bruce
Lieutenant
Posts: 56
|
Post by bruce on Nov 6, 2023 21:47:24 GMT
In a quest to simplify our investment portfolio primarily to alleviate my wife's concern about finances after my passing, it was suggested by a forum member to consider a single-fund solution. A single-fund solution is an idea that has just recently seemed acceptable. The pros and cons are many. Two that have proven themselves in the past are FBALX and VWENX.
All funds are held in a Traditional IRA. All comments and suggestions are welcomed.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogibearbull on Nov 6, 2023 23:40:10 GMT
Here is an analysis similar to what I provided in the “Two fund…” thread. PV run is 12/1986-10/2023 (about 36 years) for 3 funds FBALX, VWELX, ABALX (extra) with classes that are their oldest (so that PV could run the longest). Better classes are Admiral VWENX and no-load/NTF class BALFX (at Fido & Schwab). FBALX effective-equity 67.32% (LC-growth), nominal-equity 62.22%, SWR 6.89% VWELX effective-equity 66.54% (LC-blend), nominal-equity 65.16%, SWR 7.21% ABALX effective-equity 62.42% (LC-blend), nominal-equity 61.29%, SWR 7.02% Results are pretty similar. I was surprised by this because at times, FBALX has been too growthy (now only slight growth tilt), and before the recent changes, VWELX was more value (now blend). OP says that this is for tax-deferred/free accounts, so tax-inefficiency of hybrids, and mutual funds in general, shouldn’t matter. All have supported generous historical SWRs of about 7% (of the initial lump-sum, subsequently adjusted for COLA), well above Bengen’s 4%. So, in principle, one could set them for reinvestments and also set up monthly withdrawals, adjusted annually for COLA. That is as simple as it can get. www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=2ukLhmUG7h7TYHmBIBZ7m5 |
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Nov 7, 2023 0:17:28 GMT
Here is an analysis similar to what I provided in the “Two fund…” thread. PV run is 12/1986-10/2023 (about 36 years) for 3 funds FBALX, VWELX, ABALX (extra) with classes that are their oldest (so that PV could run the longest). Better classes are Admiral VWENX and no-load/NTF class BALFX (at Fido & Schwab). FBALX effective-equity 67.32% (LC-growth), nominal-equity 62.22%, SWR 6.89% VWELX effective-equity 66.54% (LC-blend), nominal-equity 65.16%, SWR 7.21% ABALX effective-equity 62.42% (LC-blend), nominal-equity 61.29%, SWR 7.02% Results are pretty similar. I was surprised by this because at times, FBALX has been too growthy (now only slight growth tilt), and before the recent changes, VWELX was more value (now blend). OP says that this is for tax-deferred/free accounts, so tax-inefficiency of hybrids, and mutual funds in general, shouldn’t matter. All have supported generous historical SWRs of about 7% (of the initial lump-sum, subsequently adjusted for COLA), well above Bengen’s 4%. So, in principle, one could set them for reinvestments and also set up monthly withdrawals, adjusted annually for COLA. That is as simple as it can get. www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=2ukLhmUG7h7TYHmBIBZ7m5I am surprised. On another thread we discussed my first advisor telling me I could withdraw nominal historical stock market returns in retirement of 7-8%. I was new to the market then. Is 7% wise? |
|
|
|
Post by yogibearbull on Nov 7, 2023 0:48:52 GMT
Chahta, what your advisor told you was that it isn't wise to draw historical TRs and that for these funds are 9.04%, 9.14%, 8.78% (see the linked PV run). If one withdrew that much, and also adjusted for COLA, one would run out of money. But PV SWR calculations are for the max initial amount, adjusted for COLA, that can be withdrawn over the PV run period. This can also be verified by making additional PV runs with the indicated withdrawals. Bengen's 4% COLA adjusted was based on the worst cases but actual history for this period has been better. The conclusion is that if one withdrew only 4% COLA adjusted, one would be sitting on huge ending balances after 36 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by retiredat48 on Nov 7, 2023 0:53:13 GMT
bruce ,...just keep in mind: Let's say your spouse has one fund, at Vanguard, which pays her money, let's say monthly. You are very undiversified. Un diversified as in: Vanguard gets hacked; millions of accounts affected...taken to zero in the computers. Takes weeks to resolve. Ditto the fund may get hacked, or some other calamity. A black swan. Your wife in panic mode. I keep allocations split between Vanguard and Fidelity, partly because of this. If vangd goes down, I can take from Fidelity. Ditto, having more than one fund eliminates this "one fund" concern. I also keep paper statements from both so I can "prove" what I own. Maybe I'm paranoid. Or experienced. R48
|
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Nov 7, 2023 1:17:34 GMT
In a quest to simplify our investment portfolio primarily to alleviate my wife's concern about finances after my passing, it was suggested by a forum member to consider a single-fund solution. A single-fund solution is an idea that has just recently seemed acceptable. The pros and cons are many. Two that have proven themselves in the past are FBALX and VWENX. All funds are held in a Traditional IRA. All comments and suggestions are welcomed. Why not split between the two funds equally? retiredat48 raises good points about access to your money - and it is better to keep in two brokerages. |
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Nov 7, 2023 2:24:59 GMT
In a quest to simplify our investment portfolio primarily to alleviate my wife's concern about finances after my passing, it was suggested by a forum member to consider a single-fund solution. A single-fund solution is an idea that has just recently seemed acceptable. The pros and cons are many. Two that have proven themselves in the past are FBALX and VWENX. All funds are held in a Traditional IRA. All comments and suggestions are welcomed. One of the goals of my succession plan is simplification. It must provide adequate income and be simple for my wife to maintain.
