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.
  • Is It Wisdom or Madness of the Crowds?
    Hi Guys,
    Well is it the wisdom or the madness of the crowds? From a literary world perspective that would depend upon whether you are reading James Surwiecki’s “The Wisdom of the Crowds” or Charles MacKay’s “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of the Crowds”. Probably both are representative of reality, partially dependent on history, on international tensions, on exogenous events, on endogenous happenings, and on personal perceptions, both real and imaginary.
    We are surely susceptible to manias and bubbles, to fear and greed that shape our decision making. Since that’s the case, a reasonable extension of that observation is that the financial marketplace has no prospect of coming close to rational behavior. Maybe, maybe not.
    We have all heard the axiom that “None of us are as smart as all of us”. That truism has been demonstrated many times over when expert panels with diverse backgrounds are assembled, and isolated from each other to retain freedom to think and act independently, to grapple with complex problems and issues that defy recognizable solutions. As a general outcome, the group’s average solution is superior to any individual’s preferred approach. I personally have participated on such panels and have shared the group’s success.
    There is a very important distinction between a group’s opinion, and an individual’s proposal. The group can be more than the sum of its parts.
    In his book “More Than We Know”, Michael Mauboussin explores this dilemma with a syllogism as follows:
    “Humans are irrational
    Markets are made up of humans
    Markets are irrational.”
    Given the validity of the two opening assertions, the third statement must decisively ensue. Even if the two assertions were absolute truths, which is not necessarily so since humans are rational some of the time and market decisions are sometimes completed with computer-driven tactics and trades, the concluding statement is not infallible.
    Mauboussin summarizes his point with the succinct claim that “Markets can still be rational when investors are individually irrational”.
    If there is sufficient independent analyses, goals, timeframes, and perspective interpretations, the diversity of the final judgments tend to cancel each other out. The market consensus can be far more accurate and perceptive than any single guru’s viewpoint. The herd gets it right until it becomes too uniform in its assessments and stampedes in the wealth destroying direction.
    Mauboussin concludes his brief article with the observation that “The key to successful contrarian investing is focus on the folly of the many, not the few.”
    One implementation difficulty of a contrarian’s style is to identify a reliable measure of the crowds average position. One candidate gauge is the American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) Sentiment Indicator. Tens of thousands of small investors volunteer in this statistically impressive survey. And it is updated weekly in the AAII website at:
    http://www.aaii.com/sentimentsurvey
    You may recall that I included the AAII Sentiment Indicator as one component in my six-factor Retirement Equity Assessment Model (REAM). The six components of the model are: (1) Fiscal, (2) Momentum, (3) Valuation, (4) Microeconomics, (5) Liquidity, and (6) Sentiment. I mostly included the AAII sentiment signal because of its exhaustive nature, its frequent updates, and its easy access.
    However, how accurate is its opinions with regard to future market movements? Can it reliably indicate market future returns for the upcoming year? The AAII Sentiment Indicator survey has been conducted for many years; it has a track record. So it can be stress tested against future market returns like the S&P 500. That has been done.
    Let’s examine its historical record as a forecasting predictor. Here are two excellent summary articles prepared by organizational AAII members themselves. I have provided Links to both of them. The first reference is a 2010 update of an original assessment published in 2004; the second reference is to the original study authored by Wayne Thorp. The 2010 update has imbedded the 2004 study in its entirety. I recommend you read the original paper because the plots are nicely integrated within the text so the reading is more easily completed.
    http://www.aaii.com/journal/sentimentsurveyarticle
    http://www.aaii.com/files/sentimentCIfeature.pdf
    These references document the usefulness of the AAII Sentiment Indicator as a contrarian’s signal. Enjoy. Wayne Thorp concluded that “If you run with the herd, you might get trampled.”
    I posted on this topic now because the AAII Sentiment Indicator has recently migrated into dangerous waters. I assess its current status as in my cautionary yellow zone. Although the current AAII Bullish sentiment is slightly above its historic average, it has not yet become sufficiently bullish to warrant an action.
    Thorp’s paper suggests that a bullish signal of at least one standard deviation above its historic average needs to be registered before it is actionable as a contrarian’s sell signal. If you subscribe to that interpretation, then the AAII bullish sentiment must reach a level of about 50 % to deliver a contrarian’s sell signal. In preparation, the red flag has been unsheathed, but is not yet waving.
