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.
  • Mid-Year MFO Ratings Posted ... New Navigation Bar
    Sweet 10 months for these MultiSector Income funds: Holbrook Structured Income I (HOSIX), SEI Opportunistic Income A (ENIAX), RBC BlueBay Strategic Income I (RBSIX), and Credit Suisse Strategic Income I (CSOIX).
    No (month ending) drawdown. Healthy return.
    10 Months -- No Drawdown -- Top Quintile Trend -- Multisector Income
    image

  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    Funds of funds have top level ER and also the ER from the underlying funds.
    VGSTX is unique in that its top level ER is 0%.
    Funds/ETFs of CEFs have high ERs because CEFs themselves have high ERs due to leverage. For example, PCEF has top level ER of 0.50%, but the total ER 3.07%. The SEC requires funds to include costs of leverage in the ERs.
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    Went with 7 different CEFs in the space. ”Obsessive” for sure. Follow these things so closely thought I might as well try to squeeze a little extra juice out of the lemon while at it. Hope others will continue to post with their strategies if they do use some similar. And thanks for all the ideas.
    Still feel like a new kid on the block having had a brokerage account for only 4-5 years. Some interesting new ways to make and loose money.
  • JPMorgan Hedged Equity
    What do you all think of JHQAX as a primary holding in a taxable account, in retirement?

    Low SD, decent returns and minimal distributions of any kind. So why not, especially for retirees.
    I use HELO. They perform similarly.
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    hank, I have been doing something similar since 2000.
    I select the best risk/reward up to 5 funds within top 1-2 categories for my criteria and keep changing. Then, every fund must be in the top 20-30%. Risk control is a lot more important to me.
    The more money I have and the best I got, I started using only 2-3 funds.
    Stocks: 1995-2000 + after 2010 = mostly LC tilting growth. 2000-2010=Value, SC, International.
    Bonds: Preparing for retirement, PIMIX was my first bond fund. I started investing in it in 2010 and it grew to over 50% until I sold it in 01/2018.
    Basically, I modeled it after basketball, a game that I played over 4 decades. As a coach, you want to go to the playoffs every year. Winning isn't a guarantee. Why would someone hold value when growth is so much better for many years?
    You play your best 5 players every time. Superstars play more, and you give them more rope. A superstar isn't guaranteed. You want to play your best 5 at any moment. You can't have a bad player on the court.
    All my funds must perform well within their category. Reliability is worth a lot. I don't play with emotion. A bad fund must be replaced. It gets very easy over the years.
    I never diversified since the first day I started investing. Diversification = I must have LC,SC,value,growth,international and others. If US LC does well, it's the easiest to make money. If it doesn't, you diversify more.
    What's the catch? when and how to replace funds. That takes discipline and a lot of experience. You can't learn swimming by reading a book. My goals have changed too and that changed my trading too.
    Exceptions exist: every several years you find funds/managers that beat the odds. Think PRWCX,PIMIX for many years; I held SGIIX,FAIRX,OAKBX for 8+ years during 2000-10. Some managers do great in specific markets.
  • Vanguard introduces new ETFs to meet investors’ short-term liquidity needs
    Apparently these ETFs are traded with a slight premium, which may indicate investor demand.
    I wonder how these ETFs compare to DIY treasury ladder consisting of i, 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 months T bills.
  • Ever try constructing your own “fund of funds”?
    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.
    But it occurs to me that for one part of a portfolio (around 10-20%) you could do better with less risk than a single fund by cooking up an equally weighted mix of more volatile investments - provided they tend not to run in the same direction. Toss in some stock, bond, currency or commodity CEFs, some ETFs, and even a favorite stock or too. 10 total for simplicity is what I envision. Then rebalance frequently, locking in short term profits and adding to the ones that have fallen. And if you find you have a rotten egg in there, swap it out for something else which shouldn’t be a problem owing to its relatively small weighting in the portfolio..
    The big drawbacks of a couple decades ago aren’t so serious. You don’t need to use OEFs with their trade restrictions, Trades are free now at most brokerages. Up to the minute tracking is possible with good apps. The one drawback would be spreads - but a price worth paying perhaps.
    Haven’t implemented this. Threw together an hypothetical portfolio I intend to watch and hopefully learn from,
    Anybody doing this?
  • Buy Sell Why: ad infinitum.
    I like @Crash asset allocation. With all the turmoil and tariffs. Monday’s future market looks bleak, even gold.
    https://cnbc.com/pre-markets/
    https://finviz.com/futures.ashx
    Mark your calendar, March 14, 2025. Will the government shut down?
