I'm watching Gilead... maybe at 105?

Gilead Sciences earnings: $3.15 a share, vs $2.71 a share expected
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/28/gilead-sciences-earnings-.html
Reports Q2 (Jun) earnings of $3.15 per share, $0.44 better than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of $2.71; revenues rose 25.8% year/year to $8.22 bln vs the $7.59 bln consensus. Also raises guidance for FY15 product sales.

A few months old? It's 115 years old (since 1900) :-)
Don't know what use to make of it, but you're right that it looks like a fun read. A very brief skim turned up the fact that the US and France are the most diversified nations (by sectors), and that the Vice Fund did very nicely. I'm wondering what Morocco's sole industry is (phosphates?)

And..........Why we do what we do.
The Power of Habit book
Use the MFO Amazon link to purchase.
Regards,
Catch

Did you answer this? I missed it.
>> I am in no mood for ... even a 1.5% or 2% decline.
So how do you equity-invest at all if you do not ever want to see a 1.5% decline ?

That's a 1.5% to 2% decline in my total account balance. So I keep no more than 5% to 10% of overall capital in equities. I am primarily a bond fund trader and there you can control your drawdown much more than individual equities.

Did you answer this? I missed it.
>> I am in no mood for ... even a 1.5% or 2% decline.
So how do you equity-invest at all if you do not ever want to see a 1.5% decline ?

For those of us fascinated by taking a long-term view of markets and enjoy crunching numbers, this report has a lot of great info:https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=AE924F44-E396-A4E5-11E63B09CFE37CCB
In some cases return numbers in the report go back to the year 1900. I'm not sure if anyone posted it before as it is a few months old, so I apologize if it is redundant.

UK's 18 JUL 2015 The Guardian contains an excellent and fascinating interview with Daniel Kahneman by David Shariatmadari.
LINK http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/18/daniel-kahneman-books-interview

[Daniel Kahneman] with his long-time collaborator Amos Tversky, who died in 1996, delineated the biases that warp our judgment, from figuring out if we can trust a prospective babysitter to buying and selling shares. In 2002 he was awarded the Nobel prize in economics, a testament to the boundary-busting nature of his research...

The next problem on his list is “noise”, or random variability: the fact that different people in the same situation make very different judgments. Random error is a very different phenomenon from the systematic biases he’s been studying for several decades. It’s the kind of error you can’t reliably predict.

Hi @Junkster
Not unlike any investor, I/we don't like to give back any money.
Had a decent YTD as of last Saturday. That value is taking a bit of a beating since last Friday. But, money (rates/bonds) is still very cheap for borrowing and I feel some equity areas will still be the areas into which the money will continue to run. We don't have any direct exposure, at this time; to Asia area. China.....well, not sure how to gauge that market; as how does one know what is real and what is government support? A whole different form of government QE! So, with fingers crossed; we will remain with the following for today.......
Pretty much a full rotation from 3 years ago for percentages for our portfolio. Broad U.S. equity is so-so, eh?; U.S. real estate is improving, but rough YTD and bonds mostly flat YTD. The support for our portfolio currently, has been from healthcare and Europe.
Below is our current mix.
---68% equity
---22% bonds
Of the equity mix: 42% is health related equity, 25% is blend caps U.S., 20% international and 13% U.S. real estate.
Equity funds:
HEDJ (Wisdomtree hedged Europe, a lot GB, Germany, France and a bet on a continued weakening Euro and improving economies)
FHLC (Fid. health etf)
FSPHX (Fid. select health)
PRHSX (TR Price health)
VIIIX (Vanguard Total U.S. index)
ITOT (I-shares, U.S. market)
GPROX (Granduer Peak)
DPRRX (U.S. real estate)
BRUIX (U.S. real estate)
FRIFX (U.S. real estate...50/50 equity bonds)
Bond funds:
BAGIX (investment grade mostly, similar to Pimco PTTRX)
DGCIX (Delaware bond, mixed)
FBNDX (Fid. I.G. bonds)
Stocks:
DPLO (IPO purchase last October) 30 year old private speciality pharmacy. I/we were very much aware of the quality of management.
ABC (AmerisourceBergen-pharma/medical items distribution, now veterinary, too,etc.)
Reporting from the end of a half sawn investment tree branch and hoping for no big winds to rock the tree.
Catch

@junkster:
Worst since '08? It may turn out to be. Still 5 months to go. But it's certainly a strange year. My best year since '08 was +29% in '09. The subsequent worst was +1.2% in '11. Currently, I'm off -1.5% YTD.
I've always kept a foot in the Dollar sensitive areas like commodities, NR, international bonds and foreign currencies. Those are dragging me down this year.
As a benchmark of sorts, I use Price's Balanced Retirement Fund, TRRIX, (formerly Retirement Income). It's a well-mannered well managed fund (generally 40/60) which I think suitable for someone a decade or so into retirement. It's also having a lackluster year, up just 1% YTD.