    I do NOT dogmatically follow these signals; I use them in a guidance sense, and then only incrementally. Any mechanical rule should not replace common sense and should be deployed judiciously.
    Most market wizards use a far more complex array of market signals when establishing their forecasts on market direction and portfolio asset allocations. James Stack, founder and chief designer of his InvesTech methods, has publicly acknowledged that he uses over 200 common and specially constructed signal generators. Each man chooses his own poison or his own poison concoction if he’s a more sophisticated market student (results will still be uncertain).
    Because of my long standing distrust of all mechanical investment schemes, my incremental approach even after making an investment decision, and the marginal penetration of my AAII Sentiment Indicator, I have NOT taken any action with regard to my current portfolio asset allocations. That Indicator does bear careful monitoring because of its trending.
    I wish you all continuing investment prosperity. But current market conditions demand constant vigilance. I am much worried over the entire globe’s financial status. Prompted by these concerns, I’m rereading Charles Kindleberger’s book “Manias, Panics, and Crashes”. It is not an easy task since it assumes the reader is familiar with distant and minor market crises.
    However, Kindleberger’s classic does capture the significant characteristics of these disastrous historical events and parallels with current market conditions. It warns of the dangers of foreign contagion; it warns of inflation encouraged by excessive money supply growth; it warns of housing and equity bubbles that are promoted by unrestricted credit exposure. All these cautionary warnings seem applicable today; we are forewarned. So take care by taking prudent and controlled risks.
    Best Regards.
  • Global Dividend Fund?
    Hi Kaspa,
    The best fund out there for your needs is the institutional class of the Thornburg Investment Income Builder (TIBIX). This class is available for reasonable minimums in retirement accounts at Fidelity ($2K minimum, $75 initial TF), Wellstrade ($50 minimum, NTF if you qualify for 100 free trades/yr. by having $25K invested with them), and Thinkorswim ($2K or less, 3 free trades/month until TDA completely gobbles them up).
    Other high-yielding global funds to consider, with more fixed income exposure, would be JNBSX and PGDIX, which are available at certain brokers for reasonable minimums.
    Kevin
  • Our Funds Boat, week, -.05%, YTD, +5.31%, + XRAY, 7-16-11, TURD PILE QUALITY
    Catch you write: "I feel the holdings are fairly conservative; although a very large batch of HY/HI income is very subject to credit quality/risk and equity market moves; but generally at a slower face slap, which would hopefully buy some time for an unload. I must ask, your knowing that we have about a 45% exposure to HY/HI bonds as to whether our holdings, in your eyes; are more than conservative? I would appreciate your viewpoint."
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    My viewpoint is that it's very hard to assess ths risk profile of anyone's holdings, yours or mine, but will attempt to shine a little light. One approach is to look at worst and best years for a given asset class. The J.P. Morgan Global High Yield Index was down 26.8% in 2008 and than up 58.9% in 2009. In hindsight, for the fella who bailed at the bottom this asset class was very risky. For the stalwart who hung on another year, not so risky.
    http://berylconsulting.com/de/content/beryl-credit-pulse-high-yield-corporates-march-2010
    Terms like "conservative" "risky" "safe" have different meanings to different folk. Bnath in a recent thread considered OAKBX too risky, even years from retirement. But there's also risk in cash equivalents and short term bonds because they won't keep pace with inflation. For help we might look to some of the fund literature. I'm most familiar with Price and believe they generally do a good job communicating. Spectrum Income, RPSIX, appeals to folks that want a diversified income portfolio without taking a lot of risk. I'd link the bar graph for this fund but can't get link to work. Anyway, Price places Spectrum Income about midway between "low risk and "moderate" on a risk spectrum.
    Spectrum Income's last annual report, December 30, 2010 lists the funds in which it invests. At the time of publication, High Yield Bond comprised 19.6%, Emerging Markets Bond 7.9%, Equity and Income Fund (stocks) 13.8%. All 3 totaled a bit over 41%. Remaining 50% or so was in investment grade bond funds or cash.
    This glimpse into one fund and how its managers try to assess risk may be of help.