  • Bloomberg Real Yield
    21 feb, 2025.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-02-21/bloomberg-real-yield-02-21-2025-video
    consumer sentiment down, inflation fears rising. Expectations for sticky inflation are highest in 30 years...Direction trend in the yield of the 10-Year is rather uncertain... Friday: 4.4546%.
    brian rheling, wells: expecting higher rates. Inflation a bit higher by the end of 2025. Estimate 10-year at 4.75 by year-end.... jonathan duensing, amundi usa: assuming 2 percent corporate growth, 4.5 percent on the 10-year seems reasonable.... reduced immigration will reduce growth and consumption. Gotta see what happens legislatively also re: spending reductions. (My insertion: And what about all the recent Musk related firings?). Uncertainty lately flowing out of Washington. People want to see some reliable policy decisions and how they will affect us and trading partners.
    rehling: Markets have digested the higher level of uncertainty pretty well. Even so, there will be a fair amount of volatility. Markets already becoming desensitized to the extreme rhetoric from the gummint recently.
    Europe: Record quick start to the year, getting to 500B euros of issuance. Tops the record set just last year...USA I.G. issuance last week of $52B... Treasury issuance: 20-year: 4.83% and 30-year TIPS: 2.403%. (Why is anyone putting money there?)
    Winnie Cisar on Junk: there is optimism in that market that is not justified. So, too many factors to the potential downside are being ignored. Ashley Allen generally agrees. Even so, yields do look attractive. True of both I.G. and Junk. ... What to avoid: Cisar: stay away from stuff that may take a hit from surprise policy changes, shifting global macro trends. Basic Materials, retail. ... Allen: investors are yield-hungry. Just be careful, cautious.
  • Mid-Year MFO Ratings Posted ... New Navigation Bar
    Just posted all ratings to MFO Premium site, using Refinitiv data drop from Friday, 21 February 2025. Flows remain updated through 14 February.
  • BRK - Buffett's Annual Letter
    Buffett's Annual Letter https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2024ltr.pdf
    From Annual Report (150 pages), https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2024ar/2024ar.pdf
    Cash & cash-equivalents $334.201 billion (28.96%)
    Stock portfolio $271.588 billion (23.54%)
    Insurance assets $315.379 billion (27.33%)
    Railroad, utilities, energy assets $232.713 billion (20.17%)
    TOTAL ASSETS $1,153.881 billion (100%)
    Insurance float is $171 billion - that's the premium pool from insurance written & outstanding that will cover future claims over many years.
    "Cash" is high, but the above data provide the overall picture of BRK assets.
  • Duplicate threads running in “Off Topic & “Other Investing”?
    Some members, including myself in the past, have sought to heighten awareness of important threads in “Off Topic” by posting a separate thread in “Other Investing” containing a link to the off topic thread. It’s well meaning and possibly unavoidable if the topic has both ”off topic” and ”other investing” implications. However, sometimes this leads to two duplicate threads running concurrently with some members posting to the OT thread and others posting to the investing thread.
    The situation can get confusing and even led to some “hard feelings” being misdirected at one board member by another recently (thread). The more important facet of all this is that some readers are viewing only 50% of the ongoing discussion. (Readers in OT may not be viewing comments made in the investing section. Readers in Other Investing may not be reading the associated comments posted in OT.)
    Since the intent of these second (ancillary) threads would seem to be to call attention to a thread in OT, is there some way posters could be blocked from posting comments under the ancillary thread and directed instead to the original thread in OT? Presumably, they would click on to the attached link, be directed to the OP and then post their comments in the OT section. Not to criticize anyone. Just seeking to minimize confusion and avoid the problems noted.
  • ★ The most important economic overview that I have read in many years ★
    "...in a country where people are facing systematically higher financial and job insecurity, the people are, on average, less likely to save...."
    This is a rather odd conclusion involving multiple uses of the word "saving". It does not come from the study cited in the linked webpage. That study shows, as one would expect, that if one has a fixed amount of money to save and/or invest, the higher the sense of risk the less one is inclined to take on more additional risk by investing.
    The linked article's author notes that this higher savings rate (and lower investing rate) results in lower total assets over time. This combination of savings, investing, and growth they then rename "savings". Thus "savings" is used two different ways.
    this study shows that if more people are in a financially precarious position ... the more they will stay away from investing in risky assets .... and instead remain invested in bonds and savings accounts. But as we know, this means that over time, these people can save less
    But "as we know", the more uncertain people feel about the future, the more they save. Rather than allocate a fixed amount of money (as in the cited study) between savings and investing, people increase the size of the pot - save more - when they are worried.
