It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
You sound a little cocky, but I wouldn't worry too much. There's some sour grapes goin around lately. I got some crap for commenting on a post on someone bummed on staying in cash, not buying the dip, and furthermore, anticipating a second covid wave to justify in another thread. These things happen. We've all f-ed up. No big deal.Every post you make FD is all about you. "I saw this. I did that. Every one else is dumb for missing it." The point is the likelihood of anyone 'investing" in this fund, not trading, would not have seen a 40% drop in 2 days on the horizon.
Yes, totally BS. And what is the smiley face for?
You are correct, I didn't know in advance how bad it could be but I expected it to be bad.
Your reaction is typical, I see anger and disbelief when I tell you my thoughts and how I operate. The smiley is to let you know it's all expected.
In this thread(link), I documented many trades that I have done since 2-28-2020. I made several similar posts on MFO too, see (here). Why no admit I made a great call.
I'm pretty sure you will come back and request me to post every trade I make :-)
My trading style has been established for years which helped me in the last 3 years since retirement in 2018. I will sell any bond fund that loses more than 1%, actually, I even sell earlier if other funds in the same category behave differently or I can find a better fund according to my goals.
Here is the bottom line: while you claim it's all BS the facts show I sold all my portfolio to cash prior to the meltdown.
While looking at a year's worth of performance versus the benchmark isn't very meaningful, it is actually over the long-term that active funds struggle the most to beat their benchmarks, and many financial articles have made that point. In fact, I think it is far more common to have an active fund beat a benchmark in the short-term, have an excellent year but struggle over the long-term as the cumulative hurdle effect of its fees gets harder and harder to overcome. Also, while there are many passive ETFs that don't match their benchmarks either, in the main categories like large cap, mid-cap and small-cap, they often do and sometimes even beat their benchmarks because of securities lending, or only lag a minuscule amount. Also, the long-term record of many funds versus their benchmarks doesn't necessarily improve when adjusted for risk. The SPIVA data on funds versus their benchmarks has risk-adjusted returns over the last fifteen years:They have not been repeatedly defamed by self-interested marketers and lazy financial journalists looking for cheap stories. “80% of mutual funds failed to beat the market last year” is utterly fatuous – beating the market isn’t the goal, one year is an irrelevant time period, risk matters as much as returns, very nearly all passive products also trail the market – but has made it hard to approach investors, young, professional or otherwise. The term “skunked” comes to mind. The repackage offers a clean slate.
The risk-adjusted performance of active funds obviously improves on a gross-of-fees basis, but even then, outperformance is scarce. Only Real Estate (over the 5- and 15-year periods), Large-Cap Value (over the 15-year period), and Mid-Cap Growth funds (over the 5-year period) saw a majority of active managers outperform their benchmarks. Overall, most active domestic equity managers in most categories underperformed their benchmarks, even on a gross-of-fees basis.
As in the U.S., the majority of international equity funds across all categories generated lower risk-adjusted returns than their benchmarks when using net-of-fees returns. On a gross-of-fees basis, only International Small-Cap funds outperformed on a risk-adjusted basis over the 10- and 15-year periods.
When using net-of-fees risk-adjusted returns, the majority of actively managed fixed income funds in most categories underperformed over all three investment horizons. The exceptions were Government Long, Investment Grade Long, and Loan Participation funds (over the 5- and 10-year periods), as well as Investment Grade Short funds (over the 5-year period).
However, unlike their equity counterparts, most fixed income funds outperformed their respective benchmarks gross of fees. This highlights the critical role of fees in fixed income fund performance. In general, more active fixed income managers underperformed over the long term (15 years) than over the intermediate term (5 years).
On a net-of-fee basis, asset-weighted return/volatility ratios for active portfolios were higher than the corresponding equal-weighted ratios, indicating that larger firms have taken on better-compensated risk than smaller ones.
One important saving grace I think is that SPIVA only considers risk as volatility and not downside capture or Sortino ratios. So that should be considered. All of that said, the threat from passive ETFs is most certainly real and should not be underestimated.
blackrock-is-biggest-beneficiary-of-fed-purchases-of-corporate-bond-etfsThe Federal Reserve began its historic purchases of corporate bonds exchange-traded funds, almost half of the Fed’s purchases went into BlackRock funds, according to ETFGI, an ETF research and consulting firm.
The five largest purchases by the Fed, in order, were iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD), Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond Index Fund ETF Shares (VCIT), Vanguard Short-Term Corporate Bond Index Fund ETF Shares (VCSH), iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG) and SPDR (JNK).
The optics of the Fed’s purchases of iShares ETFs are controversial, given that BlackRock (ticker: BLK) is running the Fed’s three debt-buying programs. BlackRock has said it won’t charge management fees on the iShares ETFs it buys behalf of the Fed. A BlackRock spokesperson wasn’t immediately available to comment.
BlackRock’s iShares has 38.1% of the exchange-traded product market; Vanguard has 26.5%, and State Street’s SPDR ETFs has 16.5%,
You are correct, I didn't know in advance how bad it could be but I expected it to be bad.Every post you make FD is all about you. "I saw this. I did that. Every one else is dumb for missing it." The point is the likelihood of anyone 'investing" in this fund, not trading, would not have seen a 40% drop in 2 days on the horizon.
Yes, totally BS. And what is the smiley face for?
In the top 25 stocks TPIAX has just one Israeli stock (link)For those who absolutely must have an Israel fund, be of good cheer. There's still TPIAX
Well, several quotes from the pastThe basics are still the same: Know what you own, expect the worse(which is what I do) and past performance and volatility are not guaranteed.
I call BS on that advice FD. None of what you said is usable. This was a fund with good consistent returns and a very low STD to boot. It would have been easier to interpret the risk if the funds literature would have been more accurate, especially on liquidity and possible fire-sale risk. The fund collapsed 45% before the dust could settle. 40% within 2 days. Trading limits on mutual funds that only allow trades after the market closes gives an investor 2 days as the quickest reaction time to unload. Most here aren't day traders so your advice on this fund is worthless.
Sorry, but your infallible preaching is a bit nauseating.
I call BS on that advice FD. None of what you said is usable. This was a fund with good consistent returns and a very low STD to boot. It would have been easier to interpret the risk if the funds literature would have been more accurate, especially on liquidity and possible fire-sale risk. The fund collapsed 45% before the dust could settle. 40% within 2 days. Trading limits on mutual funds that only allow trades after the market closes gives an investor 2 days as the quickest reaction time to unload. Most here aren't day traders so your advice on this fund is worthless.The basics are still the same: Know what you own, expect the worse(which is what I do) and past performance and volatility are not guaranteed.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