    Sorry, can't get links to the risk assessment bar or fund report to work. Gremlins.
    hank
  • Our Funds Boat, week, -.05%, YTD, +5.31%, + XRAY, 7-16-11, TURD PILE QUALITY
    Reply to @hank:
    Howdy hank, Thank you for your gracious comment; and you are to be commended, too; for your efforts.
    I'll do the "you wrote" and >>>>> for a reply.
    "Catch, in the past you have billed as a "conservative/capital preservation" approach.
    >>>>>I feel the holdings are fairly conservative; although a very large batch of HY/HI income is very subject to credit quality/risk and equity market moves; but generally at a slower face slap, which would hopefully buy some time for an unload.
    I must ask, your knowing that we have about a 45% exposure to HY/HI bonds as to whether our holdings, in your eyes; are more than conservative? I would appreciate your viewpoint.
    "The "turd quality" reference makes me wonder if your goals and methodology have changed?
    >>>>>Our goals or methods have not changed; and the "turd quality" is related more to the chat about the U.S. debt and the hugh amount of Treasury issues that are floating around. However, there are many more issues of debt around the globe that have a much worse odor than here, and regardless of the debt talks and the circus in D.C.; if there is safe hiding to take place from market conditions, I feel U.S. Treasury issues would still have priority for many small and large investors.
    "I post to provide hope to those conservative fund investors who like myself lag your sterling performance this year. They should not be dismayed if they fall short.
    >>>>>Ah, the beauty part of FA and now MFO. To allow all of us to swish around the thoughts that are written here. With enough time the smallest phrase or just one work may be of great value in the future as one adds to knowledge, which may in turn become intuitive knowledge for investing decisions. Not unlike having tried 50 restaurants, 3 or 4 times each and soon enough one may have an intuitive/memory list of the proper future choices.
    "Up against two long time board favorites which fall into the conservative/balanced/go anywhere category, you lag only fractionally: OAKBX is at 5.48% and PRWCX is at 5.42%. Neither likely holds near 15% cash as you do which may account for the difference. T. Rowe Price is known as one of the smartest for allocation decisions. You easily trump all of their retirement funds. Here's a few with YTD performance:
    TRRIX Retirement Income 4.13
    TRRFX Retirement 2005 4.41
    TRRGX Retirment 2015 4.63
    TRRBX Retirement 2020 4.68
    TRRCX Retirement 2030 4.86
    TRRDX Retirement 2040 4.82
    Some additional T Rowe Price funds for comparison:
    RPIBX International Bond 5.48
    PRHYX High Yield Fund 5.01
    PRULX Long Term Treasury 4.28
    PRWBX Short Term Bond 1.46
    RPSIX Spectrum Income 4.05
    >>>>>When I moved monies in late January of this year, I noted to my wife that I felt that whatever was not placed into truly active investments at the time would be "PIMCO'd"; meaning the cash not used would be placed into our easiest access to a non-cash acct at Fido and that would have been FINPX. TIPS, a very common pseudo cash place for Pimco funds. Our cash to use for other funds has always been parked in some type of fairly stable bond fund. Well, obviously; while watching the markets this spring and early summer, this did not happen; and I regret the waiting. Add to the list of investment missteps, eh??? Now, we watch and wait on D.C. for the bigger plan...:)
    "You must find following 26 funds challenging. I typically hold 12-15, not counting money market, and that seems frustratingly high. BTW, what are the provisions for owning TEGBX load free? I ask because our old work place plan was with Templeton/Franklin Templeton and we paid a onerous 4%. I commend you for these outstanding returns. My own pale in comparison being consistent with my benchmark, TRRIX. (Actually I'm lagging them by 0.10%, but, than again, they are the professionals.) Take care.
    >>>>>Following the funds is not too bad. I have a "pretend" portfolio set at Google and view it each evening looking for trends or common moves. I also watch several ETF's to give a feel for sector movements. Example: If the HY/HI funds/sectors really start to look ill; then I would likely start to reduce holdings of all similar funds.
    TEGBX is a choice in a 403B acct set up through an insurance company (ARGH !)...not our preference, but there is no fixing that. I checked again today to assure my brain cells and the load is waived and the total internal fee of the fund to us is .79%. 'Course these type of funds via insurance companies are for their use to the customer; but are pretty much twins to the product offered to the outside/retail investor and the returns have very small variances.