    Policymakers and academics have linked the increase in savings to higher economic uncertainty often pointing to ... increases the volatility of expected future income, while at the same time lowering the level. Both of these effects may induce people to save more ...
    Juelsrud, Ragnar E. & Wold, Ella Getz, 2020. "The Saving and Employment Effects of Higher Job Loss Risk"
    dont like gov stats , such as on inflation?
    The Politico piece doesn't say that there's anything wrong with the statistics, just how they're analyzed and presented. Which is why, rather than stopping at U-3, I gave U-4 and a cite to other government "filterings" of the statistics. Think that some of the 80,000 different items in the CPI should get different weightings? Then do your own arithmetic. The raw data and how it's collected is published. At least for now.
    its just the media has suddenly stopped assigning political blame for egg, car, and house prices.
    Say what?
    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5154415-trump-moves-hamper-bird-flu-response-as-egg-prices-spike/
    https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/19/cars/trumps-autos-tariffs-prices/index.html
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-administration-slash-hud-workers-tackling-housing-crisis-119046960
  • M* Portfolio not updating
    Thanks @Crash.
    stats do catch-up to reality
    Exactly. Not just M* stats but official (fund sponsor) stats as well. As of 4PM every trading day the NAV of funds is determined, metaphysically speaking. That's reality, even though the funds are just beginning to calculate the NAVs then. It takes a while for the funds' official stats to catch up with this 4PM reality. (Insert allegory of cave here, reality vs. perception.)
    The official numbers are "wrong" for some period of time. I checked WCPNX (I think that's one of the funds Crash has mentioned) on Friday. Weitz didn't update its performance page until shortly before 7:15PM. About the same time, M*'s portfolio tracker (legacy version) updated as well.
    But the quote page for WCPNX didn't update until about 8:45PM. It was not "flat out wrong" until then. It was stale. It stated that the NAV was as of Thursday (2/20/20). That was a correct, accurate statement. It just wasn't the one you may have been hoping to see.
    When M* calculates "their Standard Deviations, &c. " they use end-of-month data. For WCPNX they use:
    Risk & Volatility MeasuresUSD | Investment as of Jan 31, 2025 | Category: Intermediate Core-Plus Bond as of Jan 31, 2025 |
    Whether M* had WCPNX's NAV correct that Friday evening Jan 31, or even if it took until Monday Feb 3 to get it right, doesn't matter. I don't think that M* calculated the fund's standard deviations using older Jan 30th figures.
  • Re-investing RMDs
    Beware that preferred "stocks" are really debt of very long or indefinite maturities
    That's a good practical description, i.e. from the investor's perspective preferred stocks are debt. Though for most tax purposes they are treated as dividend-paying equity as Mark noted.
    However, from an accounting perspective they may be treated as equity depending on a whole lot of complex rules.
    image
    This is from PwC: Classification of Preferred Stock
    The FGs refer to other figures (flow charts) on that page giving more details.
    ASCs refer to GAAP rules. "The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification® (Codification or ASC) is the single source of authoritative nongovernmental U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (US GAAP)."
    https://asc.fasb.org/Home
    IMHO this is way more than non-CPAs should care about.
    Apparently in Canada, "For non-financial corporates, preferred shares are classified as 50% debt and 50% equity on a corporation’s balance sheet." Much simpler :-)
    RBC, A guide to preferred shares
  • Polen Bank Loan Fund being reorganized into an ETF
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388485/000182912625001161/fundvantage_497.htm
    497 1 fundvantage_497.htm 497
    Filed Pursuant to Rule 497(e)
    1933 Act File No. 333-141120
    1940 Act File No. 811-22027
    FundVantage Trust
    (the “Trust”)
    Polen Bank Loan Fund
    (the “Fund”)
    Supplement dated February 21, 2025 to the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Statutory Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated September 1, 2024, as supplemented to date.
    For all existing and prospective shareholders of the Polen Bank Loan Fund:
    ● The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Trust has approved the reorganization of the Polen Bank Loan Fund with and into the Polen Floating Rate Income ETF, which is expected to occur on or about March 21, 2025.
    ● The Polen Bank Loan Fund is a mutual fund, and the Polen Floating Rate Income ETF is an exchange-traded fund (an “ETF”).
