Hey guys,
I was looking to add a foreign slice to my retirement accounts and came across Vanguard International Growth Fund. It looks like it has a strong track record with low fees. Any investors or thoughts on this fund?
Thanks!
Starchild

(Sorry, didn't see Ted's post from earlier this morning)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/277751/000119312519026477/d613622d497.htm
497 1 d613622d497.htm 497
Janus Investment Fund
497 1 d613622d497.htm 497
Janus Investment Fund
Janus Henderson Global Unconstrained Bond Fund
Supplement dated February 4, 2019
to Currently Effective Prospectuses
Effective March 1, 2019, William H. Gross, the Portfolio Manager for Janus Henderson Global Unconstrained Bond Fund (the “Fund”) intends to retire. In connection with Mr. Gross’ retirement, effective on or about February 15, 2019, Nick Maroutsos will become the new Portfolio Manager of the Fund, and the Fund will change its name to Janus Henderson Absolute Return Income Opportunities Fund. The Fund’s investment objective and principal investment strategies are not changing, and the name change is intended to align the Fund’s name to other Janus Henderson products managed by Mr. Maroutsos using the absolute return income investment approach.
The Fund is expected to experience increased shareholder redemptions as a result of the above changes, which may cause the Fund to sell portfolio securities at times when it would not otherwise do so. As a result, the Fund may deviate from its stated investment strategies and policies in order to meet redemption requests. Increased shareholder redemptions and efforts to realign the Fund’s portfolio to reflect Mr. Maroutsos’ investment approach may also accelerate the realization of taxable income to shareholders if such sales of investments result in gains, and will also increase transaction costs. In addition, increased shareholder redemptions would result in the Fund’s current expenses being allocated over a smaller asset base, which would lead to an increase in the Fund’s expense ratio, but will not alter the expense caps currently in place for each share class of the Fund.
Based on the above changes, effective on or about February 15, 2019, the Fund’s prospectuses are amended as follows:
1. Under “Management” in the Fund Summary section of the Fund’s prospectuses, the following paragraph replaces the corresponding paragraph in its entirety:
Portfolio Manager: Nick Maroutsos is Executive Vice President and Portfolio Manager of the Fund, which he has managed since February 2019.
2. Under “Investment Personnel — Janus Henderson Global Unconstrained Bond Fund” in the Management of the Funds section of the Fund’s prospectuses, the following information replaces the corresponding information in its entirety:
Nick Maroutsos is Executive Vice President and Portfolio Manager of the Fund, which he has managed since February 2019. Mr. Maroutsos is also Portfolio Manager of other Janus Henderson accounts. He joined Janus Capital in 2015, and is a member of the Janus Global Macro leadership team. Prior to joining Janus Capital, Mr. Maroutsos was a Founder and Managing Director of Kapstream Capital, now a Janus Henderson subsidiary. Prior to forming Kapstream Capital in 2006, Mr. Maroutsos held positions with Pacific Investment Management Company LLC from 1999 to 2005. Mr. Maroutsos holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the University of California at San Diego and an MBA from the UCLA Anderson School of Management.
Effective on or about February 15, 2019, all references to William H. Gross are deleted from the Fund’s prospectuses.
Supplement dated February 4, 2019
to Currently Effective Prospectuses
Effective March 1, 2019, William H. Gross, the Portfolio Manager for Janus Henderson Global Unconstrained Bond Fund (the “Fund”) intends to retire. In connection with Mr. Gross’ retirement, effective on or about February 15, 2019, Nick Maroutsos will become the new Portfolio Manager of the Fund, and the Fund will change its name to Janus Henderson Absolute Return Income Opportunities Fund. The Fund’s investment objective and principal investment strategies are not changing, and the name change is intended to align the Fund’s name to other Janus Henderson products managed by Mr. Maroutsos using the absolute return income investment approach.
The Fund is expected to experience increased shareholder redemptions as a result of the above changes, which may cause the Fund to sell portfolio securities at times when it would not otherwise do so. As a result, the Fund may deviate from its stated investment strategies and policies in order to meet redemption requests. Increased shareholder redemptions and efforts to realign the Fund’s portfolio to reflect Mr. Maroutsos’ investment approach may also accelerate the realization of taxable income to shareholders if such sales of investments result in gains, and will also increase transaction costs. In addition, increased shareholder redemptions would result in the Fund’s current expenses being allocated over a smaller asset base, which would lead to an increase in the Fund’s expense ratio, but will not alter the expense caps currently in place for each share class of the Fund.
Based on the above changes, effective on or about February 15, 2019, the Fund’s prospectuses are amended as follows:
1. Under “Management” in the Fund Summary section of the Fund’s prospectuses, the following paragraph replaces the corresponding paragraph in its entirety:
Portfolio Manager: Nick Maroutsos is Executive Vice President and Portfolio Manager of the Fund, which he has managed since February 2019.
2. Under “Investment Personnel — Janus Henderson Global Unconstrained Bond Fund” in the Management of the Funds section of the Fund’s prospectuses, the following information replaces the corresponding information in its entirety:
Nick Maroutsos is Executive Vice President and Portfolio Manager of the Fund, which he has managed since February 2019. Mr. Maroutsos is also Portfolio Manager of other Janus Henderson accounts. He joined Janus Capital in 2015, and is a member of the Janus Global Macro leadership team. Prior to joining Janus Capital, Mr. Maroutsos was a Founder and Managing Director of Kapstream Capital, now a Janus Henderson subsidiary. Prior to forming Kapstream Capital in 2006, Mr. Maroutsos held positions with Pacific Investment Management Company LLC from 1999 to 2005. Mr. Maroutsos holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the University of California at San Diego and an MBA from the UCLA Anderson School of Management.
Effective on or about February 15, 2019, all references to William H. Gross are deleted from the Fund’s prospectuses....