    And hats off to you for your efforts. We all may have a 5% or 25% year....tricky boating so far.
    Take care of you and yours....and, hey; go jump in the lake, eh? Stay cool !
    Catch
  • Our Funds Boat, week, -.05%, YTD, +5.31%, + XRAY, 7-16-11, TURD PILE QUALITY
    Catch, your 5.31% YTD for what in the past you have billed as a "conservative/capital preservation" approach is truly amazing. The "turd quality" reference makes me wonder if your goals and methodology have changed? I post to provide hope to those conservative fund investors who like myself lag your sterling performance this year. They should not be dismayed if they fall short.
    Up against two long time board favorites which fall into the conservative/balanced/go anywhere category, you lag only fractionally: OAKBX is at 5.48% and PRWCX is at 5.42%. Neither likely holds near 15% cash as you do which may account for the difference. T. Rowe Price is known as one of the smartest for allocation decisions. You easily trump all of their retirement funds. Here's a few with YTD performance:
    TRRIX Retirement Income 4.13
    TRRFX Retirement 2005 4.41
    TRRGX Retirment 2015 4.63
    TRRBX Retirement 2020 4.68
    TRRCX Retirement 2030 4.86
    TRRDX Retirement 2040 4.82
    Some additional T Rowe Price funds for comparison:
    RPIBX International Bond 5.48
    PRHYX High Yield Fund 5.01
    PRULX Long Term Treasury 4.28
    PRWBX Short Term Bond 1.46
    RPSIX Spectrum Income 4.05
    You must find following 26 funds challenging. I typically hold 12-15, not counting money market, and that seems frustratingly high. BTW, what are the provisions for owning TEGBX load free? I ask because our old work place plan was with Templeton/Franklin Templeton and we paid a onerous 4%. I commend you for these outstanding returns. My own pale in comparison being consistent with my benchmark, TRRIX. (Actually I'm lagging them by 0.10%, but, than again, they are the professionals.) Take care.
  • CXO: REITs a Proxy for Real Estate?
    Hi Investor,
    Thank you for your thoughts in this area of investing. We have a nibble in FRIFX, too; but also missed the big boat. We do have access to CSRSX in another retirement acct; of which, we should have plunked some money. Cohen/Steers have been at the real estate fund game for a long time and know the market.
    Well, heck; we get stuck in one place or another and miss some boats, eh?
    When we moved some accts monies around Jan 31 of this year, among other lower risk choices was some of the monies into FINPX as a psuedo cash parking place....well, we sure missed a large part of that boat leaving the dock. :):):)
    Thank you again and back to the chores before the sun gets too high in the sky and melts me away.
    Regards,
    Catch
  • Bonds v. Stocks
    Hi Skipper,
    You stated that your goal is a capital preservation portfolio. Your original all-equity portfolio surely does not satisfy that objective, as you painfully learned in 2008. The portfolio was constructed for maximum likely returns without controlling for risk. For example, the US equity market generates positive returns about 70 % of the time on an annual basis.
    That’s acceptable for a 30-year old with a few decades before retirement, but is probably not a wise plan for a retiree or a near-retiree. By diversifying into US equity, International equity, and bond mutual funds you have made your portfolio more risk insensitive. That’s a closer approximation to satisfy your investment goal. Congratulations for that decision.
    However, as Milton Friedman observed “There are no free lunches”. There is a tradeoff between risk and reward. In general, to reduce the risk of a market downturn, it is necessary to accept a lower likely annual return. But adroit asset allocation is as close to a free lunch as is possible in the investment universe.
    By allocating resources among various asset classes, it is possible to approximately maintain the annual returns of an all-equity US portfolio while simultaneously substantially reducing the risky aspects of a portfolio (its volatility). This is usually accomplished by using asset classes that are not perfectly correlated with each other.
    Correlation is statistically measured by something called a correlation coefficient. For two investments, correlation coefficients run a spectrum from minus One to plus One. A correlation coefficient of plus One means that the two investments move Up and Down in perfect synch; a correlation coefficient of minus One means that the two investments are perfectly out of synch with one generating positive returns while the other produces negative results. A correlation coefficient of Zero means that the two investments behave in a random, uncoordinated manner relative to each other.