I have a single fund in my traditional IRA: ABALX. The withdrawal method is RMDs. RMDs start out at less then 4% but increase a little each year. RMDs are a variable withdrawal method. They are calculated using a percentage of portfolio value every year. If the portfolio (or fund) does well withdrawals are bigger. If it does poorly the withdrawals are less. The biggest drawback is the volatility. If the retiree can live with the ups and downs this is a good withdrawal method. American Funds calculates and deducts the taxes and deposits the difference in our checking account monthly. It can't get any simpler than that.
I really don't think anything else is necessary. The fund is internally diversified owning both growth and value stocks mixed with bonds. Re-balancing to maintain the asset allocation is done by the fund manager. Complexity does not necessarily lead to diversification. An investor could have 20 funds and still not be diversified if the funds all invest in the same companies. An example is ABALX and VWENX. Four of their top ten holding are the same companies. VWENX is a little more value oriented. But I have seen a lot more overlap between funds.
Edit: I have other investments, such as VWENX and VWIAX. They just aren't in traditional IRAs.
|
|
|
|
Post by mozart522 on Nov 7, 2023 15:37:03 GMT
Mustang, I think my wife is in the same boat. Almost all her portfolio is in TIRA and it is about 1/2 of our total portfolio. Mine is almost all in ROTH now as I've been converting for years up to my bracket. My TIRA will be gone by 2025. So assuming I pass first, she won't be getting "income" but just taking RMDs for expenses and likely will have to put some of that in a taxable account. Right now we don't have a taxable account other than checking. Because of that, I'm not sure if it really matters what all that pile is invested in. I might have been interested in bumping up equity in the past but with the new rules for heirs, it isn't so attractive anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Nov 7, 2023 16:26:10 GMT
bruce ,...just keep in mind: Let's say your spouse has one fund, at Vanguard, which pays her money, let's say monthly. You are very undiversified. Un diversified as in: Vanguard gets hacked; millions of accounts affected...taken to zero in the computers. Takes weeks to resolve. Ditto the fund may get hacked, or some other calamity. A black swan. Your wife in panic mode. I keep allocations split between Vanguard and Fidelity, partly because of this. If vangd goes down, I can take from Fidelity. Ditto, having more than one fund eliminates this "one fund" concern. I also keep paper statements from both so I can "prove" what I own. Maybe I'm paranoid. Or experienced. R48 "Un diversified as in: Vanguard gets hacked; millions of accounts affected...taken to zero in the computers. Takes weeks to resolve. Ditto the fund may get hacked, or some other calamity. A black swan. Your wife in panic mode." Please name the last time VG,Fidelity or Schwab were out for weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by racqueteer on Nov 7, 2023 18:12:55 GMT
"Un diversified as in: Vanguard gets hacked; millions of accounts affected...taken to zero in the computers. Takes weeks to resolve. Ditto the fund may get hacked, or some other calamity. A black swan. Your wife in panic mode." Please name the last time VG,Fidelity or Schwab were out for weeks. That an event hasn't occurred previously does not preclude it ever happening. Redundance is generally regarded as being beneficial wrt systems, and 'insurance' isn't a bad thing to have in place. |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Nov 7, 2023 18:59:36 GMT
Not to complicate things, but consider Puritan FPURX. Same ER as FBALX, lower assets. Kind of a sleeper fund. I've owned it since the 1990s. See the chart of Puritan vs. Wellington since its inception on 4/30/1947. Puritan has kicked Wellington's butt. I agree with R48 that balanced funds have outlived their usefulness. So I'm not buying or selling, just holding it. I'm sure it will out-survive me. (Click to expand.)  |
|
|
|
Post by anitya on Nov 7, 2023 19:55:55 GMT
I agree with R48 that balanced funds have outlived their usefulness. (Click to expand.) View Attachment , I could not find the above in R48 post (I was trying to understand the reasoning for such a thought). Could you please quote him? If you happen to think these funds have outlived their usefulness, please elaborate and share your thought process. |