Hard to say as there are no expenses listed. Thought it may be a retirement type offering or advisor type of fund, but not sure after reading below excerpt.
Eligibility requirements to purchase shares are as follows:
Buying Shares
Eligibility
Shares are generally available only to investors residing in the United States.
Shares are offered only to certain other Fidelity® funds.
There is no minimum balance or purchase minimum for fund shares.

@tmadell: Dr. Madell, thank you for writting such a fine newsletter. I would encourge you to publish a newsletter model asset allocation (conserative, moderate and agressive) along with perhaps one for income generation with their anticipated returns. I'm thinking some investors might find this of interest. At one time I ran a 70/20/10 (stock/bond/cash) allocation while I was in the building phase of my portfolio. Holding some cash offered me the opportunity to buy pullbacks and/or engage some spiffs (special investment positions) form time-to-time. Then as I approached retirement I began to reduce my stock allocation and began to hold more bonds and cash. Recently, I have switched towads an all weather (20% cash/40% bonds/40% stock) asset allocation model. I'm not quite there yet but well on my way. I'm thinking that this all weather model will provide me ample cash, ample income and ample growth to offset inflation plus a little more. By my math I'm thinking my all weather model should generate an average annual return of somewhere between 4.5% to 6%, on average, possibly a little more, at times. With these anticipated returns I should be able to withdraw up to 4% annually and still maintain and perhaps even grow my principal. Currently, my withdrawal philosophy is to take no more than one half of what my five year average rolling returns have been. In this way, I have over the past five years, since I retired, been able to grow my principal while providing a reliable and steady income stream. Currently, my portfolio yields about 3.4% plus any capital gain distributions and when combined have averaged better than a 5% income stream.
Perhaps, my above comment concerning income generation might provide a topic to write about in an upcoming issue.
Thanks again ... Dr. Madell ... for publishing such a fine newsletter. I have enjoyed reading it.
Old_Skeet

For a retirement account and if you are looking for around a 50/50 allocation, one part of Wellington to one part of Wellesley is nice.