    When asset allocation is fully exploited, it is possible to maintain the annual return of an all equity portfolio at about one-half of the volatility. In 2008, instead of suffering a 40 % decline, a well-diversified portfolio might have reduced losses to one-half or one-third that level. Not perfect, but a major improvement.
    Correlation coefficients are dynamic and change over time. Historically, bonds have a correlation coefficient that varies from 0.2 to 0.4 relative to US equities. Foreign equities further diversify a portfolio because its correlation relative to US stocks is typically in the 0.5 to 0.8 range. Gold and other hard assets often have correlation coefficients that are neutral or slightly negative to US equity holdings.
    Your 3-holding group goes a long way to achieving an efficient portfolio, but the addition of other asset classes would improve its risk control.
    Since you are using passively managed products and are paying an advisor, you must be a relative novice at the investment game. Nothing wrong with that; we all were at that place at some time in our investment careers. You’ll learn by reading investment books and by visiting websites.
    To get you started in the book arena, I suggest you get a copy of Professor Burton Malkiel’s introductory book “The Random Walk Guide to Investing”. It’s a breezy 184-page book that will be a useful guide at this stage in your investment development.
    To see the benefits of asset allocation on a parametric level, I suggest that you visit Paul Merriman's fine website. It offers some excellent articles and provides a table that demonstrates how portfolio returns and volatility change as a function of various percentages of bond and equity holdings. The Link follows immediately.
    http://www.merriman.com/PDFs/FineTuning.pdf
    Please visit the site. I promise that you will learn something about portfolio management and risk control.
    Please do not worry about the portfolio returns and correlations on a daily basis. If you do, you will never sleep peacefully and the portfolio is too risky for your stated purposes.
    Good luck.
    Best Wishes.
  • Bonds v. Stocks
    Thanks to all for the good feedback as usual. This is my entire retirement investment account. INVESTOR, I will chat with my Vanguard adviser about upping the International index piece though the overseas craziness every day makes me nervous. CATCH, it is the VBTLX Vanguard Total Bond Mkt Index (Admiral shares). I'm pretty sure it essentially mimicks VBMFX. SVEN, the adviser suggested these three funds but I have access to all Vang funds for the portfolio; just a way to keep it reasonably simple for now. I know Wellesley Income has high ratings for 3 and 5 years, so that remains a consideration. I'm not paying for their financial planner advisory service....yet. I think it is .50 percent for assets under management. I'm cheap, but I know that is about as low as it gets for this level of service. Cheers , --Skipper
  • NARFX Mr. Snowball?
    Reply to @VintageFreak:
    If BPLSX interests you, I have heard relatively recent reports that it remains available in Thinkorswim retirement accounts for $1K minimum.
    Kevin
  • Bonds v. Stocks
    Hi Skipper,
    Several questions:
    (1) why your Vanguard adviser uses only 3 index funds?
    (2) what about active managed funds - Wellington, Wellesley Income, and other fine choices available through their brokerage?
    (3) I don't know if you are not paying for their advisory service. They should able to offer a much broader and diversified portfolio within your risk tolerance and retirement goal.
  • Merging Active and Passive Mutual Fund Platforms
    Hi Guys,
    Are you familiar with the Babe Ruth syndrome?
    The Babe Ruth syndrome recognizes the tradeoffs between great success and abject failure; Babe Ruth setting records for his home run hitting prowess, but also notorious for his strike-out frequency.
    Without too much imagination, it is easy to construct a similar analogy using Brett Favre as the focal point with his high-risk, long touchdown passes and his rally crushing interception frequency record. In most happenings there is a tension between the good and the ugly.
    Investors are confronted with this tension when making mutual fund/ETF decisions. Does the investor buy into the merits of the active fund management story? Is the amateur investor satisfied with Index-like returns, or does he shoot for the stars in an attempt to secure outsized excess returns? Each of us must make our own lonely decisions.
    The data suggest that investors most often seek excess returns (Alpha). The Investment Company Institute (ICI) research and records support this finding. The ICI data bases clearly demonstrate that the individual investor most frequently employs active mutual fund management. In contrast, on an average percentage basis, institutional investors hire Indexers.
