5 is the coolest of these imo , makes the convertible thing look special in these guys’ hands

Using a few pre-defined periods as per MFO, here are some APR stats
(1)CV19 Bear(Bear 6): 202001 - 202003
FAYZX: -10.9
FPURX: -11.3
ANNPX: -11.5
JABAX: - 11.6
PRWCX: -12.0
(2)GFC Bear(Bear 5): 200711 - 200902
JABAX: - 16.6
ANNPX: -26.0
PRWCX: -28.9
FPURX: -30.0
(3)Dec '18 Selloff: 201812 - 201812
FAYZX: -3.4
ANNPX: -4.4
PRWCX: -4.6
JABAX: - 4.7
(4)Rising Rates: 200406 - 200702
PRWCX: 12.8
ANNPX: 11.7
FPURX: 10.4
JABAX: 9.8
(5)Full Cycle 5: 200711: 201912
PRWCX: 9.1
ANNPX: 8.3
JABAX: 7.9
FPURX: 6.9
(6)Full Cycle 6: 202001: 202112
ANNPX: 28.1
VONE: 23.6
FPURX: 19.7
PRWCX: 18.3
JABAX: 15.6

Looking at stock alternatives.....A chart that shows some of what's worked and what hadn't worked through the third week of the year.

From: BDC Market Weekly Review

Thanks for your response.
Based on your stats, ANNPX performance has indeed been excellent for the 3 Yr. / 5 Yr. periods.

I agree VONE is not in the same asset class as ANNPX. I compared them based on the list of funds in David's comment. My comment was intended to show that I was evaluating ANNPX different than David.
Nobody know how convertibles will perform in the future of course but ANNPX outperforming SP500 over a 28 year period with a lower DD, higher Sortino and the same manager is quite extraordinary.
Very few funds have outperformed SP500 at the 25+ year mark and none with the same lead manager.

I bought ENIC using my TRP brokerage account. On Friday, they PAID a very small "interim" dividend. It's still not recorded in my sweep account.
[...]
.....But it's not there....... yet. ORK!

Are you sure that the ADR div has been paid?
Here's a div announcement sheet from Citi saying that ordinary shares were to pay on Jan 28th, but the US ADR payment date was TBA (as of Nov 29th).
Looking at the last time there was a small Jan div (record date Jan 24, 2020), the pay date was two weeks later (Feb 7). Assuming that pattern holds, given that the record date now is Jan 21, 2022, one would expect to see the div paid about a week from now.
Here are sites giving the ADR div's historical ex-, record-, and pay-dates:
Citi, M*, and Dividend Investor, the pay date for the ADR has not been determined.
Ordinary shares underlie ADR shares: https://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/adr-bulletin.pdf

Yes, very nice to have Junkster posting again!

Thanks Old_Joe. But hopefully just an aberration on my part.
Interesting bullish link below on sentiment and how it is similar to the 2018 and 3/20 bottoms. I am a big believer in sentiment albeit it was a more useful tool decades ago when it was less followed by the masses as an indicator. Let’s see how it plays out this time around.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4481533-market-panic-selling-buy-dip

Understood, tks for the feedback. We are measuring and weighting differently the stats of ANNPX and the alts you called out. Typically I give zero to low weight to periods below three years. I place a high weight on Sortino, rolling period averages and MaxDD.
VONE has done well, below are some comparative stats between VONE and ANNPX, first number is ANNPX, second number is VONE
3Y Stats
APR: 27.5, 26.1
MaxDD: 13.8, 20.3
Sortino: 3.25, 2.36
Rolling 1Y APR: 34.1, 24.8
5Y Stats
APR: 19.7, 18.3
MaxDD: 13.8, 20.3
Sortino: 2.56, 1.72
Rolling 3Y APR: 21.1, 14.9

@davidmoran
What are the downsides that you see?
ANNPX 15,20,25 year stats over PRWCX are very solid. I like to use PRWCX as a benchmark against any new fund I am evaluating given the long term solid track record of PRWCX. I'm surprised that a fund with performance stats comparable(and better in some areas) to PRWCX has not been discussed more on this forum.

Reviving this thread! Anybody have further thoughts on ANNPX? Virtus AllianzGI Convertible Inst
Performance of ANNPX is outstanding. Some select stats below
Age = 28 years, Mgr Tenure = 28 years
Life APR = 11.6 which beats SP500 by 0.8
Max DD = 42.6 vs. SP500 at 50.9
Life Sortino = 1.07 vs. SP500 at 0.86

Going further, Thomas Rowe Price, Jr., after founding the company in 1937, sold all his interest by 1970. So while I'm sure he raised a pretty penny from those sales, he and his heirs may have a greater total return in the 52 years after that than he did over the 33 years he owned the company.

By 1970, Mr. Price had sold out all holdings in the company he had created and turned his energies to managing portfolios for his family and a few friends.

