It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The cheaper TIBIX share class can be purchased (with a TF) in a Fidelity IRA with a $2500 min. It can be worth the fee if you're planning to hold the fund for a few years. And via Fidelity's automatic investment system, it should be possible to buy additional shares with just a $5 fee.Global hybrids are difficult to find. Two good ones are SGENX & TIBAX, both no-load/NTF at Fido & Schwab. TIBAX also has an unleveraged CEF cousin TBLD that can be bought anywhere.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-with-morningstar-fund-ratings/Obviously, the past three years account for 30 percent of the past ten years, which means that they account for 15 percent of the overall rating (30 percent X 50 percent). They account for 18 percent of the five-year rating (60 percent X 30 percent); and 100 percent of the three-year rating. Sum them all up, and we find that the past three years account for 53 percent of a fund's overall long-term rating.
You pick one trading day out of 2800+ and I'm the one cherry picking?>> what have you done lately
? SCHD longterm performance shows this is, again, a rather misleading way to put it.
>> Had you looked at the same figures at another point in time,
sure, cherrypick away
I'm looking not at SCHD, but the difference in annual returns between the two funds. This has got little to do with volatility of either component, but of volatility of their correlation.>> that we can expect, or at least hope for, another huge year (relatively speaking) for SCHD in the future? One that will make up for its typical slightly underperforming years?
and now you make it sound like SCHD is more this volatile / Heebnerlike instrument.
For true buy & hold types, the argument for SCHD over SP500 is clear: SCHD has nontrivially outperformed 10/5/3/1y. (A flip occurred 4mos ago.) For those who fancy themselves slightly more conservative or at least 'non-volatilist', a second argument for SCHD is clear. For preservation Lipper gives SCHD 5* and FXAIX/IVV 4*. MFOP gives Great Owl status to both (interestingly, FXAIX/IVV is on the honor roll too, and not SCHD) but shows SCHD's UI to be ~50%-75% of SP500, depending on time period.Over the long term they do slightly better than FXAIX
Do they do any better, or are you just looking relative to a particular moment in time (i.e. now)? Comparing their three year rolling cumulative returns by calendar years (e.g. Jan 2019-Dec 2021), the figures (from M* charts) are:2020-2022 '19-'21 '18-'20 '17-'19 '16-'18 '15-'17 '14-'16 '13-'15 '12-'14 '11-'13Over its lifetime (July 1, 2014 through Feb 10, 2023), CDC has done slightly worse than FXAIX, returning a cumulative 138.04% vs FXAIX's 143.78%.
FXAIX 24.75% 100.32% 48.80% 53.10% 30.38% 38.28% 29.02% 52.54% 74.51% 56.77%
SCHD 44.56% 90.14% 38.51% 45.45% 32.84% 40.22% 29.53% 48.09% 65.32% 56.42%
CDC 38.27% 78.90% 27.03% 30.48% 31.78% 38.76% - - - -
More importantly, all the cumulative figures ending Dec 31, 2022 are significantly skewed by FXAIX's sizeable underperformance in 2022 relative to the other funds: -18.13% vs -3.23% (SCHD) or -7.76% (CDC). (FXAIX has done better so far this year.)
I'm not knocking any of these funds, and I can certainly see the point in suggesting dividend oriented funds to someone who has been focused on cash returns. It's just that there's a tendency for people to look at "what have you done for me lately" even when trying not to - sometimes it's baked into the numbers.
It's not like the old days, when a Sunday paper could clock in at 12 pounds. These days it seems that I can fold the entire Sunday NYTimes.
I guess I could try switching to physical NYT and Washington Post but the amount of paper we would have to take to the landfill weekly is overwhelming
There's a typo. It should be -47.83%.
2013 -48.83%
2014 -15.39%
2015 -23.14%
https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2020/33-10814.pdfWe request comment on the proposed scope of disclosure for the annual report, including the following: ...
4. A fund may have multiple share classes with differing fee structures. Should these multi-class funds be permitted to reflect only one or a subset of classes, rather than all share classes in a shareholder report so long as a fund produces a shareholder report that relates to each share class? Would such an approach reduce the complexity of the disclosure and provide more-tailored information that is specific to a shareholder’s investment in the fund? Or, conversely, would such a requirement not benefit shareholders? For example, could it reduce shareholders’ ability to compare classes of a fund? Should there be limits on the number or types of classes that a single annual report may cover to reduce potential complexity or length? For example, should we prohibit an annual report transmitted to retail shareholders from including disclosure related to a fund’s institutional class? Are there potential complexities or burdens associated with such an approach? Please explain.
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-09-20/s70920-8204376-227513.pdfSeeing [multiple share class] information could, for example, cause the investor to question why they are invested in shares that carry higher costs or suffer poorer performance relative to other available share classes.
...
We are therefore at least preliminarily opposed to the idea ...of permitting funds to reflect only a subset of share classes in a shareholder report. Despite our initial skepticism, we believe this approach is worth testing to see whether it results in a better investor experience. If testing demonstrates that limiting the number of share classes reported on in a single report offers benefits that outweigh the potential downsides, the Commission should proceed accordingly. However, ...
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-09-20/s70920-8204356-227509.pdfWe support the Commission proposing a rule that creates a new streamlined shareholder report with key information and provides funds with an alternative way to keep shareholders informed instead of delivering annual prospectus updates to existing shareholders. We believe this approach furthers the Commission’s goal to address the concern that shareholder report and prospectus disclosures may appear redundant or inconsistent to shareholders, as well as the belief that prospectus disclosures in particular may often be less relevant to the informational needs of a shareholder who is simply monitoring his or her fund investments. However...
@catch22, profit taking - interesting only for a small gain. Bond market this year is quite volatile even in high quality bonds including treasuries and IG bonds. I left the bond sector since fall 2021 and bought back some % this year with the yields being more attractive at about 4%. Still trying to better understand the bond volatility and opportunities to make some gain this year.For the w/e Feb. 3, LQD was +5.2%, HYG was +4.25% and AGG was +3.17%, YTD. This past week found these 3 cut in half for YTD performance. A serious 'hair cut'.
2020-2022 '19-'21 '18-'20 '17-'19 '16-'18 '15-'17 '14-'16 '13-'15 '12-'14 '11-'13Over its lifetime (July 1, 2014 through Feb 10, 2023), CDC has done slightly worse than FXAIX, returning a cumulative 138.04% vs FXAIX's 143.78%.
FXAIX 24.75% 100.32% 48.80% 53.10% 30.38% 38.28% 29.02% 52.54% 74.51% 56.77%
SCHD 44.56% 90.14% 38.51% 45.45% 32.84% 40.22% 29.53% 48.09% 65.32% 56.42%
CDC 38.27% 78.90% 27.03% 30.48% 31.78% 38.76% - - - -
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