    The most recent ICI data releases provide the following summary statistics. The 2011 Investment Company Fact Book shows that only a small percentage of individual investors use Index products. Like 90 million folks own mutual funds, and half of these use an advisor. From the ICI Fact Book: “Of households that owned mutual funds, 31 percent owned at least one index mutual fund in 2010.” So most individual investors are still committed to active mutual fund management. That’s a commitment to purposely seeking Alpha.
    This search for excess returns becomes problematic to a retirement portfolio because it fails at several practical and statistical layers.
    The semi-annual S&P mutual fund scorecards document that from a frequency purview only one-third of active managers outperform passive management on an annual average basis. Additionally, performance persistence suffers as the earlier top-managers seem to lose their skills and prescience over time at a rate that exceeds random turnover. Picking long-term successful fund managers is not an straightforward task.
    Besides the frequency issue, the private investor is further challenged by the rather meager excess returns that the successful managers deliver. When these Fortunate Sons do deliver, they struggle to exceed Index levels by just a few percent over any time horizon that meaningfully impacts cumulative wealth.
    So we have the likelihood of a double whammy when focusing on excess returns: low probability of successful managerial selection coupled with scanty excess returns for the assumed risk.
    But there is yet more bad news. A second layer of individual underperformance is well documented. Amateur investors are not loyal to their initial investments. Mutual fund ownership turnover rates have substantially increased. Our patience levels have diminished over time. Private investors change frequently, often to follow the so-called “hot hands”. It is well documented that “hot hands” are an illusion. It seems that a regression-to-the-mean kicks-in the moment a financial commitment is made.
    Decades of survey data from Dalbar clearly documents that investors recover less than one-half of what funds they employ generate. Why? Private investors are masters of bad timing. We are late to the financial party. When we do switch parties, the abandoned party outperforms the one that we recently purchased. Institutional investors suffer this same outcome, further establishing the troublesome issue of active management screening and selection. Our average record is a first-class disaster zone in this arena.
    Here is a Link to a May, 2011 summary article from Alpha Investment Management (AIM) that explores some of these same problematic areas:
    http://alphaim.net/newsletter_5_26_11.html
    The Alpha reference warns amateur investors to “stay out of the kitchen.” That’s far too harsh a judgment and is somewhat arrogant. Alpha concludes that “Consistent superior performance is rare in the mutual fund world”. We have all seen those proclamations many times. AIM proposed an approach to counteract the poor timing record of individual investor.
    The AIM investment strategy recommended at the end of the article was to sell in May, and transfer into a bond position until November. The AIM strategy endorses a mid-cap Index equity holdings during the fruitful November-May period.
    I do not necessarily approve of the AIM investment strategy. It is one of a host of options. The AIM strategy is based solely on a statistical assessment. It does not document a causal relationship between the parameters being correlated. It could be a lucky (or unlucky) coincidence. Any correlation that does not provide a logical rationale for the correlation is highly suspect.
    These findings should be a cautionary alert to all investors. We are too aggressive when constructing a portfolio. It would likely be a good policy to divide the portfolio into two separate major groups: a globally diversified, low risk, low cost, low turnover passive unit, and a more actively managed aggressive unit that is targeted to add Alpha. The actively managed Alpha-directed holdings should have well diversified, high beta, and high volatility characteristics.
    The final percentage mix of passive and active components depend on the individual investors specific goals, time horizon, wealth, age, financial knowledge, and risk profile. Each investor must determine this passive/active mix for himself.
    It is possible to enjoy the comforts (lower volatility) and benefits (higher rewards) provided by both investment management platforms.
    Best Regards.
  • Bonds v. Stocks
    Skipper,
    50% stocks, 50% bonds might be an appropriate portfolio for retirement. But you should not look at just one account. You should view all of your investments for the same goal, however distributed, to be one portfolio.
    I think you are a bit short on the International. I hope you have other international investments in other portfolios. I suggest you boost up International to 20%. You should even consider and even split.
  • Advice about UMBIX
    Howdy Cathy,
    The link here, for a retirement discussion board may be of interest; started by the poster "hunger". Also Google Ameriprise with the words "lawsuits" and " fees or fee structure".
    http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/trying-to-figure-out-ameriprise-fees-and-my-options-44010.html
    This is a full retail shop for investing, insurance and related. Are they any worse than similar organization? Probably not.
