Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Comments

  • Thanks! This statement (or 2) were informative. But also concerning that he sees investing as stocks or bonds not stocks and bonds.
    How do you assess today’s investment opportunity?
    We aren’t market timers, so I have no idea what 2022 returns will look like. But the further out we look, the more returns are based on fundamentals, and the more confident we are in our opinions. We believe that stocks are much more reasonably priced than bonds. The S&P 500 has a dividend yield that matches a 10-year government bond, and unlike a bond, its dividends and earnings are expected to grow. We expect equity investors to perform well relative to bond investors over the next decade. We also believe that our portfolios are more attractively priced than the S&P 500. We don’t own the concept stocks that the financial media spends so much time covering. Most of our portfolios are traditional businesses that have below-average P/E ratios.

    One of the best investment strategies over the past decade has been to buy exciting businesses, regardless of price. It isn’t sustainable, in our opinion, and has resulted in an unusually large price gap between growth stocks and low P/E stocks. We believe that a reversal of that performance is warranted and is likely. We are well positioned for a return to normal.

    And I have some rocks in my yard that are worth between $0 and $500,000 that I would happily sell for the bargain price of just $50,000!
  • edited January 9
    “We expect equity investors to perform well relative to bond investors over the next decade. We also believe that our portfolios are more attractively priced than the S&P 500.”

    Hard to disagree as worded. “our portfolios” doesn’t mean the same as what you, I, or somebody else may own. And they seem to disavow the S&P. Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait 10 years to see if the manager’s perceptions re his portfolio are accurate.

    Note that the blurb does not differentiate among bonds, lumping all into one hopper. Well, now, there are short, intermediate and long term bonds. Corporate and sovereign. Investment grade and poorer quality. U.S. domiciled and those from other nations. And, there’s EM as well.

    I think for many of us the past week is a great opportunity to compare how different asset class we held faired compared to one another. It hasn’t been too often that so many different assets suffered together (Maybe Qtr 1, 2020?).

    When all is said and done, I’m glad I had exposure to bonds last week. RPGAX (30% bonds) fell 1.48% as compared to PRWCX which lost over 2.0%%. My worst performing bond fund, DODIX, fell 1.07%. In contrast, my worst performing equity holding, WPM, fell over 10%. Equity funds themselves were all over the place of course. Those heavy into banks saw gains. Similar variance existed among various alts, long shorts, etc. PRPFX surprised, losing just 1% for the week, despite exposure to gold, bonds and growth stocks.

    So, if you have a 10 year or longer time horizon and can live with higher volatility, send your $$ to the folks at Oakmark. BTW - I read a lot of Dodge & Cox’s commentary. They might well have written the same blurb.
  • Oakmark Fund, Select, Global are equity funds that do hold some cash. Nygren has value stock style. Unclear what prompted him to comment on bonds. Likewise, I don't pay attention to stock talks from bond houses (Pimco, DoubleLine, etc).

    If OAKBX managers talked about stocks vs bonds, and various types of bonds, I would pay more attention.
    https://financials.morningstar.com/fund/management.html?t=OAKBX&region=usa&culture=en-US
  • OAKMX, their main US fund and also their flagship fund, underperformed value ETFs, especially some passive ETFs. When investment managers use hyperbole to make their point, it gives a feel of entertainment and lessens the impact of the point for me and makes me wonder if the manager is intellectually sincere and whether they are trying to misdirect me from looking hard at their fund. I do not seek entertainment from my investment managers or my doctors.
  • OAKMX and OAKLX did not beat SPY during the last 10 years, but since inception of OAKLX in 1996, it is up 1780%, whereas SPY is 936% up, and VTV (Vanguard Value) is 761%. Thus OAKLX significantly outperformed both S&P 500 and Value index since inception. I would not necessarily bet my house on its future outperformance, but I take Nygren's opinions seriously.
  • Value funds such as Oakmark lagged S&P 500 index which dominated by FAANG stocks for awhile. It is more appropriate to compare them using the appropriate benchmark, VG Value index as you noted. Will see how this plays out this year with rising interest rates which do not favor tech stocks.
Sign In or Register to comment.