“Investing icon Warren Buffett advises investors to stash 90% of their money in a Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index fund and keep the rest in short-term government bonds.”
Anybody know what degree of truth this statement attributed to Buffet holds? I was aware that he shifted all or most of his retirement funds to something like that nearly a decade ago, in part, because he wanted to simplify things for his wife to manage after his death.
If Buffet made such a statement directed at all investors (1) I’m not aware of it and (2) it would be preposterous advice because each individual’s situation is unique. If I had 90% of my retirement savings in the S&P 500 I’d be always on “pins & needles”, unable to sleep and, perhaps, standing out on a NYC ledge during one of those single-day thousand-point dips in the Dow.
Back to Buffet - When people have amassed mega-millions it sometimes causes them to invest / view risk differently than most of us small-fry. Some avoid the risk of stocks completely and move into bonds, thinking they can survive the remainder of their lives on what they already have. Others, like Buffet, are content to go with the averages and remain heavily invested in equities.

John Bogle, who founded Vanguard and revolutionized retirement savings, dies at 89.
https://www.philly.com/business/a/john-bogle-dead-vanguard-obituary-20190116.html

Is there anything in this short article that is correct?

Put simply, the R-class of mutual funds are available only through employment-based retirement accounts ... In other words, investors access R-class mutual funds through their employers or work arrangement. ,,, To qualify for Class R shares, you must have access to a 401(k), 457 or employer-sponsored 403(b) plan.

American Funds R-5 shares are available through individual (not employer sponsored) HSAs, e.g. The HSA Authority.
https://www.oldnational.com/thehsaauthority/individuals-employees/investment-services

mutual funds that charge loads are not allowed in employer-sponsored retirement plans

"Apart from fees charged for administration of the plan itself, there are three basic types of fees that may be charged in connection with investment options in a 401(k) plan. ...
Sales charges (also known as loads or commissions)."
From DOL (2013). Emphasis in original.

R-class shares were designed to allow securities firms to serve retirement planners without charging a load

Ironically, the fund cited in the piece, RGAAX, is the R-1 share class of an American Funds fund. AF R-1 shares are load shares. They charge 12b-1 fees of 1.00%. As a matter of law, any fund charging a 12b-1 fee in excess of 0.25% must be called a load fund. (The article also gets the ticker wrong; it gives a MMF ticker ending in XX.)

R shares still have fairly low expense ratios but tend to be costlier than index funds.

R shares can be index funds just as easily as they can be actively managed funds. Often, that makes them cheaper than sibling share classes of the same fund. For example, OGFAX (JP Morgan Equity Index R6) is the cheapest share class of this fund; at 0.04%, it costs just 1/5 as much as the institutional share class HLEIX.

FYI: Mutual funds have become a staple of the modern investor. If you have a 401(k) or employer-sponsored retirement account, you’ll want to learn more about the R-class shares of mutual funds.
Regards,
Ted
http://mutualfunds.com/education/learn-about-class-r-shares/

