expenses) of $100k, the improvement over keeping it in bank savings is just a few hundred dollars. Tough times for safe investing, for sure.
  • Any thoughts on High Yield Muni Funds?
    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/puerto-ricos-house-approves-moratorium-052018350.html
    I just saw this. I think this is priced into the market. And I think ETFs like HYD and mf like NHMAX do not have any Puerto Rico exposure.
  • Any thoughts on High Yield Muni Funds?
    Aren't you a little late to the party? They have been on a tear since January 2014. That is when they were a buying opportunity and returned in the mid to high teens. The trend continued into 2015 and remains intact YTD. If you think Treasury yields will stay low or go lower junk munis will be fine. They may even be fine if Treasury yields rise a bit here. I have about 35% in NHMRX in an overall scattered (for me) nest egg of junk corps, emerging markets debt, and bank loan. Since I have never met a rich technician I don't have much use for most technical indicators. But on a short term basis, the 14 day RSI on the junk munis (and for that matter the bank loans) is severely overbought. If oil is to continue it's move up and equities hit new all time highs I would think that junk corps and emerging market debt would be the place to be.
  • Snowball's great commentary
    Good clear questions. Let's see if I can provide equally clear answers ...
    1. Here's a three part answer:
    a) Core funds (see also answer #3 below for explanation of core accounts):
    • Vanguard gives no choice, there's only Vanguard Fed MMF (VMFXX)
    • Fidelity. Pick the highest yielding one. They're all government paper, so I don't see a great virtue in getting a pure-treasury one (unless state taxes come into play).
      • Grandfathered core funds: FDRXX was converted to a government fund[video link]; not available as a core fund for new accounts. 6x the yield of Fidelity's other options (0.06% vs. 0.01%).
      • Non-grandfathered core funds: Pick SPAAX (non-Treasury) over FZFXX (Treasury). Both yield 0.01%, but there's still a microscopic difference; last divs were $0.000008592 vs. $0.000008494.
    b) Non-core funds:
    • Vanguard: You've got a choice of two: Fed MMF (see above), and Treasury MMFVUSXX. As explained above, I'd go with non-Treasury (slightly higher yield, virtually no risk).
    • Fidelity: Cash Reserves FDRXX; as above, 6x the yield of other options.
    c) Link to outside banks:
    Internet banks yield around 1% with no redemption fees, and my experience with EFT transfers to Fidelity (at least with some banks) is that I have access in 24-48 hours, which may or may not be sufficient. Note that bank savings (and MM) accounts come with a legal requirement (Fed Regulation D) that they can hold your money for up to seven days. This rule has been around for decades.
    2. Money in a brokerage account (from sale of securities or anything else) first goes to your core account (see #3), so in this sense, the possibility of the cash "automatically" going into a non-government fund or similar is nonexistent.
    That aside, I think you're too concerned about what will happen with prime funds. Stock prices (crashing or otherwise) don't directly affect a company's ability to service its debt. If the company is sound, cash flow positive, it will be servicing its bonds regardless of what the company is worth.
    What happened with Reserve Primary Fund (breaking a buck) was a confluence of several factors, plus mass panic (bank run):
    - The fund was aggressively managed for yield and loaded up on Lehman Bros. paper, creating a single point of failure. Fidelity and especially Vanguard funds are conservatively managed.
    - The Reserve (the fund company behind Reserve Primary) did not have assets to prop up its MMFs (since these were its whole business).
    Many fund families have provided financial support to prevent their funds from breaking a buck. (NYTimes: "[In 2008 alone] big banks and fund management companies have pledged more than $10 billion to rescue affiliated money funds that were caught holding mortgage market securities that were deteriorating rapidly in value.")
    Fidelity and Vanguard certainly have the resources and motivation to do so if it comes to that.
    - Institutions started pulling money out of Reserve Primary as soon as they got a whiff of trouble, and others followed. This exacerbated the situation. The Treasury stepped in an guaranteed existing cash in MMFs (but not new cash) to stanch flows at other funds,; in 1929 FDR imposed a four day bank holiday.
    Liquidity constraints (redemption fees and redemption gating) are now in place to serve the same purpose of preserving order and liquidity. Fidelity's video on fees and gates.
    3. A core/settlement/transaction account is the place through which all your money flows. Think of it as your checking account at a brokerage. That core account may have a sweep feature, where spare cash is "swept" nightly into one or more other accounts. That could be simply for greater protection (e.g. Fidelity's sweeps into banks yield just 0.01%, even less than some of their core MMFs), or it could be for yield. The receiving account could be one or more banks, or a different MMF.
    For example, Schwab has a sweep option to move cash into MMFs. It is eliminating this option as of June 1. Your cash (i.e. your core account) will now remain as a general liability of the brokerage (Schwab One Interest, SIPC coverage), or get swept into banks. Fidelity's equivalent to Schwab One Interest is called Fidelity Cash FCASH.
    Fidelity's CMA brokerage account (here's the account agreement) will not sweep money into bank accounts if you reside outside the country. For these accounts, the cash remains a general liability of Fidelity. Similarly, some other types of accounts such as inherited IRAs cannot sweep into banks (but do provide core MMF options).
    Lots of possibilities and combinations. The basic distinction remains - core is "checking", sweep is "automatic shadow account'.
