Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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.
  • A New Retirement-Income Option for IRAs At Fidelity
    msf - Thanks. A very helpful calculator. The linked article addresses the new Treasury rules in depth. Except for this question: Is there a cut-off date for taking advantage of this new rule and starting a QLAC? I'm guessing it must be done sometime before you reach the date of your first RMD - but not sure.
    https://www.kitces.com/blog/why-the-new-qualifying-longevity-annuity-contract-qlac-rmd-regulations-for-dont-mean-much-for-retirement-income-yet/
  • A New Retirement-Income Option for IRAs At Fidelity
    FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
    A new product intended to help retirees avoid running out of cash late in life is now available to holders of individual retirement accounts at Fidelity Investments.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.google.com/#q=A+New+Retirement-Income+Option+for+IRAs+at+Fidelity+wsj
  • American Beacon Funds to liquidate several funds
    American Beacon Funds were originally American AAdvantage Funds - created exclusively for American Airline employees retirement plans. The family was spun off and later renamed.
    The AA retirement plan remained a large institutional investor in these funds. For example, the plan owns 98.27% of the Small Cap Index Fund and 75.16% of the International Equity Index Fund. (Data from the SAI.) That 98.27% ownership makes it clear that the unnamed investor expected to make large redemptions is the AA plan.
    I don't know whether AA is going to pull out of all the funds they use, but they are not such a large elephant within some popular funds such as Large Cap Value. AA owns about 1/2 of the institutional shares (AADEX) or slightly less than 1/3 of the whole fund. But that's less than the value of the retail Investor class shares AAGPX.
    So if they were to pull out, it would have a significant impact, but would likely not be fatal. Also, while it's not so easy for a plan to justify keeping the American Beacon index funds (the S&P 500 index fund, institutional class AASPX has an ER of 0.13%), some of the actively managed funds make sense in a retirement plan. So the bailing may be selective. Hard to tell.
    If I owned Bridgeway Large Cap Value (BWLIX), I would not be heading for the doors just because some of the other funds are being shut down. Here's Shadow's thread on that fund, specifically its move to American Beacon.
  • American Beacon Funds to liquidate several funds
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/809593/000080959315000053/liquidation082015.htm
    497 1 liquidation082015.htm
    Supplement dated August 20, 2015, to the following prospectuses:
    American Beacon S&P 500 Index Fund
    Prospectus dated April 30, 2015
    American Beacon Small Cap Index Fund
    American Beacon International Equity Index Fund
    Prospectus dated April 30, 2015
    American Beacon Emerging Markets Fund
    American Beacon High Yield Bond Fund
    American Beacon Intermediate Bond Fund
    American Beacon Short-Term Bond Fund
    Prospectuses dated February 27, 2015
    American Beacon Zebra Global Equity Fund
    Prospectus dated December 29, 2014
    On August 6, 2015, the Board of Trustees ("Board") of American Beacon Funds approved a plan to liquidate and terminate the American Beacon S&P 500 Index Fund, American Beacon Small Cap Index Fund, American Beacon International Equity Index Fund, American Beacon Emerging Markets Fund, American Beacon High Yield Bond Fund, American Beacon Intermediate Bond Fund, American Beacon Short-Term Bond Fund and American Beacon Zebra Global Equity Fund (each, a "Fund" and collectively, the "Funds"), upon the recommendation of American Beacon Advisors, Inc. ("Manager"), the Funds' investment manager. After considering information provided by the Manager, the Board concluded that, with respect to each Fund, except American Beacon Zebra Global Equity Fund, due to large redemptions which are expected to occur by the end of 2015 that will substantially reduce the Fund's asset size, it will no longer be practicable for the Manager to operate the Fund in an economically viable manner. With respect to the American Beacon Zebra Global Equity Fund, the Board concluded that, due to the Fund's small asset size, it will no longer be practicable for the Manager to operate the Fund in an economically viable manner. Accordingly, the Board determined that it would be in the best interests of each Fund and its shareholders to liquidate and terminate the Fund.