    The ongoing problem is with an ignorant population who are also too lazy to be their own "devils advocate" with a full list of questions and do not choose to do their homework. "Lack of curiosity" will indeed kill these cats.
    I have witnessed similar circumstances for years and still see these personal failures among family and friends. Sadly, for the majority; there really is no excuse today for not being able to find just about any needed information and/or data to make a clear decision about investment directions or just about anything else via the internet.
    The sheep will continue to be slaughtered; as the majority are not curious and fail to take time to comtemplate the result of their actions (for a future Funds Boat write).
    A fairly sharp businessman who founded and operated a retail book store in our area eventually sold his store as Borders/Barnes and Noble really pushed his operation to the edge He chose to become a retail broker/insurance salesperson associate with Smith Barney years ago. Yes, he had to pass some required tests related to this business activity. He is not a certified planner in any sense of the term; but convinced folks he could run their investments. Over a few years period he had a decent client base, mostly by word of mouth. I asked several folks about his fees and his knowledge and of course 100% of them were.....duh! One of his clients who was 88 year old at the start of her invesment period with him, and really did not understand where her monies ($150k) were invested. She, along with most of her family....kids, etc. threw their money to him....willy, nilly. This lady lives on her departed husbands SS check and has about $100k in a bank savings acct. She is frugal and does okay; but has not a clue about her invested money with this man. She offered to let me look at her portfolio and I found it too be on an aggressive path. I noted this to her and she stated that she made very good money....pre market melt. About 9 months after the market melt, I happened to see her again and I asked about what her "advisor" had done with her investments. She stated that as far as she knew, she still had the same investments. I asked what had he told her during the market melt and whether any changes in her portfolio might be in order...........he had not even called her to discuss anything. He does not have the courtesy to call her at least once a month for a chat about her investments through his full retail services to her to this very day. Her portfolio had lost about 40% into part of 2009, from 2008 and I have no clue what it has done since.
    Obviously, I find these type of folks to be some of the most disgusting folks on our planet.
    Regards,
    Catch
  • NWGAX or NVOAX - Help me decide !!!
    NWGRX and NVORX are available at Scottrade for minimums of $3K and $1K in taxable and retirement accounts, respectively, with $17 fees for purchases and sales. These funds are available in Thinkorswim retirement accounts for $1K minimums with no TF (3 free trades/month for now), according to relatively recent reports from M* forum members.
    NVORX/NVOAX is indeed restricted on its exposure to foreign equities: it may have up to 35% of assets invested in non-U.S. equities and up to 10% of assets in EM equities.
    I agree with you that NVOAX complements CVLOX better than NWGAX.
    Kevin
  • Best Portfolio Tracking Tools?

    I use Gainskeeper (not free). This is mainly for my taxable accounts - it handles Walsh rule beautifully, corporate actions (splits/name changes, etc), options, and generates Schedule D. You can also link to TurboTax and other tax softwares.
    Otherwise, I use Morningstar (premium account) for retirement accounts (due to mutual fund research).
  • Deferred Annuity ??? should I go for it
    bnath 001: As msf pointed out, zero coupon bonds, including the AC funds you cited, do allow you to lock in a guaranteed payout amount if held til maturity. I should have mentioned that. However, they still confront you with some serious issues.
    (1) Over the intervening years their price/value will bounce around like crazy. The farther out the maturity date the more they bounce. Anything beyond five years is quiet volatile, having owned them in the past. But, if you can take your eyes off them and not worry over those 18 years, the promised payout should be there. Heaven help if an emergency comes along or your circumstances change and you need to pull money out while they are depressed.
    (2) From msn, it appears 100K invested in zeros today would be worth a bit over 200K in 18 years. With a fund, your return would be somewhat less than actually holding Treasury zeros due to fees. This sounds like alot but really isn't. Think how prices have risen since 1993. While houses and some technology costs held steady or dropped, most of the things we depend on like cars, food, fuel, medical care, satellite tv, have risen sharply over that time, despite what the government number crunchers would have us believe. Imagine what prices will look life if have some "serious" inflation over the next 18 years.
