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

David Snowball's August Commentary

Comments

  • edited August 2015
    A few morsels from Ed:

    "Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. - Joseph Heller"

    "My point is this – the best ideas are often the simplest ideas, capable of being presented and explained in one or two declarative sentences."

    "Investors, whether professional or individual, need to guard mentally against always being prepared to fight the last war."

    (on balanced funds) "... I am increasingly concerned that the three usual asset classes of equities, fixed income, and cash, will not necessarily work in a complementary manner to reduce risk."








  • edited August 2015
    It had occurred to me it would make sense for MFO to be organized as a non-profit corporation. That organizational status seems to be a good mesh with my perception of its "public" purpose. I am glad to see that has happened. One thought....perhaps the organizational documents and any periodic reports that will now be required can be posted somewhere on the website. That way us folks who are interested in such things will have a convenient way to access them. Keep up the good work!
  • Thank you, @davfor
    davfor said:

    One thought....perhaps the organizational documents and any periodic reports that will now be required can be posted somewhere on the website. That way us folks who are interested in such things will have a convenient way to access them.

    We'll be working on that, soon.
  • Is it really the year 2105? Did we really jump 90 years overnight?:)
  • Thanks for the notes @hank

    Per the "(on balanced funds) "... I am increasingly concerned that the three usual asset classes of equities, fixed income, and cash, will not necessarily work in a complementary manner to reduce risk."

    Many economies and policies still doing the fight from years ago. Central banks are doing what they feel is needed, but; yes the markets are perverted by many factors.

    Not sure about the "risk" part; but the "return" thought is reflected through this year, at this point in time.

    Not more than 2 years ago, one could find a balance to an equity portfolio portion if it went south for awhile; as support could usually be found from investment grade bonds and related.
    Not the case this year, eh?

    Hey, I gotta get outside for work before the evening storms arrive.

    Take care,
    Catch
  • JoJo26 said:

    Is it really the year 2105? Did we really jump 90 years overnight?:)

    Thanks for the keen eyes!

    That's my fault. I've fixed the title, but can't change the link, now. *sigh*

  • @hank, can you explain your statement below? Thanks
    (on balanced funds) "... I am increasingly concerned that the three usual asset classes of equities, fixed income, and cash, will not necessarily work in a complementary manner to reduce risk."
  • edited August 2015
    Hi @Sven

    I'm puzzled with this other statement in Mr. Studzinski's commentary:

    " most people investing in a balanced (or equity fund for that matter) investment, do not have a sufficiently long time horizon, ten years perhaps being the minimum commitment."

    My "presumption", per the above; would have to center to the possibility of only those close to or in retirement would use a balanced fund (conservative or moderate). Perhaps an explanation will arrive.

    IMO, there remains many folks who should be invested in some fashion but are still afraid of the "nasty Wall St. thing". Balanced funds allow these folks to have market exposure with perhaps limited portfolio destruction, eh?

    Take care,
    Catch

  • edited August 2015
    @Catch. That bothered me a bit too. Reading further, Ed observes that equity funds and balanced funds have on average posted surprisingly similar returns over the past decade. This suggests, perhaps, that they carry a similar degree of risk presently. (The risk investors may be overlooking is on the bond side.)

    Note: Ed's reference is to the October '87 crash - which as I recall involved a near 23% drop in the Dow in single afternoon. No time to run or duck. Can't speak for Ed, but the underlying assumption here seems to be that investors are woefully unprepared for that kind of one-day carnage.

  • @catch, agree with what you said on Ed's statement.

    Again, balanced or even balanced index funds are great place to start for many novice investors. That is why target date funds is a reasonable choices providing the expense ratio is low.
  • Congrats David on getting a nonprofit charter! Hopefully it will encourage some of our members to donate knowing its now tax deductible:)
  • Hi Guys,

    Each and every month, Professor David Snowball and his talented team do a superior job of keeping us informed, and making us better investors. This month’s Commentary is no exception.

    They give us the tools, but it’s up to us to get the job done.