I'm watching Gilead... maybe at 105?

I sent email to Jaffe; he responded that he's working on a correction for the open end funds.
I also questioned his statement that all of the Donald's Baron funds had "fee levels" above average. His response was that if you compare the Baron funds against the dollar weighted average of all equity funds, they are indeed all high, including the institutional shares.
M* says that Baron's EM fund, institutional class BEXIX, has below average expenses. Using Jaffe's metric (0.70%), virtually all actively managed EM funds are pricey, including Vanguard's actively managed EM fund VMMSX. Its ER of 0.96% puts it 1/3 above "average" cost by this metric!
(I've sent a followup email to Jaffe; I do not expect a response since Barons funds are in general expensive, even if Trump happened to buy a moderately priced one.)

I am up 4.42% YTD and on track for my worst year since 2008. Not sure that is isolated to me or others are also struggling. I take no solace in the fact my return is higher than many of the market indexes as my goal is to consistently compound my capital and not to shadow or beat any particular market index. I haven't a clue how the rest of the year will unfold. I think China is simply an excuse for an already overall sick market. But as we have seen, at least since 2008, rallies seem to come when the markets have looked the sickest. At my age and financial situation I am in no mood for any drawdown in my total nest egg - even a 1.5% or 2% decline. Then again I was never in the mood for any drawdown, young or old. So all I hold (for the moment) are three very small equity positions in small cap biotech and a bank loan fund. Junk corporates have performed especially poorly lately in part because of the decline in oil prices. On the other hand, junk munis are suddenly looking inviting again.

Congratulations ! You are doing very well given the current environment. I'm up about 1.5% YTD and that's a fairly conservative portfolio. For junk munis, I do own PRFHX. I also hold ZEOIX which is holding up nicely. My other bond funds are a mixed bag with most hovering around the flatline for YTD.

My worst investment ever was buying Janus Global Technology around 1997. You know what happened after that...

Hi Guys,
Although I declined MikeM’s offer to participate in his study … his post did encourage me to take a quick look at my income sleeve and see how the respective funds held compared to their standard. I used Morningstar data for the noted time period for $10,000 invested for each fund held within the sleeve. I am not saying that this is a perfect study … but, it did provide some interesting information I thought I’d share with the board.
FUND ... AMOUNT ... STANDARD ... AMOUNT ... PERIOD
GIFAX ... $12,575 ... Bank Loan ... $12,050 ... 3 yr
LALDX ... $15,640 ... Short Term Bond ... $12,720 ... 10 yr
LBNDX ... $19,295 ... High Yield Bond ... $17,790 ... 10 yr
NEFZX ... $19,840 ... Multi Sector Bond ... $16,250 ... 10 yr
THIFX ... $15,625 ... Short Term Bond ... $12,720 ... 10 yr
TSIAX ... $16,640 ... Multi Sector Bond ... $14,525 ... 5 yr
Sleeve's Total $99,615 ... Standard's Total $86,055 ... Hypo Amount Invested $60,000
It appears that all the funds currently held out performed their standard for the period noted and with this the sleeve’s total was greater and out performed the standard’s total.
I admit, this is a down and dirty quick review and your findings might differ from my findings. It is what it is.
Old_Skeet

>> At my age and financial situation I am in no mood for any drawdown in my total nest egg - even a 1.5% or 2% decline.
How do you invest meaningfully at all?
Or did you, given your next sentence.

I am up 4.42% YTD and on track for my worst year since 2008. Not sure that is isolated to me or others are also struggling. I take no solace in the fact my return is higher than many of the market indexes as my goal is to consistently compound my capital and not to shadow or beat any particular market index. I haven't a clue how the rest of the year will unfold. I think China is simply an excuse for an already overall sick market. But as we have seen, at least since 2008, rallies seem to come when the markets have looked the sickest. At my age and financial situation I am in no mood for any drawdown in my total nest egg - even a 1.5% or 2% decline. Then again I was never in the mood for any drawdown, young or old. So all I hold (for the moment) are three very small equity positions in small cap biotech and a bank loan fund. Junk corporates have performed especially poorly lately in part because of the decline in oil prices. On the other hand, junk munis are suddenly looking inviting again.

