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.
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    I suspect all of us on the board, followers of David and MFO, me since 2011 and before that with Fund Alarm, look to build our own FOFs.
    David publishes his periodically.
    In recent years, the proliferation of model portfolios, do essentially provide FOFs.
    Ditto most FAs or RIAs, either those they download from their platforms, likely sponsored, or those they create on their own ... the more independent and thoughtful ones, perhaps.
    Target Retirement Funds are essentially FOFs too.
    At quick search on MFOP shows there are presently 1719 FOFs offered in the US: 1276 are Mixed-Asset, nearly all "actively managed," including 386 Insurance Funds.
    Focusing just on actively managed OEFs and ETFs, Federated Hermes Global Allocation (FSTBX) is the oldest at 65 years. And, not surprisingly, Vanguard Target Retirement funds are the largest, followed by American Funds Target Date Retirement funds.
  • Social Security WEP & GPO
    SSA WEP & GPO related extra payments have started for simple cases that can be handled with automation. Complicated cases will be addressed later. SSA says to wait until April to inquire about the status.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/social-security-begins-paying-retroactive-225352352.html?guccounter=1
  • CNBC: State by State breakdown of tariff hits based on import/export numbers
    Well. I can give up my dreams of becoming a headline writer.
    The article looks at individual state's imports and exports to China, Canada, and Mexico. Dinky linky. The article is partly based on research by Lending Tree: YADL.
    More on CNBC's methodology:
    To look at the impact of both the Trump tariffs on North American partners and the retaliatory tariffs Trump has planned for other global trading partners, CNBC analyzed data on imports and exports of all 50 states and the District of Columbia provided by LendingTree. ImportGenius provided additional granular data on the products. Using Customs code analysis, each state’s exports and imports with China, Canada, and Mexico were aggregated to specific products. This specificity granularity can show a state’s economic risk exposure which could affect jobs and economic prosperity.
    Specificity granularity? Wasn't there an old Star Trek episode about a specificity granularity in the warp drives?
    Pull quote:
    Consider Montana, which tops the list of states importing from China, Canada and Mexico, with 94% of the state’s total imports coming from these three nations.
    Lots of chewy numbers and details at the links. The CNBC article is behind an ad wall, you'll have to turn off your ad blockers to see it.
  • The Week in Charts | Charlie Bilello
    The Week in Charts (02/25/25)
    The most important charts and themes in markets and investing, including:
    00:00 Intro
    00:20 Free Wealth Path Analysis
    00:51 Topics
    01:36 The Cruelest Tax
    04:45 Rising Credit Card Delinquencies
    07:43 Buffett Raising More Cash
    10:52 Delaying the American Dream
    13:46 The Other Side of Mania
    18:22 Show Us the Receipts
    22:27 The New King of Retail
    24:44 Record 401(k) Participation
    Video
    Blog
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    What's the difference between constructing your own "Fund of Funds" and being told by some MFOers that having too many funds is inefficient, wasteful, and self-defeating, as we've all heard here so many times over the years?
    d - My response has always been: Give me 10 funds as good as PRWCX. The combined return should be the same.
    I consolidated down from 15-20 funds to just 6 (+ cash) over the past couple of years. FD was one of the posters that I listened to. I found that with fewer funds you tend to concentrate more on the quality of each fund (management / goals / methodology, holdings, etc.). There’s a lot more money riding on each selection so you are pushed to do more due diligence. All good.
    It does create a bit of a headache should you decide to exit a fund in favor of another, as you are moving a much larger sum of $$. I actually had trouble selling all my shares of a Cambrea etf the other day because it is so thinly traded. Took several sell orders over about 10-15 minutes to fully exit.
    I explained earlier my thinking in creating a fund-of-funds with the proceeds from one of those 6 major positions. I want to learn whether I can take advantage of the volatility of CEFs by actively trading them - mostly within the group of 7. Don’t know. Seems like a reasonable exercise for someone who follows markets closely. I can report back in a year whether the experiment was successful.
    Re “Funds of Funds” & fees. Most do not add an additional layer of fees, but some do. TRRIX from T. Rowe is an example of a fund-of-funds. With an equity target of 40% the fund (Silver at M*) has returned better than 6% annually since inception (2002). The 0.49% ER reflects the aggregate of fees from the underlying funds.
