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.
FYI: A central theme for 2016 is likely to be diversification. However, spreading risk among several mutual funds doesn’t have to mean that you will water down your returns — investors can be tactical in their portfolio management and potentially juice performance with the right selections. Regards, Ted http://investorplace.com/2015/12/best-fidelity-mutual-funds-2016/print
@mcmarasco: Author recommends FSPHX instead. I also own FBTCX and highly recommend owning a biotech fund along with a general health care fund. Regards, Ted
I own both FSPHX and FBIOX. I might be a little concerned about biotechs this year if Hillary wins the Democratic primary. Political discussion will be at the forefront as this will be an election year, one of those topics will probably be healthcare. Hillary's tweet in September about the price gauging of the specialty drug market sent biotechs plunging. We could possibly hear more of this from her later this year. Who knows if this will happen, but I think it is something to consider.
she will win the primary and she will make an issue out of drug prices. i mean, why would she argue with success? unless, of course, some very very large donors from the med world step up to the plate w $.
Another viewpoint, of course, is that she will do the right thing, and the right thing to do here is rail about and try to go after drug prices bigtime. Who here disagrees with the second assertion?
i con't say whether it's right or wrong of her to do it, only that she will do it. and that it'll be a very popular stance. the thought of her in the WH makes me want to vomit but i fear it's inevitable given the likely competition.
While currently being a republican office holder, I am a lifelong democrat based upon my voting.
Hillary is a war-mongering industrialist fluffer for Wall Street. And I'll probably have no choice but to vote for her considering her likely opponent.
She's talking lots of stuff but wait and see what she actually does if she's elected. Hey, I'm from Michigan where we had Granholm for 2 terms (I voted for her each time and would again considering her opposition). Yeah, a woman governor. Man, she was soooooo bad it was enough to make a straight man go gay.
This is way OT, but out of curiosity, since multiple people have qualified their statements with "likely" (candidate/opponent), what unlikely candidate do you feel could win or would you support?
I'm not trying to start a debate here, just wondering why people qualify candidate with "likely". Is there something better/different about some of the unlikely candidates? Or is it just an automatic, somewhat meaningless phrase, thrown in to say "I'm not thinking about everyone".
? hit no nerve, did not think or say he was homophobic; just typical, gratuitously vulgar patter, in the modern online style, all the rage now under the guise of being non-PC (= the new descriptor simply for being impolite).
HRC unhinges all sorts of people, as does BO, and one has to wonder exactly why, when, you know, Huckabee and Cruz, say, do not do so in the same way.
I too wonder whom HRC will run against, and how well he will do, and be able to do, and how much real sense he will make. It does not do any of us any good not to have worthy, genuinely competitive politics with truly thoughtful and farsighted discoursing. The current state sure is fun. But despair is no way to live. And after she's elected, God, then what?
there *likely* will not be any good candidate, only the lesser of all the evils. hate to say it but at this point i'd probably go with jeb if he somehow *fluffered* up the rankings at the last minute. HC vs JB, JB would maybe get my vote, but as I said before, I think HC will ultimately get the nod, whereupon we'll have at least four (more) years of a country divided and at war with itself, at the very least.
3 of the "best" funds for 2016 on the list are Select Portfolios (Aerospace and Defense, Health, Consumer Staples) and one is a real estate fund. I can see the logic to holding a health care fund and a real estate fund (I own one of each long term). As a conversation topic, wouldn't the health of the Aerospace and Defense fund also depend on congressional budget strings?
Thank you for bringing the discussion back on topic. We sure have a tendency to divert our attentions elsewhere.
Fidelity does have an impressive lineup of fund choices. I ran a quick analysis of the .10 funds mentioned in the referenced article. Over the last 10 years, if a portfolio were assembled using all 10 funds in equal parts, that portfolio would have delivered a higher compound return with less standard deviation than an S&P 500 benchmark. Diversification is alive and well.
So is the Aerospace and Defense industry. That's a huge industry employing over 2 million workers. It's like a battleship; it's hard to change direction. The commercial part of it will continue to grow slowly (like 3% this year) as aircraft deliveries are solid. The military budget is similarly solid. The need for American military supremacy is not challenged by either our population or our elected government officials.