    Wait! That sounds a bit too familiar. That’s because it is. I paraphrased Winston Churchill’s 1941 "Give us the tools, and we will finish the Job" speech. It’s short and famous so here it is:



    Enjoy. I also like the BBC video that featured Churchill in its Secrets of Leadership series. Here is the Link to this excellent piece of history:



    As investors we can learn from Churchill’s checkered career. He survived early failures to be a decisive player in WWII decision making. Investing has many parallels given its uncertainties and critical tradeoffs. The ability and resolve to “Staying the Course” is a winning strategy.

    Thank you David and loyal team members.

    Best Regards.
  • >> ... do not put at risk more than you can afford to lose without impacting your standard of living.

    This sort of thing puzzles me greatly. How to invest then? If 'lose' means go to zero, then most of us would be doing equities around the edges, with 75% or whatever in cash or individual bonds.

    If lose means something else, as surely it must, then what?

    I am finding it ultimately meaningless, in other words, no matter what math examples I throw at it. But this is Studzinski.

    I also know it's illegit ever to say 'it's different this time', but if something like 1987 (a meaningless blip in the longer term anyway) happened today, however it happened, I bet the amount of quick reactive buying, both algorithmic-automatic and manual-opportunistic, would be a headspinning sight.
  • MJG said:


    As investors we can learn from Churchill’s checkered career. He survived early failures to be a decisive player in WWII decision making. Investing has many parallels given its uncertainties and critical tradeoffs. The ability and resolve to “Staying the Course” is a winning strategy.

    I'm not sure if Churchill career is a good example. He didn't have any skin in the game. If he did he probably would not have survived Gallipoli if he was in the trenches.

    The more I've read about British history; the less I like it - slaves, drug dealers, colonialism, imperialism, and drawing the USA into their wars.
  • @David and MFO team, thank you again for job well done.
  • edited August 2015
    Hi, guys.

    In response to DavFor's request, a bit of info on what's up behind the scenes.

    It's been a busy year. The Core Four (Ed, Charles, Chip and me) met in Chicago last fall, after the Morningstar ETF Conference. There was a sense that I needed to try to create an enduring legal and financial structure for the Observer. To that point we had very little legal protection (and few legal resources) against the occasional angry and vindictive advisor; we're threatened occasionally and while truth and justice are defenses, they're not safeguards against bankruptcy. And we had no organizational foundation on which to build. It wast mostly me, guessing and hoping.

    After talking with managers we respect and a local attorney, we decided to become an LLC. Shortly thereafter, we filed for and received intellectual property protection for our logo and name. Then a hang-up: I went to a non-profit law specialist to begin filing for the 501(c)(3) status and she informed me that LLCs cannot become tax-exempt. So then we filed to dissolve the LLC, incorporate in Iowa as a non-profit and file for 501(c)(3). She warned me that the IRS could take more than a year to adjudicate. Happily, it was closer to six weeks. Next, we need to hire an accountant who specializes in non-profits to work through the question of how we move resources from MFO's account into MFO, Inc's account. The existing account (and its attendant taxes) is legally mine because MFO was a sole proprietorship. Chip has an MBA and believes that I might be able to loan the money to MFO as start-up capital or make it a contribution. But once it's in the new MFO, it becomes a bit legally constrained.

    What's next? Ohhh ... we need to recruit one to three additional members to MFO's board of directors. Chip and I sit on the board, but we need folks with broader expertise and a better understanding of the financial services and/or non-profit organization words. We've had several nominees who feel, uhh, distinctly higher on the food chain than me. Those discussions are commencing. We need to decide what, if anything, might be offered to MFO contributors. My bottom line is that nothing we do now gets taken away from folks, it remains free and non-commercial. But we might offer access to Charles's fund screener or some other editorial service. The data contracts, though, are really expensive by our standards, even after considerable negotiation. So I want to be sure we're acting sensibly before mortgaging anything.

