Range-bound portfolio. Anyone else? Comparing notes @crashI cannot say there is a lot of rhyme my reason. I have always gravitated to value metrics, but have been burned many times for refusing "pay up" for stocks with high PEs. Using some of the classic "Value funds" over the years has precipitated some blow ups too especially with funds that remained concentrated in one bad position.
A 50/50 value/growth spilt would have been much more productive.
We have used the advisor for three years and other than the fact we disagree on selling a a stock down 25 to 30%, I am reasonably pleased with his "Buffet light" approach. It is well articulated and he knows the companies very very well. WIth a current P/S ratio 2/3s of market an P/FCF 50% of market, it is hopefully more resistant to the upcoming downturn. HEmanages about 45% of our equities. BKB.B is another
17%
With this as a base, I chose my own other more growth oriented ideas. I am convinced for example that inflation will be sticky and energy use will be driven by electricity demand and industrials will respond to global warming mitigation ( and repair efforts). Thus we are overweight Energy and Utilities and Industrials.
I am content plodding along, without huge gainsor big losses. I would reduce our equity % some more, but I hate paying taxes.
Seafarer Funds has filed a registration to offer retail class of its funds "A few families refuse to pay even the 10 basis points charged for TF funds."
Dodge & Cox and Vanguard have refused to "pay to play."
There are probably some other fund families that have also taken this stance.
Seafarer Funds has filed a registration to offer retail class of its funds The fees are definitely significant. A few families refuse to pay even the
10 basis points charged for TF funds. This is why Schwab and Fidelity have started charging TFs of
$74.95 and
$100 respectively for a few fund families such as Vanguard.
Most TF funds pay Schwab an annual asset-based fee, typically 0.10% annually of the average fund assets held at Schwab, although the fee can range up to 0.25% annually.
...
Most NTF funds pay Schwab's standard OneSource/NTF fund fee of 0.40% per year; however, the annual fee can range up to 0.45% of the fund assets held at Schwab.
...
The information on this website was last updated May 1, 2024 and is subject to change without advance notice.
https://www.schwab.com/legal/financial-and-other-relationships#panel--text-49651
Seafarer Funds has filed a registration to offer retail class of its funds For some reason, I thought Schwab and Fidelity typically charged ~25 bps for shelf space in their fund supermarkets. A 35 bps - 45 bps fee is a significant percentage of most mutual funds' expense ratios.
The median expense ratios for equity mutual funds, hybrid mutual funds, and bond mutual funds were
1.0
1%,
1.05%, and 0.72% respectively in 2023. The asset-weighted average expense ratios for equity
mutual funds, hybrid mutual funds, and bond mutual funds were 0.42%, 0.58%, and 0.37% respectively in 2023.
Please refer to Figure 2 (Tab 2) of the Excel spreadsheet below for additional information.
http://www.ici.org/info/per30-02-data.xlsx
Seafarer Funds has filed a registration to offer retail class of its funds Seafarer may be creating this Retail share class to replace its Investor class shares. SFGIX has been closed since Sept 30, 2016.
The Investor class was the class sold NTF. It carries a 0.15% fee to pay for the shelf space. Not as a 12b-1 fee. Funds can add these charges in other ways. Seafarer adds it as a "service plan" fee. Other funds burry these charges even deeper, adding them to the catchall bucket of "other fund expenses."
The retail shares will retain the 0.15% service fee and add an additional 0.20% 12b-1 fee for a total of 0.35%. It thus circumvents the expectation that one won't pay more than 0.25% in extra expenses for an NTF no-load share class.
This is not surprising as supermarkets like Schwab and Fidelity typically charge 35-40 basis points for shelf space. In its own way, Seafarer is to be commended for stating these fund expenses explicitly.
