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.
  • Stock Buybacks Are Hurting Us
    It's all very easy to dismiss an article such as that by suggesting that it is "rife with political undertones" and "considering the source". Such emotional responses do more to suggest that the article may be worth consideration than not.
    If in fact there are "political overtones", does that then automatically negate each and every point made in the article? Since when do "political overtones" equate to an accusation of falsehood? That article seemed to me to have plenty of references which could be fairly easily checked for accuracy.
    How about a proper rebuttal based on an examination of the premises of the article, or the introduction of contrary opinions based upon other references?
    "the shift toward stock-based compensation helped drive the rise of the 1 percent by inflating the ratio of CEO-to-worker compensation from twenty-to-one in 1965 to about 300-to-one today" True or not?
    "Labor’s steadily falling share of GDP has inevitably depressed consumer demand, resulting in slower economic growth." True or not?
    "Over the past decade, the companies that make up the S&P 500 have spent an astounding 54 percent of profits on stock buybacks." True or not?
    "Federal spending on economically crucial research and development has plummeted 40 percent, from 1.25 percent of GDP in 1977 to only 0.75 percent today." True or not?
    "Adjusted for inflation, public university tuition—once mostly covered by the states—has more than doubled over the past 30 years, burying recent graduates under $1.2 trillion in student debt." True or not?
    "Wealth concentration at the top is not good for the nation as a whole." True or not?
  • Stock Buybacks Are Hurting Us
    This will be a flash-point for debate, I am sure.
    It's rife with political undertones and speculation of conspiracies regarding re-distribution of wealth.
    I recently enjoyed a conversation with a former Boeing executive about their lack of cap-ex...of not spending their free cash flow on new projects and attendant detriment to surrounding communities.
    I consider Boeing (commercial) one of the greatest business entities of all time.
    John Newhouse's 1982 book "The Sporty Game" describes how companies like Boeing “bet the company” every time they develop a new commercial aircraft.
    An amazing book!
    CEOs have a responsibility to invest their cash in projects that will increase return on capital...and if they can't, to give it back to shareholders. That shows fiduciary responsibility, no?
    How about this, if the free cash went to dividends instead of share buy-backs, would that be more egalitarian?
    This is a scary road to start going down.
  • Vanguard Readies ‘Ultra-Short-Term’ Bond Mutual Fund
    @Catch
    TRBUX actually returned .51% to investors over the past year.
    The .35% ER is the result of a fee waiver. Otherwise, it would be .49%
    Since the one year "yield" is posted as .66%, I'm not sure how they managed to return that .51% after expenses. Magic? Or perhaps a bit of capital appreciation.
    By contrast, their Prime Reserve money market fund returned only .01% to investors over the past year,
    I see two reasons for these funds coming out at this time.
    First, they may forsee a rising rate environment (which Catch alludes to) in which even short-term bond funds will experience the size losses that conservative investors won't want to bear. Such an environment is, of course, alien to anyone under the age of 40 or 45.
    Second, they want to gain experience running what is essentially a floating NAV money market fund, as the SEC has been pushing them to move in this direction with their traditional money market funds.
  • WBMIX Expenses
    The fund had a terrible 2014 indeed.
    Under-performed across the board...against peers and benchmark...against cash and bonds and SP500.
    Basically, seemed to get everything wrong.
    Working with them to get an updated perspective...the fund just past its 3-year mark...rates only 3 stars from M* and only 2 from us, quantitatively.
    I'm starting to develop this expectation, probably unfair, that it's ok if long-short does not make money in an off year, but it's not allowed to lose money.
    I guess I want them to behave like diodes.
    c
  • Vanguard Readies ‘Ultra-Short-Term’ Bond Mutual Fund
    Fidelity has had this one, FCONX since March of 2011 (when interest rates were going to increase :) ); but it is too expensive at .40 ER, which wipes out the yield currently at, .20%, 30 day SEC yield.