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/22/obituaries/t-rowe-price-85-growth-stock-strategist-dead.html

@davidrmoran Agreed the thread has run its course, but “foolish impugning hed” is foolishly impugning. To say in the same interview, in the first thread link, that one is doing a lot of “soul searching” about recent losses while boasting in the same interview of future annualized returns of 40% over the next five years does not seem to fit with what the meaning of “soul searching” is. Since that boast, the fund has lost over 25% of its value. To me, what’s cruel is what shareholders who believed such statements have just experienced. Given the religiosity of the subject, the hed was apt. As you would say, kerrist.

Who owns Fidelity?
“Boston-based Johnson family owns 49% of mutual fund company Fidelity. The other 51% is owned by employees. Abigail Johnson is the third generation of the family to run the company. She took over from her father Edward “Ned” Johnson III in 2014.”
Who owns T. Rowe Price?
T Rowe Price is publicly owned. Something north of 70%, however, is owned by large institutions. Non-institutional holders (you and me) own less than 30% (closer to 25% by some accounts).

The M* link within the article (probably already posted) is droll as well:
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1071658/arkk-an-object-lesson-in-how-not-to-invest
It all seems to me simply like a tech gogo way up / way down event, such as some of us have seen in the past. Extremely hot 'n' hopeful followed by plunging losses. Like a 1995 Robertson Stephens fund (in some of which I and many others made and lost serious moneys; they underwrote the IPO of the startup where I worked, and held extremely exciting staff meetings).
The foolish and cruelly impugning subject hed here, plus Wood's own dumberer pronouncements, and this idiocy --- seriously??
\\ Terrible destruction of wealth.
\\ Willingly acts to cause harm. She must've known this was all bullspit no?
\\\ At what point does this cross over into malfeasance? Did Wood not enrich herself thru promotion of her fund?
kerrist kerrist
quite apart from the opaque silliness of 'If Wood has made positive public pronouncements unwittingly' and 'guess we'll know in 5 years' (hell, we'll know about everything then!), ...
yeah, way past time to leave the subject.
What a thread.

The calendar list is directed, mostly; to the current lunar new year and Asian markets affected.

Global Markets Holidays thru April 15, 2022

As I understand it, it takes $250,000 with Price to obtain that elite “Flagship” status. Pity the “poor” soul with just $249,999 invested there that has to suffer their endless inadequacies and incompetence. Think of all the “newbies” just starting out on their decades long investing path.
@Davep - I’m glad your experience with TRP has been exemplary. And thank you for sharing. Two or three years ago I’d have written something similar. Not today.

Thanks.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/minneapolis-fed-president-neel-kashkari-yahoo-finance-transcript-january-2022-165535766.html

Not sure this adds much to the conversation, but since a link to this M* column hasn't been posted:
ARKK's Claims of an Anti-Innovation Market Ring Hollow

ARK's portfolio manager Cathie Wood has taken to the airwaves and penned a blog to say the strategy's merely out of favor. ... It's hard to find data that support [her] points. [To the contrary ...]
ARK Innovation's Relatively Few Unique Holdings Have Been Resilient
Signs of an Anti-Innovation Bias Are Hard to Find in the Market
The Strategy's Aggressive Posture Has Hit Headwinds, Not the Typhoon That ARK Claims
Among her most consistent messages in recent months has been that the prices of innovation stocks have not been irrationally high as technology and telecom stocks became in the late 1990s.
By historical standards, Wood's return forecast is possible but improbable. Less than 2% of U.S. funds (alive or dead) have achieved such a feat over any rolling five-year period since 1980. Many did so during the late-1990s bubble.

Each of the bolded sections contradicts or weakens a claim made by Wood. The body of each section presents a fair amount of data and graphs.

Shot of Barron’s cover for January 31

“Fake it ‘til you make it might work in Silicon Valley. It's a less practical strategy for the Federal Reserve, which looks ready to compound one mistake with another.”
- Ben Levisohn writing in this week’s Barron’s

Some of us are self directed investors. We don’t require or necessarily want a personal advisor / liaison person at every institution where we park money. It shouldn’t require a “Flagship” membership to change a mailing address, order checks, specify the amount withheld from a distribution for federal / state taxes or transfer assets to & from other fiduciaries accurately and within a reasonable time period. These and other seemingly routine transactions became the source of my frustration after 25+ years with this outfit.
I’ve invested directly with at least 15 different fund houses* over 50+ years. With the exception of Strong Funds in the 90s I haven’t encountered the shoddy level of routine account servicing that became the trademark at TRP.
Other Fund Houses I’ve invested directly with …
Templeton,
Mutual Series
Franklin
Calimos
Permenant Portfolio
Oppenheimer
Fidelity
Invesco
TIAA CREF
NATIXIS
Oakmark
Dodge & Cox
American Century
Delaware
Hussman
Strong Funds