    And, oh yeah, I start back to full-time teaching and administering my academic department soon; we're searching for two new faculty and I've been asked by my president to help develop a plan to recruit and support transfer students to the college. Had I mentioned trying to finish the September issue several days early so I can drive to Cincinnati and meet the folks at the Ultimus Fund Services client conference (I'm trying to do networking for us)?

    For what interest all that holds,

    David
  • MFO is in good hands. Intelligent minds. Committed people. Thanks for the fascinating read, as ever. I love the new 501(c)3 development. Honestly! That's a big blankety-blank deal, said uncle Joe Biden.
  • edited August 2015
    @David_Snowball Thanks for the quick look "behind the scenes". It has been obvious The Core Four spark plugs you mentioned put a lot of thought and effort into helping make sure MFO continues to be here every day. It sounds like substantial effort is also presently being put into strengthening MFO's "bones". Both sets of effort are appreciated!
  • HI David,
    I was reading your August commentary and was interested in your strategy about thinning out the ranks relative to the number of holdings in your portfolio. I believe you indicated that you have started the process. I was curious about one conundrum that I'm sure you've encountered: selling funds that have built up capital gains. If you are like me and have held funds for several years, chances are that you have a considerable amount of capital appreciation sitting in those funds. Selling those funds would trigger capital gains taxes (mostly long-term). Do you have a particular strategy regarding these funds? For example, are you choosing to sell certain ones this year and others in subsequent years based on the amount of capital gains or some other strategy? I'm trying to whittle down the number of funds that I own, but find myself looking at funds that have considerable capital gains waiting to be taxed.

    Excellent job on the commentary as always !

    Will
  • TedTed
    edited August 2015
    @willmatt72: Cull the mutual fund herd and pay the 15 or 20% tax. If you made $10,000 on a fund your net profit is $ 8,500 or $8,000. Sit back and congratulate yourself on making money the old fashion way, your earned it.
    Regards,
    Ted
  • @Ted, +1

    Many of us still have losses to put new or old gains against.
  • @davidmoran: Excellent point ! You can use the off-set provision.
    Regards,
    Ted
  • That aside, I like the point you made not to let tax calcs drive the decisionmaking. Just do it and be glad.
  • I have some small losses, but they are nowhere near the amount of gains, so the offsets wouldn't come close. I do understand your point, though.
  • i've been holding onto FPACX exactly for this tax-driven reason. also: because i can't find a suitable replacement, though i've looked high and low mighily. ted's comment makes me think i should go and scour the OEF universe once again.
  • edited August 2015
    What a treat. Sam Lee is going to profile a fund in Sept. Snarky and thoughtful. Can't wait.
  • David's comment on the WSJ reducing its personal finance staff to ramp up its financial advisor services was interesting. Many RIAs I know no longer subscribe to the WSJ, either hard copy or online. Fact is, it is becoming irrelevant. The few articles on mutual funds have pretty much disappeared, and most of them are written by freelance journalists based in London and other areas of the world. They are well done, but it is clear the WSJ is like any other rag...it depends on advertising for its survival. And when marketing folks look at the readership numbers, they are often deciding to put their money to better use.
  • edited August 2015
    Sven said:

    @hank, can you explain your statement below? Thanks

    (on balanced funds) "... I am increasingly concerned that the three usual asset classes of equities, fixed income, and cash, will not necessarily work in a complementary manner to reduce risk."
    @Sven:

    Sorry for the late reply. Just noticed your question was directed at me.

    Answer: It's not my statement, but rather one of Ed Studzinski's from David's August Commentary. I enjoy reading Ed's provocative snippets with which he peppers his longer analysis and shared four that I thought pretty good.

    Um ... I can't explain it except that I'm also concerned that two of the three components of most balanced funds may not work together as intended to protect investors the next time the stock market swoons. This concern has mainly to do with the meager returns available on all but the riskiest bonds - which I'd expect to behave more like stocks than bonds. The low bond returns make me wonder how much "upside" bonds could expect to reap. Indeed, a sienerio where both bonds and stocks are declining in value together would be very bad for balanced funds. The third component, cash, might well "protect" but won't offset losses in the other two components.