    Negative cash flow like some of the central banks, eh?
    Fido fund view link
  • Stock Buybacks Are Hurting Us
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/kill-stock-buyback-to-save-the-american-economy/385259/
    This article from The Atlantic goes a long way to helping understand how a seemingly innocuous rule change in 1982 has resulted in billions of dollars being diverted from the economy and from the pockets of the other 99%. Wealth concentration at the top is not good for the nation as a whole.
  • Vanguard Readies ‘Ultra-Short-Term’ Bond Mutual Fund
    "Vanguard will launch with two share classes: the “Investor” class (VUSFX) will sport of ratio of 0.2% and an initial investment of $3,000; Vanguard’s “Admiral” share class (VUSFX) will carry a 0.12% expense ratio and a minimum investment of $50,000."
    -
    Interesting. Price came out with same concept two-three years ago. I own TRBUX and was surprised to see tonight that its ER Is only .35%. Vanguard wins on cost - but not by much.
    Minimums appear similar. At Price it's $2500 for a regular account and $1,000 for an IRA.
    I realize folks won't be pounding a path in the ground racing to get into these things at current rates. Currently, TRBUX yields only slightly more than a money market fund - or effectively nothing.
  • Vanguard Readies ‘Ultra-Short-Term’ Bond Mutual Fund
    FYI: Vanguard Group on Tuesday rolled out a low-cost, short-term bond mutual fund its says will thread the needle between safety and yield.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/02/10/vanguard-readies-ultra-short-term-bond-mutual-fund/tab/print/
  • 6 Best Bond Funds To Buy Now
    FYI: With rate hikes looming, bond investing is no picnic. Our picks will protect your assets.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=13241
  • Vanguard Energy ETF Will Ride Energy Rebound Up
    FYI: If you're brave, investing in this broad-based sector fund will prove rewarding when oil prices stop falling.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=13243
  • Guinness Atkinson call highlights
    It came up in a late question. Roughly, "forever."
    Two keys: (1) GAINX was the guys' initiative in response to their CIO's challenge to design a winning strategy, so they're personally committed to it and (2) there's $120 million in the European version of the strategy, so it's financially viable. Both the US and European versions are run by the same adviser, so the US assets in the growth strategy keep the smaller European growth fund going and vice versa.
    Hope that helps,
    David
  • WBMIX Expenses
    msf as usual is on target.
    I recall that up until about 10 years ago, long-short funds hid the interest they paid on short sales by adding it to brokerage costs rather than including it the (much more visible) expense ratio. New SEC reporting requirements put a stop to that practice and mandated those costs be included in the ER.
    The net result was an "overnight" jump of around 1% (give or take) in the reported ERs for these funds. (I tried to find that ruling but could not.) The fund companies, as you might expect, objected.
    An ER of 2-2.5% on a fund that routinely shorts equities is not unusual. If I liked the fund, I'd consider that reasonable for these funds.
  • WBMIX Expenses
    Mrc70, you may want to take a look at QLEIX which has a prospectus ER of 1.39%.
    Kevin
  • WBMIX Expenses
    The figures that Ted quotes (accurately, that is what Whitebox states on its website) are wrong. The website states that this is as of the date of the current prospectus, but these figures are from last year's (2014's) prospectus.
    The figures from the current (2015) prospectus are much more reasonable. "Other operating expenses" (the real culprit, and the real unknown) have dropped by 43 basis points (from 0.68% to 0.25%).
    Carrying costs for the short sales ("dividend and interest expense") dropped 12 basis points, but that's more a matter of how much of the fund is invested short vs. long, and of general market interest rates than it is any particular efficiency in the fund.
    The management fee is 1.0% - probably normal for this type of fund (I don't look at these often). And the acquired fund expenses are minimal.