>> if a portfolio were assembled using all 10 funds in equal parts, that portfolio would have delivered a higher compound return with less standard deviation than an S&P 500 benchmark.
I have been following that analysis since the 1980s when some of these Selects were introduced, and have found it to be mostly true as well, somewhat inexplicably, and always wondered why Fido did not offer a fund of funds.
>> Diversification is alive and well.
You are saying 10 Selects is more diversified than SP500?
>> So is the Aerospace and Defense industry. That's a huge industry employing over 2 million workers. It's like a battleship; it's hard to change direction.
As someone who has been downsized three times the last decade from large and taken-over defense R&D companies, I can attest that this is not altogether true, not at all.
>> The commercial part of it will continue to grow slowly (like 3% this year) as aircraft deliveries are solid. The military budget is similarly solid.
Uh, maybe in some senses, but mutual funds do not invest in (say) VA hospitals, and the Darpa-dependent (ONR, ARL, NSF) companies whose work and products may get hit in an HRC administration may not do as well as in the past. Otoh, Fido manager track these sorts of developments and budgets funding very closely and presciently.
Thank you for reading and replying to my submittal.
It appears that during our working careers we shared a very common pitfall that is endemic to our chosen industry: the Aerospace and Defense complex. Job security and stability are surely not among its stronger suites. To keep fully employed in that economic sector one needed to be flexible and free to move relatively frequently.
For me that started in 1960 in the border city of San Diego, and ended four plus decades later in Los Angeles. In the intervening period, the job or lack thereof situation encouraged me to make five work related change decisions.
Fortunately, in my anecdotal experience, I benefited from these forced decisions. I’m sorry it did not work out so well for you. Such is the complex and unpredictable vicissitudes of opportunity and luck in the referenced industry.
But I do not share your anxiety over upcoming Federal budgets in the Aerospace and Defense arena. I suppose that’s what makes a stock market. Certainly industry growth in that arena has been muted, but modest growth has been persistent.
Aircraft deliveries for the next decade seem solid, and even under the President Obama administration, the budget for DARPA has increased. It appears to have a firm funding commitment through 2016. It is unlikely that any viable Presidential candidate will take a dim, unhealthy perspective of funding that operation in the future.
DARPA has proven to be a very fruitful government expenditure. It not only contributed to maintaining our military supremacy, but also many of its research sponsored byproducts have positively impacted our private and civilian lives. The agencies that have received DARPA support have been abundantly productive. I believe this has been widely recognized and wisely appreciated.
Please enjoy a Happy New Year. I’ll welcome the event by overeating and drinking a bit too much. DARPA will survive, and so will I.
Actually it worked out fine for me, also I never relocated, but it is very seldom pleasant being downsized, especially with kids in expensive colleges. I am not sure defense work is that much more labile than other, as I've been laid off from public sector and newspaper jobs as well. Darpa is a great agency, true, and B B N, Raytheon, QinetiQ, Foster-Miller, and Vecna (the places I have worked) have all benefited greatly from its initiatives and conversely the country from their work, even when the productive labor went for naught ultimately. However, Darpa's funding was seriously reduced in 2011 and 2012 and the number of BAAs (broad agency announcements) similarly, I believe. Also another result is lots of 'non-fruitfulness', but that's the nature of that sort of gov R&D. Can't speak to aircraft, but some sectors of aerospace have been nightmarish.
Comments
Any thoughts? I am an owner of FBIOX.
Thanks,
Matt
Regards,
Ted
While currently being a republican office holder, I am a lifelong democrat based upon my voting.
Hillary is a war-mongering industrialist fluffer for Wall Street. And I'll probably have no choice but to vote for her considering her likely opponent.
She's talking lots of stuff but wait and see what she actually does if she's elected. Hey, I'm from Michigan where we had Granholm for 2 terms (I voted for her each time and would again considering her opposition). Yeah, a woman governor. Man, she was soooooo bad it was enough to make a straight man go gay.
I'm staying long biotech with IBB.
and so it goes,
rono
You got that GOP lingo down.
I am confident that was not his intention as I am certain he is not homophobic.
I'm not trying to start a debate here, just wondering why people qualify candidate with "likely". Is there something better/different about some of the unlikely candidates? Or is it just an automatic, somewhat meaningless phrase, thrown in to say "I'm not thinking about everyone".