    Your skittishness regarding risk investments is one reason I advised against zeros. Its presently hard to get much perspective on how they can gyrate, since interest rates have gone in only one direction, down, for many years. But IMHO neither zero coupon Treasuries or an annuity would be the best way to invest for retirement at your relatively young age. Think you should give some serious heed to the many suggestions above by some of the regulars. Perhaps reading more on investing would help raise your risk tolerance a bit. Lota good reads on David's featured list. I still enjoy looking at the light-hearted book by Andrew Tobias and recently downloaded it from Amazon for a few bucks. A quick afternoon read!
  • Deferred Annuity ??? should I go for it
    If you're talking about what you can buy in your employer's 401k (Schwab PCRA), then you cannot buy the Northwestern Mutual annuity. If you're talking about an IRA through a brokerage (Schwab or anyone else), then you'll be able to buy Treasuries (zeros, TIPS, or anything else you'd like) with no problem.
    As others have pointed out, there are better long term conservative investments than a deferred fixed annuity, from laddered bonds or CDs, to balanced or asset allocation funds.
  • Deferred Annuity ??? should I go for it
    There are (at least) three issues here:
    1) Generating a guaranteed stream of income at retirement
    2) What to do now with your $100K
    3) Mixing IRAs and annuities
    I'll take those in reverse order.
    Generally, it is not a good idea to put annuities into IRAs. The reason is that annuities have additional costs above what the comparable non-annuity investment would cost - this is for the annuity insurance (and sales commissions, and ...). See the cautionary note that the SEC has about mixing variable annuities at http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/varannty.htm
    That brings us to what to do with the $100K IRA. Fixed annuities (like a savings account, where the insurance company pays you a a fixed rate of interest that it may change periodically) make a little more sense in an IRA, if you can get a better rate than you would at a bank. In each case, the money is guaranteed, though when you go to a bank, the money and interest are guaranteed by the federal government, while if you go to an insurance company, the money's guaranteed by the insurance company (here, Northwestern Mutual). So a fixed deferred annuity can make sense if (a) you want a bank-type rate of return, maybe a little more, and (b) you're comfortable with the insurance company's guarantee. Since you're investing for 18 years, you should be able to do better, but as with most investments, the more return you get, the more risk you take. Personally, with 18 years to go, I'd invest in something that was likely to do better than a fixed annuity, but that's me.
    Finally, the guaranteed income - you can always buy an annuity, even when you're 59.5 and you want the income stream to begin. If it begins paying out immediately when you buy it, it is called, well, an immediate annuity. They're very easy to buy, and IMHO make more sense. In the meantime, you'll get a higher return by investing elsewhere. When you turn 59, you can take the IRA and "annuitize" it (get the constant stream of income) by buying the immediate annuity with the bigger pile of money you'll have accumulated. (Or you can use just some of that money, and put the rest somewhere else.)
  • Chuck Jaffe: Supreme Court leaves fund investors hanging
    Great stuff. Thanks for the refresher msf.
    I'll add a little more ... Memory is a funny thing. I was in the Strong funds and liked em for a while so maybe a little blinded to their transgressions. Recalled that Strong himself was making frequent trades in his own account, a breach of his firms frequent trading rules as well as his fiduciary duty. Wasn't aware he had previously run afoul of the SEC.
    I did not realize/recall that Strong was also allowing outsiders to rapid trade. But, I should have known. Obviously if these rapid traders are allowed to skim off the top using computer programs designed for that purpose theres less left over for the working stiff who is patiently plowing retirement money into the funds.
    Actually I'd find this (second) organized and systematic approach to skimming even more reprehensible than the CEO monkeying around with his personal holdings.
  • Large Cap Value Fund
    I am looking for a large value fund on the Schwab no-load no transaction fee platform. I have been in Columbia Value & Restructuring for some years now, but I am not pleased with it's performance over the past few years. Also, David Williams, its long time manager, is retiring at the end of 2012, and the fund is in the process of transitioning to new a new manager(s).
    I liked the fund for a bunch of years because it had good performance, low turnover, reasonable ER, and was tax efficient, which was nice as it is held in my taxable account. I do not have room in my retirement accounts.
    I looked at Sound Shore (SSHFX), which also seems to fit some of the same criteria (decent long time performance, reasonable ER, fairly tax efficient, low turnover, experienced management), but am not sold for some reason. I thought Yacktman Fund (YACKX) would be a good possibility, but I understand it has a soft close and I currently do not have a position in it.
    Any thoughts would be appreciated.
    Mona