  • Bank Safety in the post CFPB and FDIC protection era
    It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that the robust protection afforded to small investors and depositors by the federal government are so 2024. To those of us who feasted on 5+% CD’s that are maturing now and in the near future bank ratings that might have been overlooked in light of FDIC protection can no longer be overlooked. Anyone have knowledge of the bank safety rating agency who is a HARD GRADER? You know what I mean,,,, like the opposite of life insurance rater A. M Best. Taking this further,,, would a “too big to fail bank” with a C- Weiss rating be safer that a Main Street Bank of Podunk Red State with a higher rating?
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    DODBX used to be among the very aggressive allocation funds. But a few years ago, it started a small hedging program to tame its volatility (5% nominal hedge via derivative or shorting). There was some related news then of the uniqueness of doing this in a allocation fund. So, its declines in future may not be as severe as in the past, but some upside may be sacrificed.
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    DODIX DODGX 50/50 And forget about it.
    Why not just 100% DODBX?
    I wondered the same. I read somewhere a couple decades back that D&C was essentially combining components of DODGX and DODIX to arrive at the correct percentage for DODBX. Might be different today. I moved on a couple years ago. But my longtime experience with D&C was that it typically carried a bit more in equities than your run-of-the-mill “balanced” fund - often close to 70% equities.
    Now, as fine as those funds are, over a 2-year span (2007 & 2008) DODGX managed to loose more than 43% of its value. (DODIX gained 3 or 4%.) You younger ones like @Charles can afford to sit back and ride out a 2-year storm of that magnitude But for some of us “old geezers” just trying to pocket a couple percent better than what cash generates, two years might seem an eternity.
    How did DODBX fare over that 2-year span? Somewhat better, losing only 34.8% of its value.
    (Numbers from Yahoo Finance / Performance)
  • A good year to date for many bond funds.
    Great analysis.
    CBRDX is very close to RSIIX.
    One month CBRDX=0.97% vs 0.91%
    2 months: CBRDX+1.92 vs 1.96
    CSFZX lost its mojo. One month only at 0.35%. HOSIX=0.8.
    I have been watching SEMMX BDKNX for months. SEMMX had great performance, but in the last 4 months, it lost 0.6 + 0.4 from peak to trough. Too volatile for me :-)
    PIMIX has done nicley YTD, but in early Jan lost close to 1%.
    I'm just looking for the hanging fruit at 7-9% per year with low SD.
    EGRIX has done well lately, the problem is LT sudden SD.
  • Consumer confidence falls the most since 2021 over fears about inflation and tariffs
    Following are excerpts from a current NPR report:
    Consumer confidence fell sharply in February as Americans wrestled with stubborn inflation and the looming threat of more tariffs. A report from the Conference Board Tuesday showed the sharpest one-month drop in confidence since August 2021. Consumers are particularly nervous about rising prices, with the outlook for inflation a year from now jumping to 6% — double the current rate.
    "This increase likely reflected a mix of factors, including sticky inflation but also the recent jump in prices of key household staples like eggs and the expected impact of tariffs," said Conference Board economist Stephanie Guichard. "There was a sharp increase in the mentions of trade and tariffs, back to a level unseen since 2019."
    President Trump has added a 10% tariff on imports from China, and is threatening additional taxes, including a 25% levy on imports from Canada and Mexico that could take effect next week.
    "The tariffs are going forward, on time, on schedule," Trump told reporters at the White House Monday.
    A threatened tax on imported steel and aluminum could put more upward pressure on grocery prices, which have already been climbing. Egg prices jumped more than 15% in January, as avian flu continues to weigh on the nation's flock of laying hens. Denny's restaurants followed Waffle House in adding a surcharge to menu items containing eggs.
    Consumers are also feeling less confident about the job market, as the Trump administration moves to cut thousands of jobs in the federal government. The Conference Board's expectations index, which measures the outlook for jobs, income and business conditions, fell more than 9 points in February to 72.9. Readings below 80 are considered a warning sign for possible recession.
    The Conference Board is a non-partisan think tank that conducts regular surveys on the economy. Its confidence index for February echoes a similar report on consumer sentiment from the University of Michigan last week.