HRC unhinges all sorts of people, as does BO, and one has to wonder exactly why, when, you know, Huckabee and Cruz, say, do not do so in the same way.
I too wonder whom HRC will run against, and how well he will do, and be able to do, and how much real sense he will make. It does not do any of us any good not to have worthy, genuinely competitive politics with truly thoughtful and farsighted discoursing. The current state sure is fun. But despair is no way to live. And after she's elected, God, then what?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/10/jeb_bush_and_marco_rubio_want_absolutely_insane_tax_cuts.html
Whoa.
I can see the logic to holding a health care fund and a real estate fund (I own one of each long term).
As a conversation topic, wouldn't the health of the Aerospace and Defense fund also depend on congressional budget strings?
Thank you for bringing the discussion back on topic. We sure have a tendency to divert our attentions elsewhere.
Fidelity does have an impressive lineup of fund choices. I ran a quick analysis of the .10 funds mentioned in the referenced article. Over the last 10 years, if a portfolio were assembled using all 10 funds in equal parts, that portfolio would have delivered a higher compound return with less standard deviation than an S&P 500 benchmark. Diversification is alive and well.
So is the Aerospace and Defense industry. That's a huge industry employing over 2 million workers. It's like a battleship; it's hard to change direction. The commercial part of it will continue to grow slowly (like 3% this year) as aircraft deliveries are solid. The military budget is similarly solid. The need for American military supremacy is not challenged by either our population or our elected government officials.
Have a happy New Year. I certainly will.
Best Wishes.
>> if a portfolio were assembled using all 10 funds in equal parts, that portfolio would have delivered a higher compound return with less standard deviation than an S&P 500 benchmark.
I have been following that analysis since the 1980s when some of these Selects were introduced, and have found it to be mostly true as well, somewhat inexplicably, and always wondered why Fido did not offer a fund of funds.
>> Diversification is alive and well.
You are saying 10 Selects is more diversified than SP500?
>> So is the Aerospace and Defense industry. That's a huge industry employing over 2 million workers. It's like a battleship; it's hard to change direction.
As someone who has been downsized three times the last decade from large and taken-over defense R&D companies, I can attest that this is not altogether true, not at all.
>> The commercial part of it will continue to grow slowly (like 3% this year) as aircraft deliveries are solid. The military budget is similarly solid.
Uh, maybe in some senses, but mutual funds do not invest in (say) VA hospitals, and the Darpa-dependent (ONR, ARL, NSF) companies whose work and products may get hit in an HRC administration may not do as well as in the past. Otoh, Fido manager track these sorts of developments and budgets funding very closely and presciently.
Thank you for reading and replying to my submittal.
It appears that during our working careers we shared a very common pitfall that is endemic to our chosen industry: the Aerospace and Defense complex. Job security and stability are surely not among its stronger suites. To keep fully employed in that economic sector one needed to be flexible and free to move relatively frequently.
For me that started in 1960 in the border city of San Diego, and ended four plus decades later in Los Angeles. In the intervening period, the job or lack thereof situation encouraged me to make five work related change decisions.
Fortunately, in my anecdotal experience, I benefited from these forced decisions. I’m sorry it did not work out so well for you. Such is the complex and unpredictable vicissitudes of opportunity and luck in the referenced industry.
But I do not share your anxiety over upcoming Federal budgets in the Aerospace and Defense arena. I suppose that’s what makes a stock market. Certainly industry growth in that arena has been muted, but modest growth has been persistent.
Aircraft deliveries for the next decade seem solid, and even under the President Obama administration, the budget for DARPA has increased. It appears to have a firm funding commitment through 2016. It is unlikely that any viable Presidential candidate will take a dim, unhealthy perspective of funding that operation in the future.
DARPA has proven to be a very fruitful government expenditure. It not only contributed to maintaining our military supremacy, but also many of its research sponsored byproducts have positively impacted our private and civilian lives. The agencies that have received DARPA support have been abundantly productive. I believe this has been widely recognized and wisely appreciated.
Please enjoy a Happy New Year. I’ll welcome the event by overeating and drinking a bit too much. DARPA will survive, and so will I.
Best Wishes.