Hi Guys,
Rick Ferri completely agrees with MikeM’s observation that increasing the number of actively managed funds in any fund category lowers the likelihood of positive Alpha (excess returns) in that category.
According to studies completed by Ferri, investors who hold multiple actively managed mutual funds in categories are swimming against the tide. Their odds of besting a single Index strategy decreases as the number of their active positions and the time length of those positions increases.
Two overarching experimental factors contribute to Ferri’s conclusions. First, the percentage of actively managed funds that outdistance their Index benchmarks is typically below 50% for any given year, and that percentage drops with increasing years. Second, for those few funds that generate temporary Alpha, the positive outperformance is substantially less than the negative Alpha registered by those funds that fail to match the Index hurdle. It’s a double whammy.
Fund managers are smart folks, but selection and timing talents are overwhelmed by fees and costs.
Here is a Link to the whitepaper by Rick Ferri that makes “The Case for Index Fund Portfolios” based on extensive Monte Carlo simulations:
http://www.rickferri.com/WhitePaper.pdf
Ferri identified 3 Passive Portfolio Multipliers (PPM) in terms of returns enhancements: (1) Combining Index funds in a portfolio improves the odds of outperforming actively managed funds, (2) As time expands, the odds shift even more favorably towards Indexing, and (3) Increasing the number of actively managed funds in any asset class also increases the likelihood of Index outperformance.
This last finding directly addresses the issues discussed in this MFO exchange. The statistics are not attractive for those folks who hold multiple actively managed funds in various asset classes. Those studies are imperfect, but they are fairly constructed, honestly executed, and tell a compelling story.
The Monte Carlo simulations do not say it can not be done; in fact, they say it can be done. But the odds are long.
Ferri ran 6 different portfolio construction scenarios. In one of those scenarios, he limited the actively managed fund universe to funds whose costs were below the category average. Results improved, but the Index portfolios still outdistanced their active rivals.
An Index portfolio guarantees Index returns. Adding active elements, even one element, degrades the likelihood of delivering those Index rewards. If you feel you have an edge with one superior actively managed fund why not just invest with that agency? Mixing it with an Index product only dilutes the perceived advantage.
Portfolio diversity works, but there are limits. The law of diminishing returns comes into play. A long, long time ago, market wizards concluded that equity diversity in the US was asymptotically reached when the individual stock holdings approached the 40 level.
Holding 40 or more mutual funds surely does not add to diversity; it contributes complexity. I’m sure reasons exist for such complex portfolios, but diversity is not one of them. Holding so many funds is equivalent to holding the entire marketplace, except at an added cost penalty.
Ferri’s work reaches conclusions that are similar to a small number of earlier studies by researchers like Allan Roth. The odds are that the mixed portfolios, even if they include some Index holdings, will underperform a pure Index portfolio.
To misapply the words of Gertrude Stein: “There is no there, there”.
For the record, I currently hold a mix of both passively managed and actively managed funds. Over time, I am gravitating towards a higher fraction of Index positions. I do plan to keep some actively managed products. Sometimes, hope trumps logic.
Best Wishes.

@MFO Members: Short term IWIRX has had it's troubles, but longer-term 3, 5, and 10 years, the fund has been in the 2, 2, and 1 percentile over those periods of time. I recommend holding this fund. U.S. News & World Report ranks it #3 in the (WS) Fund Category.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-stock/guinness-atkinson-global-innovators-fund/iwirx

Contrary indicator Dennis Gartman is mildly bearish...in laughingstock terms: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/27/dennis-gartman-changes-his-mind-on-us-stocks.html

"All of Trump’s open-end mutual funds are from the Baron Funds, a mid-sized fund family headed by the audacious Ron Baron."
Well, sort of. His six 7-figure fund holdings ($1M-$5M each) are Baron funds. But aside from smaller Baron fund holdings, he also holds (albeit through brokerage accounts) positions in Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund ($1K-$15K, couldn't tell you the share class - VHDYX or VYM), AEDYX ($500K - $1M), and JHYIX ($100K - $250K)
He also owns a vanilla closed end fund - GGN ($100K - $250K), and some vanilla ETFs, including DBEU ($250K - $500K), DBJP ($100K - $250K), EPP ($50K - $100K).
It's all there if you skim just nine pages (37-45), instead of stopping at page 37 where the Baron funds appear.
Regarding the wealthy investing in bonds - I recall seeing Suze Orman saying that her portfolio is comprised entirely of Treasuries. (That was a long time ago, memory could be faulty, her investments may have changed, but it is consistent with adage Lewis quoted.)
It's also interesting to look at some of Trump's sources of income. Three speaking engagements for $450K each (makes Clinton look like a bargain at $250K). 'Course Trump only got three of those paychecks - he didn't do too much more speaking, and got lower fees for the other performances. He's also getting a six figure pension from SAG (Screen Actors Guild). All on p. 30.