    In anticipation of the liquidation, effective immediately, each Fund is closed to new shareholders. To prepare for the liquidation of the Funds, a Fund's manager and/or sub-advisor(s), as applicable, may need to increase the portion of the Fund's assets held in cash and similar instruments in order to pay for Fund expenses and meet redemption requests. As a result, the Funds will no longer be pursuing their respective investment objectives. In addition, each Fund, except American Beacon High Yield Bond Fund, American Beacon Intermediate Bond Fund, and American Beacon Short-Term Bond Fund, may invest a significant portion of its assets in index futures contracts to maintain exposure to the equity markets, while preserving liquidity. Each Fund will distribute cash and/or assets (to certain institutional investors) pro rata to all remaining shareholders who have not previously redeemed or exchanged all of their shares on or about November 30, 2015. However, the distribution for the AMR class shares of American Beacon Emerging Markets Fund will occur on or about December 31, 2015 (each, a "Liquidation Date"). These distributions are taxable events. Once the distribution is complete, each Fund will terminate.
    Please note that, with the exception of the AMR class, you may exchange your shares of a Fund at net asset value at any time prior to the Liquidation Date for shares of the same class of another American Beacon Fund. You also may redeem your shares of a Fund at any time prior to the Liquidation Date. No sales charges, redemption or termination fees will be imposed in connection with such exchanges and redemptions. In general, exchanges and redemptions are taxable events for shareholders.
    In connection with the liquidation, a Fund may declare taxable distributions of its net investment income and net capital gain in advance of its regular distribution schedule.
    If you own Fund shares in a tax deferred account, such as an individual retirement account, 401(k) or 403(b) account, you should consult your tax adviser to discuss the Fund's liquidation and determine its tax consequences.
    For more information, please contact us at 1-800-658-5811, Option 1.
    ***********************************************************
    PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
  • Ford Retirement Plans To Pull $900 Million From Fidelity Contrafund
    Not picking on M* or something. Contra fund is a growth-oriented fund and S&P 500 is not its benchmark. The second comparison to the large cap growth fund is okay though.
    Contrafund's 7.71 percent total return is three times more than the S&P 500's 2.48 percent, according to Morningstar. Danoff is beating 73 percent of his large-cap growth fund peers.
    The collective investment trusts they referred to is a similarly managed products only available to retirement accounts but at much lower expense ratio. Looks like something at Ford is doing the right thing for their employees.
  • Peter Lynch: Inside The Brain Of An Investing Genius
    FYI: ( I owned Fuidelity Magellan from 1972-1996 and made a lot of $$$ from Lynch's skill as Magellan's manager. It is the single best investment I ever made.)
    Consider that Lynch’s Magellan fund averaged +29% per year from 1977 – 1990 (almost doubling the return of the S&P 500 index for that period). In 1977, the obscure Magellan Fund started with about $20 million, and by his retirement the fund grew to approximately $14 billion (700x’s larger). Cynics believed that Magellan was too big to adequately perform at $1, $2, $3, $5 and then $10 billion, but Lynch ultimately silenced the critics. Despite the fund’s gargantuan size, over the final five years of Lynch’s tenure, Magellan outperformed 99.5% of all other funds, according to Barron’s. How did Magellan investors fare in the period under Lynch’s watch? A $10,000 investment initiated when he took the helm would have grown to roughly $280,000 (+2,700%) by the day he retired. Not too shabby.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://investingcaffeine.com/2015/08/15/inside-the-brain-of-an-investing-genius-2/
  • Ford Retirement Plans To Pull $900 Million From Fidelity Contrafund
    FYI: Ford Motor Co said it was dropping Contrafund as an investment option in its employee retirement accounts, pulling an estimated $900 million from Fidelity Investments' flagship mutual fund.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/14/us-ford-motor-fidelity-contrafund-idUSKCN0QJ1GP20150814
  • Steven Goldberg: New Grandeur Peak Funds Are Worth Getting Excited About
    @swamprev, was it a retirement account you moved? It seems like a taxable account still wouldn't be able to add unless you had a pre-established automatic investment plan. If I was able to add to a taxable account I would move it for sure.