  • The U.S. Economy Depends More Than Ever on Rich People
    And a bit more on the Medicaid situation, from a current report in The New York Times:
    Republicans have proposed lowering the federal share of costs for Medicaid expansions, which could reshape the program by gutting one of the Affordable Care Act’s major provisions.
    House Republicans hunting for ways to pay for President Trump’s tax cuts have called for cutting the federal government’s share of Medicaid spending, including a proposal that would effectively gut the Affordable Care Act’s 2014 expansion of the program.
    Cutting Medicaid spending, which is central to the budget bill that House Republicans may bring to a vote on Tuesday, could result in millions of Americans across the country losing health coverage unless states decide to play a bigger role in its funding.
    Republicans are considering lowering the 90 percent share that the federal government is required to pay to states that enroll participants in the expansion. The change could generate $560 billion in savings over a decade, money that Republicans want to use toward extending Mr. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. Extending the tax cuts is expected to cost $4.5 trillion, meaning Republicans will have to find savings beyond Medicaid from a long menu of options.
    Medicaid expansion has become a deeply bipartisan project over the past decade, underscoring the Affordable Care Act’s reach in the American health system and its appeal even to Republican governors and state lawmakers who once opposed it. Much of the additional enrollment comes from Republican-led states where voters passed ballot initiatives to enact the program.
    Jon Tester, the former Democratic senator from Montana, said that Medicaid cuts could have a more sweeping effect on rural America than urban areas because of how the program sustains impoverished areas with few health providers. “And that’s an interesting conundrum because most of rural America is a much deeper red than urban America,” he said... “If you take away health care, you can’t live there”.
    Montana’s Medicaid expansion has been preserved in part because of strong Republican support in the state Legislature. One Republican state senator in favor of Medicaid expansion said that it was keeping the few hospitals in his rural district afloat.
    Matt Regier, the Republican president of the Montana Senate, said that hospitals in the state had become too reliant on Medicaid, and that its expansion was “incentivizing people to not stand on their own two feet.”
    “That’s the opposite of what a government safety net should be,” he said.
    Note: The above excerpts from the NY Times report were severely edited for brevity.
  • The U.S. Economy Depends More Than Ever on Rich People
    Following are excerpts from a current report in The Wall Street Journal:
    The highest-earning 10% of Americans have increased their spending far beyond inflation. Everyone else hasn’t.
    Many Americans are pinching pennies, exhausted by high prices and stubborn inflation. The well-off are spending with abandon. The top 10% of earners—households making about $250,000 a year or more—are splurging on everything from vacations to designer handbags, buoyed by big gains in stocks, real estate and other assets.
    Those consumers now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%. All this means that economic growth is unusually reliant on rich Americans continuing to shell out. Moody’s Analytics has estimated that spending by the top 10% alone accounted for almost one-third of gross domestic product.
    Between September 2023 and September 2024, the high earners increased their spending by 12%. Spending by working-class and middle-class households, meanwhile, dropped over the same period.
    Taken together, well-off people have increased their spending far beyond inflation, while everyone else hasn’t. The bottom 80% of earners spent 25% more than they did four years earlier, barely outpacing price increases of 21% over that period. The top 10% spent 58% more.
    The buying power of the richest Americans, who tend to be older and more educated, stems in part from the swelling values of homes and the stock market over the past several years. Rising asset prices are widening the gap between those who own property and stocks, and those who don’t.
    During the pandemic, Americans across the spectrum saved at record levels. Then inflation struck, and prices rose sharply. Most Americans turned to their extra savings to keep up with their rising bills. But the top 10% of earners kept most of what they had saved up.
    And with respect to that 90% who most likely are not MFO readers-
    Following are excerpts, severely edited for brevity, from a current report in The Wall Street Journal:
    President Trump cautioned lawmakers earlier this month about making cuts to Medicaid. But just after Trump left the room, one budget hawk remarked: “We could get $2.5 trillion if we cut Medicaid.”
    House Republicans are deeply divided on Medicaid, split between spending hard-liners who want big savings and pragmatists who warn against angering voters. Steve Bannon recently warned about the dangers of cutting Medicaid. “A lot of MAGAs on Medicaid,” he said. “Just can’t take a meat ax to it, although I would love to.”