Just received an email about the soft opening of funds:
Grandeur Peak
to Soft Open Several Funds
January 14, 2019
RE: Grandeur Peak will Soft Open the Global Opportunities, International Opportunities, Global Reach strategies on January 14, 2019.
Dear Fellow Shareholders,
With the recent global market selloff, we are re-opening the Global Opportunities, International Opportunities, and Global Reach Funds to existing shareholders as of today for those interested in taking advantage of the selloff to purchase additional shares. We, of course, have no idea whether the selloff will continue, and if so, for how long, but we think the current prices make this an interesting long-term entry point regardless. As Robert mentioned in his recent annual letter: “growing assets is not a priority for us, but with the recent market selloff and our investment style being somewhat out of favor this past year, it feels like an interesting time to be investing in our style and niche.”
The soft re-opening is likely to be for a limited time, as we remain committed to keeping assets tightly limited in our small and micro-cap funds, but the time frame will depend on where the market goes from here and the level of additional investments received. Besides re-opening these Funds to existing shareholders, we will also allow new shareholders to purchase these Funds if they buy them directly from Grandeur Peak Funds (www.grandeurpeakglobal.com). Financial advisors and retirement plans with clients in one of these Funds will be able to invest in the Fund for both existing as well as new clients.
The Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund, which is currently open only to existing shareholders, will now also be open to new shareholders purchasing the Fund directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
Outlined below is the revised status of the Grandeur Peak Funds as of today.
Open to existing fund shareholders and new Direct shareholders:
Emerging Markets Opportunities (GPEIX/GPEOX)
Global Opportunities (GPGIX/GPGOX)
Global Reach (GPRIX/GPROX)
International Opportunities (GPIIX/GPIOX)
Remain open to new and existing shareholders (no change in status):
Global Stalwarts (GGSYX/GGSOX)
International Stalwarts (GISYX/GISOX)
Remains Hard Closed (no change in status):
Global Micro Cap (GPMCX)
Thank you for being an investor in the Grandeur Peak Funds. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to me, Mark Siddoway, or Amy Johnson.
Best Regards,
Eric Huefner
President & COO
801-384-0003
The objective of all Grandeur Peak Funds is long-term growth of capital.
RISKS:
Mutual fund investing involves risks and loss of principal is possible. Investing in small and micro cap funds will be more volatile and loss of principal could be greater than investing in large cap or more diversified funds.
Investing in foreign securities entails special risks, such as currency fluctuations and political uncertainties, which are described in more detail in the prospectus. Investments in emerging markets are subject to the same risks as other foreign securities and may be subject to greater risks than investments in foreign countries with more established economies and securities markets.
An investor should consider investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses carefully before investing. To obtain a prospectus, containing this and other information, visit www.grandeurpeakglobal.com or call 1-855-377-PEAK (7325). Please read it carefully before investing.
Grandeur Peak Funds will deduct a 2.00% redemption proceeds fee on Fund shares held 60 days or less. For more complete information including charges, risks, and expenses, read the prospectus carefully.
Grandeur Peak Funds are distributed by ALPS Distributors, Inc (“ADI”). Eric Huefner, Mark Siddoway, and Amy Johnson are registered representatives of ADI.
Robert’s Chairman Message 2018
GPG000742 12/31/19
OR-----
link to GP website:
https://www.grandeurpeakglobal.com/documents/grandeurpeakglobal-pr-20190114.pdf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834419000618/fp0038543_497.htm
497 1 fp0038543_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
SUPPLEMENT DATED JANUARY 14, 2019
TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUSES AND PROSPECTUS FOR
THE GRANDEUR PEAK EMERGING MARKETS OPPORTUNITIES FUND,
GRANDEUR PEAK GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND,
GRANDEUR PEAK INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND AND
GRANDEUR PEAK GLOBAL REACH FUND
(EACH A “FUND,” AND TOGETHER, THE “FUNDS”)
DATED AUGUST 31, 2018
Effective immediately, the Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund, Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund, and Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund will re-open to existing shareholders and to new shareholders who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. Financial advisors and retirement plans with clients in one of these Funds will be able to invest in the Fund for both existing as well as new clients.
In addition, effective immediately, the Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund will re-open to new shareholders who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. This Fund is already open to existing shareholders.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Has anyone figured out why T. Rowe offers 2 distinct lines (“Retirement” and “Target”)? I looked at the 2015 version of each and both have a glide path (which grows more conservative over time) and both earned Price’s “Moderate” risk assessment. If I had the time, I’d enjoy digging deeper - but not at this time.
One thought is that one line became saturated with investments to the point where it was putting too much stress (bloat) on the underlying funds it invests in. So, a new line using different underlying funds would help with that. Seems like I did read some “rumblings” re a possible saturation point many years ago in one of their Retirement funds reports.
Additionally, they may contract out with some big corporations to meet their employees’ retirement needs (401K and other). Thus, different corporations might buy into different versions of what appear to be very similar investment products.