  • Steven Goldberg: New Grandeur Peak Funds Are Worth Getting Excited About
    There's a supplement at the beginning of the prospectus that overrides the paragraphs @Old_Joe highlighted and hard closes the funds, whereas the paragraphs above reference the initial soft close.
    The new language is:
    Effective as of the close of business on September 30, 2014, the Fund will close to all purchases, except as described below (the “Hard Closure”).
    The Hard Closure of the Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund means purchases will no longer be accepted into this Fund from either new or existing
    shareholders after September 30th, unless the purchase is part of one of the listed exceptions:
    Institutional Shareholders:
    • 401k plans with an existing position
    • Automatic rebalancing of an existing position (as long as purchase amounts are de minimis, as determined by Grandeur Peak)
    Retail Shareholders (Direct Shareholders Only):
    Retirement Accounts
    • Education Savings Accounts
    • Minor Accounts (UTMA/UGMA)
    • Pre-established Automatic Investment Plans
    All Shareholders:
    • Automatic reinvestment of the Fund distribution
    Separately, I think it's a bit funny when people suggest the Global Micro Cap fund might only be open for one day. It will help that they're going to limit any individual's investment to $100K, but that's still just 250 people if they all invest the maximum, which I'm sure not everyone will do. I figure it might be lucky if the fund is open until lunchtime on day one. $25 million is not very much. I wonder if they would ever consider or whether it's even possible to require people to subscribe in advance and then to prorate shares of the fund to those who subscribed based on the response they get. Has anyone ever experienced something like that?
  • Steven Goldberg: New Grandeur Peak Funds Are Worth Getting Excited About
    Hi Old_Joe
    Per: Existing shareholders of the Fund as of March 5, 2014 may continue to purchase additional shares of the Fund.
    Aside from the advisor/retirement accounts noted.
    Thinking that this statement regards direct investments via the fund company, eh?
    Below is the message when attempting an additional purchase of GPROX at Fido.
    Error: (009078) The mutual fund you entered is not open for subsequent purchases. Please review your order or call a Fidelity representative at 1-800-544-6666.
  • Steven Goldberg: New Grandeur Peak Funds Are Worth Getting Excited About
    Excerpt from the Prospectus:
    PURCHASE AND SALE OF FUND SHARES
    As of the close of business on March 5, 2014, the Fund is closed to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund either directly or through third party intermediaries, subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors whose clients have already established an account in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund as of May 1, 2013.
    Existing shareholders of the Fund as of March 5, 2014 may continue to purchase additional shares of the Fund. The Fund’s investment adviser retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund or limit inflows into the Fund.
  • My Engineer Buddy Is Now Crowing ... But, We Both Have Smiles.
    The more I look at VMVFX,with a 0.3 ER, global scope and active management, the more convinced I am that it is the fund for the money I invest for my children and grandchildren, even with its short track record. I thank MFO for bringing it to my attention. Its recent record is impressive, and I think it will be stable, since it's owned by its investors.
    DSENX, in which I am invested, has a higher ER, US focus, and too many moving parts for me to commit to a 40 to 70 year run. I think PRWCX is closed to new investors.
    I don't value my investment skills that highly, and late onset dementia is a family risk; so, I'll trust Vanguard's management over my own. The only real question is whether a bond component is necessary, or if Social Security represents it. Considering the current bond return, I'll hold off on BND. My actively managed bond funds have a variable recent performance, nothing I would rely on for my descendants' retirement.
    Now, I only need to convince myself to transfer my other funds and stocks and relax. (Although I'll probably read MFO looking for a superior option for my own money.)
  • Time to dump YAFFX?
    I am holding (only) because I trust the family and the method, but cannot affirm that that is necessarily good advice. In retirement I value downside protection and assume Yackts still have that. As for alternatives, I have moved a lot into DSENX.
  • My Engineer Buddy Is Now Crowing ... But, We Both Have Smiles.
    Hi @ MileM,
    Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts and perspectives.
