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.
When mutual funds are "slow on the draw" in posting their dvd distributions (and some, e.g. TRP, are notably slooooow), I simply go to fidelity.com and use their Quotes tool (see drop down menu under Research). For some reason, they are as fast as anyone at grabbing reported distributions and posting them accurately, at times quite a bit before MFs get around to posting the info on their own websites.
Yes, and there was another one before that, where I reported what David Sherman sent via e-mail, but those were a while back. The OP's question refers to "current yield." It's of course possible to figure dividend yield based on whatever time period people like from the distribution history on M* and other sites. SEC yield is important too, for a lot of investors.
Someday, we'll go to this page http://www.riverparkfunds.com/Funds/StrategicIncome/Overview.aspx and there will be an additional grey tab, labeled: Distributions and all harvested from the garden of RSIVX will be listed, including the Reinvest NAV. (sigh) Hey, a fella can dream, can't he? Is that so wrong?
Heard back from Mr. Schaja this morning. Here's what he says:
The 30-day SEC yield as of May 31 was 4.47% Retail and 4.72% for Institutional class. We estimate the yield-to-worst at 5.2% and the yield-to-maturity at 6.6% (both gross of expenses) and an average of the two, or 5.9% would be a good approximation. The portfolio is on the short side of our maturity range, with an effective average maturity of only a little over 2 years. We expect to generate returns in excess of the yield as we have historically.
I suspect that the nature of the fund's strategy might cause the guys to be a bit chary about publishing a single number but the complexity of the compliant explanation required for yield/worst versus yield/maturity versus SEC yield and the probability that effective yield lies somewhere in between might explain the lack of a single number on-site. Morty did not say that. I'm guessing.
So they wouldn't be surprised to generate 5.9% yield plus some capital appreciation.
Thanks, David. I just wonder why they won't publish those figures you quote on the web site, just as data and without the "approximation" number, which isn't nearly as supportable. Doesn't seem like they would be promising anything or running up against regulatory constraints to do so ... bond funds almost universally report some 'objective' yield figure.
Separately, I wonder why M* used to show 30d SEC yield but no longer does - i.e., if the cause is that RiverPark has stopped providing the information.
For comparison, here's what David Sherman calculated after the October '13 dividend, when RSIVX was brand-spanking new.
Current yield: 8.43% Approximate expected gross investment yield: 7.12% Approximate duration: 3.12 yr. Avg market price: 103.61 Currency exposure: 94.5% U.S. $, 4.5% Canadian $ Estimated liquidity (scale = 1-10; 10 = most liquid): 7.42 Estimated average credit quality: BB*
As I recall, the "approximate expected gross investment yield" of 7.12% was an average of YTW and YTM, so it should be comparable to the current "approximation" (provided in this thread) of 5.9%. That tells us where the portfolio has moved over the past months ... shorter maturity (as in David's report) and lower yield.
Also, that's expected yield "gross of expenses," so the E.R. has to come out to show the yield we'll receive -- so, roughly, 4.7% retail, 4.9% inst'l.
Good news is that there's not much difference between "expected" dividend yield and SEC yield, which probably indicates that the bonds in the portfolio aren't that high-priced, as is the case with so many other bond funds now.
@AndyJ Exemplary rigor (I am not worthy). I've been rather lax in not subjecting my recent "starter fund" to stricter scrutiny. As a new fund with uncommon methodology, due diligence would strongly encourage a closer monitoring, at least for a couple of years. Thanks for nudging the bar back up for me!
Comments
Just dropped a note to the president of the Riverpark Funds. I'll let you know what I hear.
David
When mutual funds are "slow on the draw" in posting their dvd distributions (and some, e.g. TRP, are notably slooooow), I simply go to fidelity.com and use their Quotes tool (see drop down menu under Research). For some reason, they are as fast as anyone at grabbing reported distributions and posting them accurately, at times quite a bit before MFs get around to posting the info on their own websites.
February 4th Discussion
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/35684/#Comment_35684
Nov- Dec 2013 Discussion
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/32277/#Comment_32277
http://www.riverparkfunds.com/Funds/StrategicIncome/Overview.aspx
and there will be an additional grey tab, labeled: Distributions
and all harvested from the garden of RSIVX will be listed, including the Reinvest NAV.
(sigh) Hey, a fella can dream, can't he? Is that so wrong?
So they wouldn't be surprised to generate 5.9% yield plus some capital appreciation.
For what that's worth,
David
Separately, I wonder why M* used to show 30d SEC yield but no longer does - i.e., if the cause is that RiverPark has stopped providing the information.
Current yield: 8.43%
Approximate expected gross investment yield: 7.12%
Approximate duration: 3.12 yr.
Avg market price: 103.61
Currency exposure: 94.5% U.S. $, 4.5% Canadian $
Estimated liquidity (scale = 1-10; 10 = most liquid): 7.42
Estimated average credit quality: BB*
As I recall, the "approximate expected gross investment yield" of 7.12% was an average of YTW and YTM, so it should be comparable to the current "approximation" (provided in this thread) of 5.9%. That tells us where the portfolio has moved over the past months ... shorter maturity (as in David's report) and lower yield.
Also, that's expected yield "gross of expenses," so the E.R. has to come out to show the yield we'll receive -- so, roughly, 4.7% retail, 4.9% inst'l.
Good news is that there's not much difference between "expected" dividend yield and SEC yield, which probably indicates that the bonds in the portfolio aren't that high-priced, as is the case with so many other bond funds now.
Exemplary rigor (I am not worthy). I've been rather lax in not subjecting my recent "starter fund" to stricter scrutiny. As a new fund with uncommon methodology, due diligence would strongly encourage a closer monitoring, at least for a couple of years. Thanks for nudging the bar back up for me!