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
Need a solid, good, consistent, un-flashy AA fund. (Closed thread.)
Nothing's perfect, yes. When I did hold a Firstrade account, I found it extremely difficult to even comprehend what the obviously Asian CSRs were telling me. They THOUGHT they were speaking English. And the no-fee promise with stocks holds only for domestic stocks. At the time, I wanted to buy CM. Canadian bank, but available on NYSE. Didn't matter to them. No-go. No dice. No way... Adios, then.
@msf- OK, just to display my complete ignorance, what exactly is an "AA fund" that Crash is looking for? Thanks/OJ
Not msf … But I looked out of curiosity at the acronym and found that “AA” is commonly used to denote a wide variety of disparately different things - ranging from “anti-aircraft fire” to a woman’s bra size. Literally dozens and dozens of meanings.
My take on bonds (probably wrong) - U.S. government backed paper is generally considered to represent AAA (triple A credit quality). One step below would be the very finest corporate debt generally referred to as AA (double A quality). In practice, there are many different gradations. A mix of government and corporate high quality debt might be called A, AA, or AAB. I’m going by common parlance. Different rating agencies have their own designations.
A most curious thread. How does a ”closed” thread (for two days now) seeking only an ”un-flashy”bond fund continue to receive this degree of attention - now totaling more than 1.4K views and over 60 responses? Like … how many “un-flashy” bond funds are there?
Maybe @Crash should post another thread seeking a “flashy” fund? That would be mighty interesting.
As to what Crash is looking for, only he can say. To add another wrinkle, I noticed in the OP that what "moderately aggressive" (M* category) of AA funds was mentioned. But M* puts PRWCX in the "moderate" AA category. Which goes to show that aggressiveness, or risk, is subjective.
Until a year ago, M* classified AA funds by the percentage of equity they held, e.g. 50%-70%. But equity percentage is only one factor in determining how risky a fund is. So M* switched to its current system of conservative,moderately conservative, moderate, moderately aggressive, aggressive. Which is fine if you view risk the same way as M* does. https://www.morningstar.com/funds/help-morningstar-name-its-allocation-categories
But if your take on risk is different, e.g. you're looking for a 50%-70% equity fund, the fund you seek might be in the moderate allocation category or the aggressive category rather than in the moderately aggressive category.
I was way off. I’ve used “AA” on my asset allocation models over many years to represent high quality credit. While I did read Crash’s original post, somewhere over 3 days my brain began interpreting the thread as related to bonds - which it is not. Thanks for clearing the fog.
TRAIX @ Schwab. This discussion got me curious if this fund could be purchased at Schwab. I went to trade mutual fund and put in the symbol. To my surprise it told me that fund required a $1.00 minimum and no transaction charge. When I tried to buy it the order was not accepted and said to call in. Long story short I was told there was an error in the software but given my account status I could purchase it with $100,000 minimum as an institutional purchase. True? I didn’t try but maybe I will take them up on it when some stuff matures.
Yes, what I had in mind was Asset Allocation--- a mix of stocks and bonds. But i want more stocks than bonds. Not long ago, those animals were simply called "Balanced." I continue to follow this closed thread to see just where it wends its way around and around. Apologies to all for not being more specific at the outset, but the corrections have been made along the way: -gotta be no-load. -Institutional share classes typically require huge minimums. No can do. -no Fidelity. Website is like a Chinese Fire Drill, as we used to say.
As long as people wanna keep this thread from dying, let 'er rip.
Crash, you don't have to like the Fidelity website in order to like/order/buy their funds. I don't have an account with Fidelity, but I own their fund(s). The guys responsible for the website are not the same ones running the fund. I mean, you can certainly do whatever you want, but I don't get why this is a red flag for you? Just set up the account wherever and buy the fund; no?
This one might be "flashier" than what @Crash had in mind, but give a look to DGIFX, which just happens to fall into the same Lipper/MFO category as PRWCX/TRAIX. M* 5 star/gold. Not on any of the fund supermarkets, so requires direct investment.