    Some of this concern explains why I have overweighted commodities recently (and underweighted stocks and bonds). As proof that I'm not very smart, I've had my head handed to me on a platter with the GSCI off 40% over the past year.:)



  • hank said
    August 2 edited August 2 Flag
    A few morsels from Ed:
    "Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. - Joseph Heller"

    Will this be mediocroty thrust upon us? As in;
    Hi ! I'm from the government,and I'm here to help you.

    The New School's Teresa Ghilarducci weighs in on mandated savings, risk aversion and avoiding fees
    Aug 5, 2015 @ 10:46 am
    By Bloomberg News
    Retirement policy wonks don't usually get hate mail. But in 2008, Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at the New School for Social Research, proposed replacing 401(k) plans and their income tax break with a mandated government savings plan for all workers. The blowback from some Tea Partyers was so intense that the school's chief of security gave her his cell phone number.

    The plan called for mandatory savings of 5% of salary, with the government handling all investment decisions, guaranteeing a rate of return above inflation, and ultimately paying out the retirement money in a lifelong annuity. It's pretty radical. Conservatives hate it. She continues to advocate for it, though she won't comment on whether she has discussed it as one of the cadre of economists advising Hillary Clinton in her presidential bid.

    About 15 years ago, Ms. Ghilarducci started to focus on getting to retirement in fighting shape.

    “It was a pure money play,” she said. “I lost some weight and am devoted to my seven-minute workout app and weight training at the gym." It's not about vanity, she said, "but the money I hope to save if I can avoid illnesses such as diabetes and osteoporosis.”
    Ms. Ghilarducci said if she didn't have access to TIAA-CREF she'd park her money in Vanguard index funds.

    “It's against my religion to invest in actively managed funds,” she said. "I suspected they were fishy when I was younger, and now we have plenty of evidence that passive [investing] is better."

    After doing some intensive research on long-term care insurance, she decided to pass. She cites the high premiums on the policies and new research that suggests that budget-busting extended care will be needed by fewer elderly people than previously thought.

    “Pushing for Medicare to expand to cover long-term care is my best bet, and honestly, it's everyone's best bet,” she said.

    Many retirement experts and myriad online tools suggest aiming for retirement income that can replace 70% to 80% of your pre-retirement income. Ms. Ghilarducci, who has based her plan on living until 92, is out to replace 100%.
    http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150805/FREE/150809967/this-retirement-expert-got-death-threats-for-her-policy-reform-ideas

    WHO INVITED TERESA GHILARDUCCI TO THE TABLE?
    Lunch and populism with Hillary Clinton’s least-likely adviser.
    BY NANCY COOK
    This article appears in the June 27, 2015 edition of National Journal Magazine as Who Invited Teresa Ghilarducci to the Table?.

    Ghilarducci's big idea, then and now, is to create government-run, guaranteed retirement accounts ("GRAs," for short). Taxpayers would be required to put 5 percent of their annual income into savings, with the money managed by the Social Security Administration. They could only opt out if their employer offered a traditional pension, and they wouldn't be able to withdraw the money as readily and early as with a 401(k). The government would invest the money and guarantee a rate of return, adjusted to inflation.

    To pay for the program, Ghilarducci calls for ending tax breaks for people with 401(k)s —breaks that, according to her and others' research, now go primarily toward wealthier Americans. Instead, every taxpayer would receive a $600 refundable tax credit that would go toward the 5 percent annual contribution.

    Plenty of economists and policymakers—especially on the state and local levels—have proposed some version of government-run retirement accounts. But no plan has been quite so grandly liberal as Ghilarducci's, which would create a new federal program easily as massive as the one wrought by the Affordable Care Act—and do it by mandating that Americans contribute 5 percent of their earnings. "You don't like mandates? Get real," she wrote in a 2012 Times op-ed. "Just as a voluntary Social Security system would have been a disaster, a voluntary retirement account plan is a disaster."
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/teresa-ghilarducci-hillary-clinton-adviser-20150626
  • >> You don't like mandates? Get real

    Oh, hear, x infinity
Sign In or Register to comment.