    ● If you are an existing shareholder of the Polen Bank Loan Fund and your account can hold an ETF, your fund shares will be converted, and no action is needed by you.
    ● If you hold shares of the Polen Bank Loan Fund in an account that CANNOT hold an ETF (i.e., your account is not permitted to purchase securities traded in the stock market), there are certain actions you can take. See the “Questions and Answers” section below for further information.
    At a meeting held on December 2-3, 2024, the Board of the Trust unanimously approved, on behalf of the Polen Bank Loan Fund, the reorganization of the Fund into the Polen Floating Rate Income ETF (the “Reorganization”). The Polen Floating Rate Income ETF will continue to be managed by Polen Capital Credit, LLC (“Polen Credit” or the “Adviser”), the investment adviser for the Polen Bank Loan Fund. The Board, including all of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)) of the Trust, determined that participation in the Reorganization is in the best interests of the Fund and that the interests of existing shareholders of the Fund will not be diluted as a result of the Reorganization.
    The Polen Floating Rate Income ETF will have identical investment objectives and fundamental investment policies, the same portfolio managers and substantially similar investment strategies as the Fund. The Fund will no longer exist after it is reorganized into the Polen Floating Rate Income ETF. The Polen Floating Rate Income ETF has not commenced investment operations, and it is not expected to have shareholders before the Reorganization. It is anticipated that the Reorganization will occur on or around March 21, 2025.
    By changing the Fund from a mutual fund into an ETF, Polen Credit believes shareholders in the Polen Floating Rate Income ETF could benefit from lower overall net expenses, increased flexibility to buy and sell shares at current market prices, increased portfolio holdings transparency and the potential for enhanced tax efficiency.
    The Reorganization will be conducted pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). The Reorganization is expected to be treated as a tax-free reorganization under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. As a result, Fund shareholders generally will not recognize a taxable gain (or loss) for U.S. tax purposes as a result of the Reorganization (although cash received as part of the Reorganization may be taxable, as noted below).
    Upon completion of the Reorganization, Fund shareholders will receive Polen Floating Rate Income ETF shares with the same aggregate NAV as their Fund shares (except with respect to cash received, as noted below).
    Importantly, in order to receive shares of the Polen Floating Rate Income ETF as part of the Reorganization, Fund shareholders must hold their shares of the Fund through a brokerage account that can accept shares of an ETF. If Fund shareholders do not hold their shares of the Fund through that type of brokerage account or have not provided acceptable alternative delivery instructions to the Adviser prior to March 14, 2025, they will not receive shares of the Polen Floating Rate Income ETF as part of the Reorganization and will receive cash equal in value to the NAV of their mutual fund shares. For Fund shareholders that do not currently hold their shares of the Fund through a brokerage account that can hold shares of an ETF, please see the Q&A that follows for additional actions that those Fund shareholders must take in order to receive shares of the Polen Floating Rate Income ETF as part of the Reorganization. No further action is required for Fund shareholders that hold shares of the Fund through a brokerage account that can hold shares of an ETF.
    Completion of the Reorganization is subject to a number of conditions under the Plan. The Reorganization has been approved by the written consent of a majority of shareholders, and you are not being asked to vote on the Reorganization. Fund shareholders will receive, on or around February 24, 2025, an information statement/prospectus describing in detail both the Reorganization and the Polen Floating Rate Income ETF, and a summary of the Board’s considerations in approving the Reorganization.
    In anticipation of the Reorganization, the Fund will be closed to new accounts beginning on March 10, 2025. Purchases, including exchange purchases, by existing shareholders will be accepted by the Fund until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 17, 2025. Redemptions, including exchange redemptions, into shares of another Polen Fund of the Trust will be accepted until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 18, 2025. These dates may change if the closing date of the Reorganization changes.
    In addition, as part of the Reorganization, the following preliminary event will occur before the Reorganization is completed. On March 11, 2025, all of the outstanding shares of the Fund will be combined into fewer shares through a reverse stock split (the “Reverse Stock Split”). To accommodate the Reverse Stock Split, Fund shares will be restricted from trading on March 11, 2025 and no Fund shares may be purchased or redeemed on that date. Regular trading will resume on March 12, 2025. Prior to the Reorganization, the Fund will conduct the Reverse Stock Split to increase the Fund’s NAV per share to $25.00 while decreasing the total number of Fund shares issued and outstanding. The total net asset value of each shareholder’s shares will be the same after the reverse split as before the reverse split. The Reverse Stock Split will not result in a taxable transaction for shareholders...