    It is for sure being a former corporate credit manager who believes in spreading his risk among many over just a few there is no doubt in my mind that my investment style through my fund sleeve management system, where each sleeve consists from three to six funds or in a couple sleeves seven funds, just might not be right for some. Currently my portfolio is comprised of ten investment sleeves plus two cash management sleeves. The total number of funds currently held total fifty one.
    PRWCX dusted my britches as it did most. If it had been available for purchase for me in one of my investment platforms I would have probably have owned it. Currently, M* reports that it is only available for new money for those that currently own it and possibly in some retirement plans as it shows limited access in its fund report.
    Indeed it is a great fund along with some others that I do not own. But, I still have a smile on my face as I am still ahead of most conservative, moderate and global allocation funds.
    Again, thanks again for stopping by. It is indeed appreciated.
    Old_Skeet
  • My Engineer Buddy Is Now Crowing ... But, We Both Have Smiles.
    Hi @Old_Skeet
    Yes, and I suspect there are indexes that closely match holdings within either VTI or BND. If one's retirement plan (rollover IRA) is or has a brokerage feature, an index or etf match or direct investment could be had/found to reflect VTI and BND.
    VTI is more of the variable in the numbers I posted, as it is at 50% of the total portfolio, versus 60% S&P index held by your friend. 'Course, they are both U.S. centric equity; with VTI having a wider spread among cap sizes.
  • My Engineer Buddy Is Now Crowing ... But, We Both Have Smiles.
    Hi Catch 22,
    The performance numbers that you are reporting come from etfs. The ones used in the study come form those he actually holds in his retirement plan plus he has held some cash along the way too. And two, it seems the etfs are perhaps more efficient over the mutual funds he holds.
  • My Engineer Buddy Is Now Crowing ... But, We Both Have Smiles.
    My engineer buddy is crowing …
    My high school buddy who became an engineer by profession has now started to crow as his 60/40 walking allocation consisting mostly 60% invested in the S&P 500 Index, about 35% in the aggregate bond index plus keeping about 5% in cash has now come to life and has bettered my recent performance. His numbers for the past one, three, five and ten year periods, tracked by Morningstar, are 6.8%, 10.0%, 10.0% and 5.6% respectively while mine, also tracked by Morningstar, on my master portfolio which uses my sleeve management system, are about 2.9%, 10.1%, 9.8% and 6.9% respectively. The above performance numbers do not reflect special investment positions (SPIFFS), held from time-to-time, as they added to our above performance numbers but not reflected in this analysis.
    It seems, over the past ten year period my master portfolio has bettered his 60/40 portfolio by more than twenty percent. So, it seems active management has out performed passive management over the long haul while passive now leads over the shorter period and they both have performed about the same through the mid years.
    In comparing both of our portfolios to CTFAX which is a professional run hybrid type asset walking fund based upon setting its stock and bond allocation by the varying price valuation of S&P 500 Index has returned 3.2%, 6.6%, 8.9% and 6.2% for the same respective periods. I have linked it's Fact Sheet below for those that would like to review same.
    https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/content/columbia/pdf/LIT_DOC_3C97987F.PDF
    It is interesting that his S&P 500 Index fund has returned an average of 7.0% for the ten year period while his bond index fund has returned 4.2%. Perhaps, Mr. Buffett provided good widsom and thought path that an investor would do well by just investing in the S&P 500 Index along with some US Treasury bonds.
    I score both of us as winners over some of our classmates that chose many years ago not to become investors. No doubt, the years ahead for both of us will most likely be easier than those that chose not to become long term investors. We have classmates that bettered both of us during our working years ... but, I don't think they will going forward as most of them did not invest and thus prepare for retirement. I know some of them lived high on the hog and spent most of what they were making to live a high profile lifestyle. Some of these folks will just have to keep working ... but, neither of us will as we both have smiles.
  • Edward S on balanced funds and investable alternatives
    Yeah, this is how I read him, and rightly or wrongly is seriously at odds with very thoughtful and deeply researched work earlier in the year from Morgan, Goldman, and Fidelity. Maybe he will prove right. In retirement, I am not acting accordingly.
  • David Snowball's August Commentary
    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