|
|
|
Post by yogibearbull on Nov 7, 2023 19:58:22 GMT
Wellington/VWELX had a specially bad stretch from 1965-80. Issues were fund specific and shouldn't recur. These have been discussed in detail elsewhere. That is why Fido FPURX looks better if one goes back that far back. Since 1980s, they are similar. PV runs won't catch this because the FREE PV goes back only to 1985. www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=1JQ5HWGnHZyzZZCrzjs18tBTW, new forms of allocation funds are TDFs (w/glide-paths), age-based 529 funds, robo-advisors (w/allocation based on questionnaires), multi-asset funds (w/ stocks + bonds + alternatives). The so-called "old" balanced funds had static/strategic allocations. So, to me, the allocation idea is still very much alive and well. |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Nov 7, 2023 20:17:13 GMT
I agree with R48 that balanced funds have outlived their usefulness. (Click to expand.) View Attachment , I could not find the above in R48 post (I was trying to understand the reasoning for such a thought). Could you please quote him? If you happen to think these funds have outlived their usefulness, please elaborate and share your thought process. The Search function is your friend: big-bang-investors.proboards.com/post/43484/thread |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Nov 7, 2023 20:24:04 GMT
Wellington/VWELX had a specially bad stretch from 1965-80. Issues were fund specific and shouldn't recur. These have been discussed in detail elsewhere. That is why Fido FPURX looks better if one goes back that far back. Since 1980s, they are similar. That's quite true. I ran a chart from 11/6/1980 to 11/6/2023. Puritan still finishes ahead, but they're very close. |
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Nov 7, 2023 20:41:03 GMT
FPURX (Fidelity Puritan) a really good fund. I owned it in my 401k and loved it. But I wasn't born in 1947 so let's look at more recent information. *** designates winner. FBALX 10,000 in 2-13 became 26,432 in 2013 *** FPURX 10,000 in 2013 became 25,884 in 2023 VWENX 10,000 in 2013 became 23,915 in 2023 ABALX 10,000 in 2013 became 23,262 in 2023
The difference is not nearly as dramatic as the 1947 chart shows.
FBALX 15-yr 10.5%, 10-yr 8.6%, 5-yr 9.2%, 3-yr 5.2% and 1-yr 14.5% *** FPURX 15-yr 10.2%, 10-yr 8.4%, 5-yr 8.5%, 3-yr 4.0%, and 1-yr 13.5% VWENX 15-yr 9.7%, 10-yr 7.5%, 5-yr 7.2%, 3-yr 4.3%, and 1-yr 10.5% ABALX 15-yr 9.3%, 10-yr 7.0%, 5-yr 7.2%, 3-yr 4.0%, and 1-yr 8.9% What could explain this? It how deep into growth the fund is. The equity side of both FBALX and FPURX is growth. FBALX is deeper into the growth side. VWENX and ABALX equity is blended but on the edge with VWENX having slightly more growth. What is the downside to growth? FBALX 2022 -18.2%, 2018 -4.0%, and 2008 -31.3% FPURX 2022 -17.2%, 2018 -4.2%, and 2008 -29.2% VWENX 2022 -14.3%, 2018 -3.4%, and 2008 -22.3% ABALX 2022 -12.1%, 2018 -2.7%, and 2008 -25.3% *** near term The market has favored growth stock over value for some time. Growth has had higher returns, higher volatility, larger downturns and higher risk. Every investor has their own level of risk tolerance. Besides, with rising rates some are predicting value will come back. Only time will tell. |
|
bruce
Lieutenant
Posts: 56
|
Post by bruce on Nov 7, 2023 21:18:54 GMT
Currently, I am leaning towards FBALX. It has outperformed VWENX over the 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10-year periods while ending up tied over the past 15 years. FBALX enjoyed the highest rolling returns over the past year, 3 years, 5, 10, and 15 years. It also compares favorably to FPRUX over the same period. Fidelity is my custodian, which I plan on keeping. Something tells me the Fidelity advisors will also suggest FBALX; I'll know after our meeting on the 15th. Thank you for all your comments/suggestions. BTW, FPURX and FBALX have much in common. www.macroaxis.com/invest/market/FBALX--compareProfile--FPURX |
|
|
|
Post by anitya on Nov 7, 2023 21:58:40 GMT