Crash, you don't have to like the Fidelity website in order to like/order/buy their funds. I don't have an account with Fidelity, but I own their fund(s). The guys responsible for the website are not the same ones running the fund. I mean, you can certainly do whatever you want, but I don't get why this is a red flag for you? Just set up the account wherever and buy the fund; no?
Thanks for the question. We will not be setting up a brokerage account for my son, whereby you can buy and sell into just about anything. It's going to be a single, solitary, lovely, lonely, isolated fund. Just one. Prefer just to deal directly with the Fund House, itself. Which means needing to be able to navigate their particular website without the craziness I experienced at Fido.
This one might be "flashier" than what @Crash had in mind, but give a look to DGIFX, which just happens to fall into the same Lipper/MFO category as PRWCX/TRAIX. M* 5 star/gold. Not on any of the fund supermarkets, so requires direct investment.
Wow, that thing's taken off, with a bullet. Heavy in tech. OK, it's on the list, now. Going to examine that one deeper. It's a small/mid-cap fund, however. A good helping of bonds, which is a positive thing. *OOPS. Minimum to get in = $10k. Deal-Killer.
Also worth noting that the bulk of the outperformance (relative to FBALX, for example) occurred from June 23 of this year on. That smacks as a bit of pure luck in being in the right place at the right time.
It has some pluses in having smaller market cap holdings, more obscure tech holdings, and has been a decent performer, however, I don't personally care for the wide fluctuations in its year-by-year performance. Out of 10 years (and one partial), it was 1st quartile a very impressive 6 times... BUT... 4th quartile 3 times! In contrast, FBALX was 1st quartile an outstanding 9 times and 4th only once.
Anyway, Crash, I hope you find what you're looking for...
TRAIX @ Schwab. This discussion got me curious if this fund could be purchased at Schwab. I went to trade mutual fund and put in the symbol. To my surprise it told me that fund required a $1.00 minimum and no transaction charge. When I tried to buy it the order was not accepted and said to call in. Long story short I was told there was an error in the software but given my account status I could purchase it with $100,000 minimum as an institutional purchase. True? I didn’t try but maybe I will take them up on it when some stuff matures.
This is how Schwab site works. You can search for TRAIX and it found nothing, usually, it means you can't buy it. Then you can try buying it. In the case of TRAIX you can't even pass the first screen. Sometimes, you can pass the first screen, but on the second screen, you will get a warning or narrative that tells you you can't and the site won't let you buy it.
===========
Per Firstrade. In the past, I just opened an account in Welltrade because you could buy Ishares funds that were close or had a high min in other brokers. I also made sure I can add to these funds at the receiving broker. After I did it, I transferred these funds to my original brokerage IN KIND at no cost. Then I closed the account at WellsTrade and made sure the receiving company paid for these fees.
The STFBX statutory prospectus says that mere mortals cannot purchase this fund. Well actually what it says is about who can buy the fund:
Shares of the Funds may be purchased if you are a current or retired agent or employee of the State Farm Insurance Companies or a family member of such a person.
Further, even if you were to circumvent this purchase restriction by having someone transfer a share to you, it wouldn't do you any good:
If you acquired your Fund shares because another shareowner transferred those shares to you and if you are otherwise ineligible to invest in Fund shares, you will be allowed to maintain your account. However, in these circumstances, you may not add to your account and you may not establish new registrations.
Comments
Thanks/OJ
Not msf … But I looked out of curiosity at the acronym and found that “AA” is commonly used to denote a wide variety of disparately different things - ranging from “anti-aircraft fire” to a woman’s bra size. Literally dozens and dozens of meanings.
https://www.acronymfinder.com/AA.html
Re Bonds?
My take on bonds (probably wrong) - U.S. government backed paper is generally considered to represent AAA (triple A credit quality). One step below would be the very finest corporate debt generally referred to as AA (double A quality). In practice, there are many different gradations. A mix of government and corporate high quality debt might be called A, AA, or AAB. I’m going by common parlance. Different rating agencies have their own designations.