    House Freedom Caucus members and other budget hawks successfully pressed for an amendment that directly ties $2 trillion in spending reductions over 10 years to the party’s tax-cut effort. Under that provision, the more the GOP pulls from Medicaid and other programs, the more financial room Republicans have.
    States help fund and manage the program, which provides health insurance for roughly 72 million people, or about one in five Americans, including children and people with low incomes or disabilities. The federal government spends about $600 billion annually on Medicaid.
    Republicans aren’t allowed to touch Social Security in the fast-track legislative process they are using, and Trump has said he opposes reducing Medicare benefits, leaving Medicaid as one of the remaining ways to significantly shrink spending. Within a 24-hour period, Trump stated that Medicaid shouldn’t be touched but also posted on X that he backs the House-led package that is likely to rely on cuts to Medicaid to meet its targets.
    White House spokesman Kush Desai said that the Trump administration is “committed to protecting Medicaid while slashing the waste, fraud, and abuse within the program—reforms that will increase efficiency and improve care for beneficiaries.”
    Some House Republicans say keeping Medicaid intact is essential if they want to hold the House majority in 2026. Some are privately warning party leadership that there are scores of members—including some in safe GOP districts—who oppose deep cuts. Rep. David Valadao (R., Calif.) argues that the Trump coalition now includes many Medicaid recipients.
    The program is popular. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found nearly 80% of respondents—and 65% of Republicans—think the federal government spends about the right amount or not enough on Medicaid. But budget hawks believe now is their best chance to address deepening federal deficits, which have ballooned the U.S. debt to $34 trillion.
    Comment: So here we have yet another disconnect: the majority of voters are not in that lucky top 10%, and many within the Trump party that they voted for would cut their Medicaid so as to transfer even more wealth from the 90% to that top 10%.
    Note: Text emphasis was added to the above WSJ reports.
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    I like SPY TLT 50/50 too.
    First suggested by bee, I believe.
  • Consumers Sound Alarm on Trump Economy as Expectations Reach Recession Level
    https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2025-02-25/consumers-sound-alarm-on-trump-economy-as-expectations-reach-recession-level
    Consumers Sound Alarm on Trump Economy as Expectations Reach Recession Level
    "A sharp drop in consumer confidence in February has brought Americans’ expectations about the future course of the U.S. economy to a level that often signals a recession on the horizon.
    The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index fell by seven points to 98.3. The present situation index – a measure of current business and labor market conditions – fell 3.4 points to 136.5, but it was the expectations index that reflects consumers’ outlook of future economic conditions that tumbled 9.3 points to 72.9. That brings it below the 80 threshold that usually serves as a warning of a recession ahead."
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    DODIX DODGX 50/50 And forget about it.
    Why not just 100% DODBX?
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    DODIX DODGX 50/50 And forget about it.
    DODIX has generated returns of 5 yrs +1.1% and 10 yrs +2.4%. It still beat most core bond funds, but ended up being a drag over the past decade. Simple does work well enough most of the time - folks don't need 15 to 20 funds. And perhaps balanced funds get back into a groove in this next decade.
    But I believe you can modify the plan a bit - roll with S/T bonds instead of L/T, add a dash of precious metals/commodities, alternative funds, hedged funds, etc. The now dreaded D word (Diversification) is not always bad.
    To each their own.
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    I have a 401(k), Roth IRA, Rollover IRA, H.S.A., and two taxable accounts.
    My entire portfolio includes 10 mutual funds/ETFs, 1 individual stock, and 5-Year TIPS purchased at auction.
    No account has more than two funds (excluding money market funds) except for one taxable account.
    Reducing the portfolio's total number of positions to 5 or 6 (excluding money market funds)
    is appealing although there is no "magic number."
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    @Charles - You took the words right out of my mouth. My first sentence in the OP: ”Doing so would defy good investment practice as I understand it. There’s a common school of thought that you should select 5 -10 good “horses” (funds) and ride them. That over diversification (labeled worsification by some) is bad.”
    So you have no real argument from me. However, if everyone took your sage advice and split their portfolios 50/50 between DODIX & DODGX nearly the entire financial / fund industry would have to close their doors. - Musk on steroids. :)
  • JPMorgan Hedged Equity
    @Garya505
    I would recommend reading Devo's articles referenced in the OP if you haven't already done so.