    The reason why this fund looks expensive is because it is shorting a lot. Those ETF top holdings that JohnChisum referred to? They're mostly shorts, and M* shows the fund is around 210% short (and 310% long, including cash). That's what accounts for that 1%+ in carrying costs. The idea of leverage or shorting is that you make more on the borrowing (of the security in the case of shorting) than it costs you. So many people discount this part of the expense ratio.
    As Paul Harvey would say, "and that's the rest of the story."
  • How WisdomTree's Hot ETF Doubled To $10B In 8 Weeks
    FYI: Savvy ETF investors have tuned in to the mammoth stimulus programs in Europe and Japan.
    As a result, currency-hedged exchange traded funds tracking those region's equities are on fire.
    Few more so than WisdomTree Europe Hedged Equity (ARCA:HEDJ). It ballooned from just shy of $500 million in assets in October 2013 to $5.63 billion in December 2014. In this young year, it has grabbed an additional $4 billion in assets, taking its total to $9.69 billion.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg5NTE2MTQ=
    Enlarged Graphic;
    http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBetf021015a.jpg&docId=738562&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=691&caption=&id=738608
    M* Snapshot Of HEDJ: http://etfs.morningstar.com/quote?t=HEDJ
    HEDJ Is Ranked #12 In The (ER) ETF Fund Category By U.S. Nrws & World Report:
    http://money.usnews.com/funds/etfs/european-region-funds/wisdomtree-europe-hedged-equity-fund/hedj
  • Many Marketfield Investors Say Enough
    We owned this fund from almost its beginning, given Aronstein's track record and his innate sense of global macro themes. It did what we expected of it through third quarter of 2013, then it just went off the tracks. Aronstein admits they did not control their risk parameters. The fund was often early on its calls, but they were almost always proven right. Hard to put a finger on exactly what happened, but it is hard to overlook the takeover by Mainstay and the nearly quadrupling of assets from 2012-2013, driven by brokerage houses quick to jump on a hot fund. Given the kinds of macro themes the fund targeted, it seems that it would be difficult to employ cash in a fund that went from $882 million in 2011, to $4 billion in 2012, to almost $16 billion in 2013. Of course that is no longer a problem with the funds assets at $6 billion and dropping. Fortunately, most of our accounts in MFLDX were long-time and had some very nice gains. Notice I say HAD. After extensive reviews, including listening to management, we decided our original thesis for owning the fund was no longer valid. The fund is certainly capable of turning things around, but it no longer fit our risk parameters. Seldom have I seen a great fund implode quite like this one, but I have to wonder if performance would have been different had the fund remained independent.
  • WBMIX Expenses
    @Carefree: A very expensive and poor performing turkey turkey ! Here is some information from Whitebox Website regarding expenses.
    Regards,
    Ted
    As of the date of the Fund’s current prospectus, the gross expense ratios of the Fund’s Investor Shares and Institutional Shares were 3.10% and 2.85%, respectively (including dividend and interest expense on short sales and acquired fund fees and expenses), and 1.93% and 1.68%, respectively (excluding dividend and interest expense on short sales and acquired fund fees and expenses). Whitebox Advisors LLC has contractually agreed through at least February 28, 2015 to limit total Fund operating expenses (excluding dividend and interest expense on short sales and acquired fund fees and expenses) to no more than 1.60% and 1.35% of the Fund’s Investor Shares and Institutional Shares, respectively. If dividend and interest expense on short sales and acquired fund fees and expenses were included, such net expense ratios through February 28, 2015 are estimated to be 2.77% and 2.52%, respectively.
    Exchange-Traded Funds. In addition to bearing Fund expenses, shareholders indirectly bear the expenses of the underlying ETFs in which the Fund invests
  • Janus Unconstrained Fund Attracts Least Net New Money Since Bill Gross Took Over
    FYI: Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund attracted an estimated $85.6 million in net new money in January, the lowest amount since Pacific Investment Management Co.'s former investment chief Bill Gross took over as manager in October.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150209/FREE/150209919?template=printart