    I'd also mentioned a sweep-like feature that Fidelity provides. It will use your "position" (non-core) MMFs as sources of money for expenses (check writing, purchasing securities, etc.). Same idea as banks using savings accounts as a "checking plus" feature. So there's a sweep, but it's only one way. Here's Fidelity's video on how this works.
    4) No conspiracy theories allowed :-) The recent changes don't have any obvious effect on Treasury MMFs, so whatever they were yielding before is what they'll yield going forward. MMFs tend to charge management fees around 30-40 basis points, which is why these MMFs yield nothing. (The fund companies have been waiving fees to keep the net yields above zero.)
    If anything, the fund companies have been fighting the new regulations (as they typically fight any regulation, not appreciating that sometimes eating your vegetables is good for you). There was strong lobbying against these changes.
    5) Interesting question. I haven't looked into it.
  • Vanguard Admiral Class
    @ MFO Members: Are you aware there is a vehicle within Vanguard to convert Vanguard Investors Shares to Admiral Shares with certain qualifications.
    Regards,
    Ted
    Wondering How To Convert To Admiral Shares?:
    https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/admiral-questions-112013
  • Vanguard Admiral Class
    Through my 401k I have access to the Institutional shares at even lower expense ratios. Check out government employees who use Blackrock's index funds in their TSP accounts. Also they have similarly low ER.
  • Snowball's great commentary
    Well written well organized simple explanation of the money market changes coming in 10/2016. Depending on your risk level the sweet spot IMHO is to choose the highest yielding government only fund. Otherwise you are open to risking a 2% fee of your total MM balances.
    https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/VGMMR.pdf
  • David Snowball's April Commentary
    Hmm. I too assumed it must be plain hard, but when I just compared IWM with FLPSX and FCNTX over 1/3/5/10/15y, plus start 02 and 08, it sure looks like a piece of cake.
  • T Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund
    Mike_Martino: PRHSX is a keeper, keeper, keepper! A little background on the new manager Ziad Bakri.
    Regards,
    Ted
    T.Rowe Price Health Sciences' new manager will be Ziad Bakri, who on April 1 will join the fund as comanager. On July 1, Bakri, a medical doctor who has been a healthcare analyst at T. Rowe Price since 2011 and previously was a biotech analyst at Cowen and Co., will become the fund's sole manager. The firm also announced that it plans to hire additional team members on its healthcare research team, including a biotech analyst.
  • T Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund
    Mike: Here's a Barron's article from a year ago that offers insight into this PM. As an owner of PRHSX, I'm confident in the abilities he brings to the portfolio. JMHO.
    http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424053111904703704579507953523415572
  • DoubleLine Global Infrastructure Fund
    Thx, heezsafe for the useful info and your work on this. And your spot on re difference between this DL product vs. GLFOX, which I happen to own, as do others here. The N class BTW is BILTX.
    Concerning the fund macro, here is how the separate account strategy was constituted at the end of the 4th qtr. 2015 based on the pitch book and portfolio strategy I was able to obtain. It may offer some idea of how the OEF might be invested --FWIW.
    Portfolio Strategy
    36% project bonds
    28% structured products
    23% corp. bonds
    8% loans
    5% cash.
    Portfolio Sectors
    Electric Utilities & Power 29%
    Transportation Equipment 22%
    Renewables 14%
    Transportation 9%
    Energy 8% (E&P - Upstream Assets 23%; Pipelines - Midstream Assets 77%)
    Hospitals 7%
    Water Utilities 4%
    Telecommunications 4%
    Credit Quality
    Investment Grade 84%
    High Yield 11 %
    Cash 5%
    Geographic Region
    North America 73%
    Latin America 18%
    Western Europe 2%
    Middle East & Africa 2%
    Cash 5%
    (The geographic allocations are significantly different than that of GLFOX.)
    Keep us posted with any info you come across.
  • Snowball's great commentary
    Thanks. Combining both threads.....
    1. Which Money Market would you recommend if I choose to have a fund a)with no liquidity constraints and b)that is not required to float for both Fidelity and Vanguard?
    I assume FDRXX for Fidelity ? For example, does Vanguard Fed MM yielding 0.30% meet both of those requirements? It is not classified as prime in the link you provided.
    2. My thoughts are that if these two requirements are NOT met, that during market melt downs it is probable (for anyone selling stocks) the proceeds from the stock sale in a retail brokerage account will be placed into a MMF whereby a dollar put into that MMF might only give you back .96c. IOW's stock market distress would equal MMF distress and possibly too late to convert without taking a loss in the MMF (the investor knows at the point of sale of the stock that his MMF is in trouble too). Double whammy.
    3. What is difference between a core account and a sweep account?
    4. Usually these type changes are profitable for some unknown party with strong lobbying support. How could there be no MMF available that meets the two requirements in my #1 above that would not yield closer to the current 3 month Treasury at .29% if that treasury is supposedly the safest investment known to mankind?
    This assumes your answer to #1 provides no other option other than FDRXX at 0.03%.
    5. I would assume all 401k accounts with an Income Fund MMF option will need to add those two requirements as an option for ultra conservative investors? Some 401k's held Reserve Fund in 2008-09 as their supposedly safe Income Fund option when they broke the buck. Reserve ended up eating the loss but for some time it was undecided which party was going to take the loss. Bad business.