Not sure what you mean by "the same". If you mean two different sets of allocation funds, what Vanguard offers is one set of target date funds, Target Retirement 20xx, and one set of static allocation funds called LifeStrategy Funds.
The difference between Vanguard's LifeStrategy Funds and its better known static allocation funds like Wellesley and Wellington is that the former are, like Vanguard's target date funds, funds of index funds. The older funds are actively managed funds of individual securities.
The T. Rowe Price suites (Retirement and Target) both are collections of target date funds. The difference between the two suites is the glide path they follow.
The Price equivalent to Wellington (VWELX) would be RPBAX. The Price equivalent to Vanguard's LifeStategy funds would be its Personal Strategy funds.

I regard them as substantially the same as robo advisors.

@msf, from someone who has half their nest egg in a robo, I'd say you are right on point. There hasn't been much difference in return over the last 3 years for my robo as compared to a comparable TRP retirement fund. The best part about a robo for me, I can't tinker with it.

But you probably won’t find very many here who have used the funds to any degree. The apparent contradiction is largely explained by the fact that those who actively read / post on a mutual fund investing board probably are the type of investors who prefer to manage their investments directly. In addition, they possess a higher degree of investment knowledge and a higher investment comfort level than the average American.

@Hank, a very politically correct statement for the site IMlessthanHO. I have a slightly different opinion but it may not be accepted well here. I would be willing to wager that most of the people who post at MFO really don't do any better and in many cases do worse than a retirement fund over time. I've read the elaborate schemes here and heard the results. Those elaborate schemes to me are really just a feel-good way for individuals to feel like they are steering the ship at a more profitable course. But heck, I concede it is more fun to drive the boat than sit in the back. :)
@Starchild, I don't know anything about Vanguard target funds, but at T. Rowe Price they have 2 different offerings for their funds, Target date funds and Retirement funds. The difference being target date changes over time as you get closer to retirement. Their "retirement" funds hold the ratio you purchase and don't change over the years. Kind of nice to have the choice I think.

Though I've never used target date funds, I think they're reasonable options for people who don't want to think much about their investments. I regard them as substantially the same as robo advisors. They both provide all-in-one allocations based on an objective (retirement) and a given level of risk tolerance.
Bogle, in 2013, did not like these funds because they were based on historical returns of bonds (2013 yields were very low) and because (he claimed) they invested in bond funds tracking the US aggregate bond index, which was Treasury-heavy.
Since 2013, bond yields are up (somewhat) and Bogle himself now projects lower stock returns than their historical average. Each of those changes argues for returning to a more normal stock/bond allocation. That is, a complaint that might have been valid for the special circumstances coming out of the Great Recession holds less sway now and generally. In addition, some fund families have adjusted their funds to be more stock-heavy.
In 2013 the US aggregate bond index did have a lot of Treasuries (Bogle said 2/3 in the article). Today, VTBIX (the domestic bond component of VTTHX) has just 41% in Treasuries, AGG has 39%. In addition, several fund families spread bond investments beyond a single US bond fund.
For example, about half of T. Rowe Price's TRRJX 's bond allocation is in New Income (PRCIX), only 1/5 of which is in Treasuries. Like several other 2035 funds, TRRJX supplements this with a long term Treasury fund (1/6 of its bond allocation). It rounds out the remaining 1/3 bond allocation with TNIBX (int'l bonds), RPIEX (nontraditional), PREMX (EM bonds), PRFRX (floating rate), and PRHYX (high yield).
The figures that hank quoted need to be put into context. These days, especially with opt-out retirement plans (employees are automatically enrolled unless they opt out), a large number of participants simply wind up in the plans without making investment choices.
The default for most of these plans used to be a MMF (or stable value fund), but is now a target date fund matched to the participant's age. Thus one sees a high percentage of assets and participants in target date funds. It's not by choice, it's by absence of choice.
The hard part in selecting a target date plan is to pick the right family (each family offers a different glide path) and to position yourself at the right spot (year) along that path. Some families are more aggressive than others. Some glide paths are more oriented toward getting you to retirement and then just generating income, while others are more intent on maintaining a measure of growth even through retirement.
Personally, I like T. Rowe Price's Retirement target date funds, because they're more aggressive and oriented toward growth through retirement. But that's just me. YMMV. In fact, Price has two different series. This one, and a more sedate one more focused on simply generating income in retirement.
Here's a M* analysis page on the Price Retirement series (I don't think you need a M* account to read it): https://news.morningstar.com/pdfs/stusa04omn.pdf
And T. Rowe Price's page describing both its Retirement funds and its more conservative Target funds: https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/mutual-funds/target-date-funds.html
P.S. Regarding Bogle and simplicity: "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/