A most curious thread. How does a ”closed” thread (for two days now) seeking only an ”un-flashy”
bondfund continue to receive this degree of attention - now totaling more than 1.4K views and over 60 responses? Like … how many “un-flashy”bondfunds are there?Maybe @Crash should post another thread seeking a “flashy” fund? That would be mighty interesting.
Slightly longer answer was given in this thread by @LewisBraham, who noted that AA can be static (think 60/40 balanced fund) or genuinely dynamic (within guardrail percentages).
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/165686/#Comment_165686
As to what Crash is looking for, only he can say. To add another wrinkle, I noticed in the OP that what "moderately aggressive" (M* category) of AA funds was mentioned. But M* puts PRWCX in the "moderate" AA category. Which goes to show that aggressiveness, or risk, is subjective.
Until a year ago, M* classified AA funds by the percentage of equity they held, e.g. 50%-70%. But equity percentage is only one factor in determining how risky a fund is. So M* switched to its current system of conservative,moderately conservative, moderate, moderately aggressive, aggressive. Which is fine if you view risk the same way as M* does.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/help-morningstar-name-its-allocation-categories
But if your take on risk is different, e.g. you're looking for a 50%-70% equity fund, the fund you seek might be in the moderate allocation category or the aggressive category rather than in the moderately aggressive category.
I was way off. I’ve used “AA” on my asset allocation models over many years to represent high quality credit. While I did read Crash’s original post, somewhere over 3 days my brain began interpreting the thread as related to bonds - which it is not. Thanks for clearing the fog.
-gotta be no-load.
-Institutional share classes typically require huge minimums. No can do.
-no Fidelity. Website is like a Chinese Fire Drill, as we used to say.
As long as people wanna keep this thread from dying, let 'er rip.
so just go w STFBX
OK, it's on the list, now. Going to examine that one deeper. It's a small/mid-cap fund, however. A good helping of bonds, which is a positive thing.
*OOPS. Minimum to get in = $10k. Deal-Killer.
It has some pluses in having smaller market cap holdings, more obscure tech holdings, and has been a decent performer, however, I don't personally care for the wide fluctuations in its year-by-year performance. Out of 10 years (and one partial), it was 1st quartile a very impressive 6 times... BUT... 4th quartile 3 times! In contrast, FBALX was 1st quartile an outstanding 9 times and 4th only once.
Anyway, Crash, I hope you find what you're looking for...
As mentioned once or twice, above, the best candidate looks to be RPBAX now.
You can search for TRAIX and it found nothing, usually, it means you can't buy it.
Then you can try buying it. In the case of TRAIX you can't even pass the first screen.
Sometimes, you can pass the first screen, but on the second screen, you will get a warning or narrative that tells you you can't and the site won't let you buy it.
===========
Per Firstrade. In the past, I just opened an account in Welltrade because you could buy Ishares funds that were close or had a high min in other brokers. I also made sure I can add to these funds at the receiving broker.
After I did it, I transferred these funds to my original brokerage IN KIND at no cost.
Then I closed the account at WellsTrade and made sure the receiving company paid for these fees.
Not clear the son could do self-directed investing here (no advisors for me), and also manager is 2y in, so that may blunt any Owlness.
Still, it showed performance like FBALX w notably lower UI.
The STFBX statutory prospectus says that mere mortals cannot purchase this fund. Well actually what it says is about who can buy the fund: Further, even if you were to circumvent this purchase restriction by having someone transfer a share to you, it wouldn't do you any good:
There's a big honkin' footnote for Great Owls, M*, Lipper, Zacks ....
https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/2117450/4-balanced-mutual-funds-to-buy-for-stability-in-uncertain-times
https://www.morningstar.com/asset-management-companies/state-farm-BN00000A2N
All as casual as I in their labor.
(Maybe some do catch that exclusion, as I am being casual here too.)
Re Zacks - I’ve gotten some decent appraisals from them on individual stocks. Not a bad site. Interesting linked article too.
The Thread That Would Not Die !
Just like “closing” a fund. Everybody suddenly wants in.