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.
Any suggestions in this category? I'm looking for something that doesn't hold too many low quality/junk bonds as my portfolio has that covered already. Thus far, RPGAX and GAOAX have popped up on my radar. I tend to err on the side of being conservative in my picks. Thanks in advance.
That doesn't surprise me. A couple of years ago I went to a fund shareholder meeting and JPMorgan didn't send a single board member or manager - just their lawyer and a couple of other people.
In contrast, at the only other fund shareholder meeting I've gone to - T Rowe Price - I got to meet Brian Rogers, talk with people involved with their health care fund, etc.
I own HCOYX also, which is ranked number 1 on that list. I did not mention it as a recommendation to Willmatt, as it is not a conservative fund. It takes on risky bets, which have made it excel prior to the last half year or so, but have definitely hurt it most of this year.
Both of those look like good funds. I own GAOAX and have considered RPGAX. I also own QVGIX, which you might want to look at also.
I was looking at the Oppenheimer fund and noticed that the fund managers have been there for about 3 years or less. I wonder how that fund would do in a downturn.
Both of those look like good funds. I own GAOAX and have considered RPGAX. I also own QVGIX, which you might want to look at also.
I was looking at the Oppenheimer fund and noticed that the fund managers have been there for about 3 years or less. I wonder how that fund would do in a downturn.
The fund managers use what they call return shaping strategies, which allow them to hedge and to partially protect principal in environments of heightened volatility. They can buy VIX call spreads to protect downside.
You should look at Leuthold Core (LCORX), in many ways one of the progenitors of the category. Nominally "tactical allocation," it has a 20 year track record. Top 2% over the past decade, top 5% in 2008. It's a purely quant-driven fund. Leuthold monitors 130 market and valuation indicators and shifts assets accordingly. A bit more downside protection and noticeably more upside than its peers, since inception.
Leuthold Global (GLBLX) is more global but uses the same discipline. LCORX looks better just now, but that's because domestic has been stronger than international of late. Since inception, Global has a hearty lead.
These are very disciplined folks with a long record as manager and a longer record as institutional researchers, which is where the business started.
Both of those look like good funds. I own GAOAX and have considered RPGAX. I also own QVGIX, which you might want to look at also.
I was looking at the Oppenheimer fund and noticed that the fund managers have been there for about 3 years or less. I wonder how that fund would do in a downturn.
The fund managers use what they call return shaping strategies, which allow them to hedge and to partially protect principal in environments of heightened volatility. They can buy VIX call spreads to protect downside.
Are you aware if this is a strategy used by these particular fund managers or something that has been done by managers of this fund in the past as well?
Consider VMVFX. New but with attractive present and promising performance -- especially for conservative investors. Good strategy, defensive, experienced team, low ER, other available share class. Only seeing it offered, however, at Vanguard. Overall seems well suited to short, medium, and hopefully long term volatility. Of course, managers caution that it is not expected to keep up in rising markets like other funds, but for me, it's offering what I need in a portfolio.
JP Morgan finally got back to me today about my question about the fund's credit quality for bonds. They said that FINRA does not allow the use of average quality in any materials. "The calculation of this information is considered to be subjective," as stated in their reply. Therefore, they are unable to provide me with the credit quality information requested for the fund.
I still own the fund and still like it. That said, it's not terribly "tactical" in that it tends to lean one way or another rather than move decisively. And it's so distinct from its Morningstar benchmark (differences I outlined in the most recent profile) that folks were forever saying "this fund sucks, it trails 90% of its peers" when I think it's closer to say "this fund has a lot of thoughtful features, it's unlike 90% of its peers."
The short story for those unfamiliar with it: it's a fund of (mostly) Northern ETFs. Formerly an institutional balanced fund; when it became retail, it retained the low institutional e.r. The Northern ETFS are (mostly) factor-tilted: they favor value a bit over growth, high quality / high dividend a bit over low, small a bit over large. Fama-French sorts of biases. In the end, it's more international in both equity and income, more value-oriented and smaller-cap than its peer group.
JP Morgan finally got back to me today about my question about the fund's credit quality for bonds. They said that FINRA does not allow the use of average quality in any materials. "The calculation of this information is considered to be subjective," as stated in their reply. Therefore, they are unable to provide me with the credit quality information requested for the fund.
This seems to be a rather odd response.
I agree. I believe that their first statement (that credit ratings are considered by regulators to be subjective) is accurate, but that does not lead directly to the second statement - that they cannot provide credit information.
Rather, I think it leads to the statement that if they provide credit quality information, they must accompany it with how the portfolio was evaluated (e.g. using S&P ratings and dropping unrated bonds, or whatever).
Here's a page I found from UMB Fund Services. (A subsidiary of UMB, which Fidelity brokerage investors may recognize as the bank providing the checking services):
The SEC has a new rule effective July 7, 2014 ...
Funds that choose to show credit quality categorizations ...
Funds will be required to describe how the credit quality of the holdings was determined, and if credit ratings are used, a description of how they were identified and selected.
Comments
In contrast, at the only other fund shareholder meeting I've gone to - T Rowe Price - I got to meet Brian Rogers, talk with people involved with their health care fund, etc.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/world-allocation
Kevin
Leuthold Global (GLBLX) is more global but uses the same discipline. LCORX looks better just now, but that's because domestic has been stronger than international of late. Since inception, Global has a hearty lead.
These are very disciplined folks with a long record as manager and a longer record as institutional researchers, which is where the business started.
David
This seems to be a rather odd response.
The short story for those unfamiliar with it: it's a fund of (mostly) Northern ETFs. Formerly an institutional balanced fund; when it became retail, it retained the low institutional e.r. The Northern ETFS are (mostly) factor-tilted: they favor value a bit over growth, high quality / high dividend a bit over low, small a bit over large. Fama-French sorts of biases. In the end, it's more international in both equity and income, more value-oriented and smaller-cap than its peer group.
David
Rather, I think it leads to the statement that if they provide credit quality information, they must accompany it with how the portfolio was evaluated (e.g. using S&P ratings and dropping unrated bonds, or whatever).
Here's a page I found from UMB Fund Services. (A subsidiary of UMB, which Fidelity brokerage investors may recognize as the bank providing the checking services):