The problem I have with either Target date funds, benchmark allocations for "people your age" and recommendations is suggest to people that someone else can do the hard work for them. Most people cannot competently analyze a balance sheet but they need to look at their own fiances and mindset decide if they can sleep at night with the expected volatility of the recommendations. Diversity will reduce volatility sure, but unfortunately most of the people I know are more knowledgeable about the Game of Thrones than they are with how they will pay for retirement, just like most people don't dig deep into the trade war to realize how it is being run by one NYC law firm for the benefit of their steel producing clients

FYI: For many younger investors, 2018 marked the first time they experienced meaningful declines in their investment portfolios. And for others who have been around the markets longer, it brought back unpleasant memories from 2008.
Whenever the stock market comes unhinged, it causes investors to wonder whether they should be invested in stocks. The short answer for most people is yes. You’ll need the potential of stock market returns to reach your retirement goals. But, to be successful in the stock market, you have to learn how to handle bear markets. Because we haven’t had a bear market in over 10 years, let’s review four fundamental investment rules for handling big declines.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/06/road-to-retirement-four-rules-for-handling-bear-markets/

If you're living paycheck to paycheck on $100k, you are living outside of your means. How can you possibly deny that?

So the government shutdown and payless paydays signify God’s Wrath inflicted upon those who haven’t practiced sound financial management?
(Never mind the 800+ credit scores, home ownership or substantial tax-sheltered retirement accounts these folks may have garnered over a lifetime of work. They should have anticipated this monster.)

You're absolutely right JoJo. You picked out arguably the highest paid profession in the list of 800,000 government employees, comprising 1.88% of those affected ...

Just hope you’re not being guided into LGA some rainy windy night by one of those unpaid, stressed-out and hungry ATCs ...

Not to belabor this - but I retired more than 20 years ago making $70,000 at the time (1998).
I was maxing out my 403B, which was automatically deducted by employer. Where I worked we also contributed a sizable amount each pay to the employer sponsored defined benefit plan. I paid extra having opted for the most expensive (but better) plan. Seems to me I also paid extra for the best health plan available to employees. State and Federal taxes hit me hard. Also, mandatory Social Security. And monthly dues to our professional association were deducted. After all that I was lucky to see 50% of my gross pay.
Still had a house payment (downsized after retiring) and a payment on a new pickup truck. Where I worked (Detroit area) vehicle insurance rates were high to start with and even higher if you drove over 10 miles each way to work. No credit card debt or consumer loans. Lived pretty well (fitness center, trips to Florida, etc.) Probably had enough in non-retirement savings to last a month. After that would have had to start running up a credit line to stay afloat.
Just me. Others may have developed better thrift habits or might have had family members to help tide them over.

I have an awful lot of our retirement moneys handled by a guy who does not read the smartest economic thinking:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/opinion/melting-snowballs-and-the-winter-of-debt.html
https://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2019conference/program/pdf/14020_paper_etZgfbDr.pdf