chang , I could not find the above in R48 post (I was trying to understand the reasoning for such a thought). Could you please quote him? If you happen to think these funds have outlived their usefulness, please elaborate and share your thought process. The Search function is your friend: big-bang-investors.proboards.com/post/43484/threadThanks. That was in a different thread and I skipped that entire thread. I was not following this thread and only stopped to read your post, and then read the thread. In any case, R48 in the post you linked was negative (usefulness) on balanced funds because he thinks investors should just make separate equity and bond fund investments. That is Ok for some but not for vast many because that is too complex, and flies in the face of the OP of this thread who specifically is looking for simplification. Balance funds is a very broad term that covers the entire gamut of Conservative allocation, Moderately conservative allocation, Moderate Allocation, to Aggressive allocation. If one goes to Fidelity or Vanguard they can see the various gradation of allocation funds by looking at the number of target date funds they each have. I am sure yogibearbull can provide a better color on how the bond %age varies. Some forum members own more than 50% of their portfolio in allocation (balanced) funds and so I want to provide context of your comments to them. I personally do not like any of the Target date funds currently available in the market place but that should not be a knock against all allocation funds. |
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Nov 7, 2023 23:58:59 GMT
FBALX is more growy and tend to be riskier + use lower rating bonds and why it did better since 2010. But VWENX performed better with lower volatility during 2000-2010, and definitely lost a lot less.
So, if you can predict the future, you know what to do. If you based your investment on the last 13 years, you maybe off.
My favorite allocation fund for decades has been PRWCX but it's closed.
So again, you must know the funds very well, and the markets that we had instead of just looking at the last 10 years. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. Someone who believes that Value+Div is always the answer did well during 2000-10, but did poorly since 2010.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2023 1:17:15 GMT
When deciding between 2 similar funds with similar performance, I generally go with the one with the lowest expense ratio because it is starting out with a known performance advantage. I base my choices on what is known.
My choice would be VWENX.
|
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Nov 8, 2023 1:50:05 GMT
I hardly ever based my decisions on ER although lower ER has been discussed for decades and proved to be right. That's because there are exceptions to the rule such as PRWCX for decades and PIMIX for about 8 years.
Several years ago Vanguard published a report that showed that their managed funds beat their indexes.
We also had the nifty fifty that got very expensive and lagged after that. That might happen to the very low ER of the SP500.
|
|
bruce
Lieutenant
Posts: 56
|
Post by bruce on Nov 8, 2023 17:55:39 GMT
FBALX is more growy and tend to be riskier + use lower rating bonds and why it did better since 2010. But VWENX performed better with lower volatility during 2000-2010, and definitely lost a lot less. So, if you can predict the future, you know what to do. If you based your investment on the last 13 years, you maybe off. My favorite allocation fund for decades has been PRWCX but it's closed. So again, you must know the funds very well, and the markets that we had instead of just looking at the last 10 years. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. Someone who believes that Value+Div is always the answer did well during 2000-10, but did poorly since 2010. The relationship between risk and reward has been and will be inextricably linked. The farther the portfolio drifts from a "market" portfolio, the higher the "risk" will be. Management can increase risk with either their fund's fixed or equity side. What matters to me is how that risk is managed. Before actually taking a deeper dive into which fund to use as a single retirement fund, Wellington would have been front of mind. But, as you can see from Mustangs and my backtesting, FBALX outperforms over most periods going back twenty-three years. Since 2006, our equity allocation has varied,65%+/-, so the volatility of the two funds should not deviate far from our current portfolio. In the fifty-one years of our marriage, my wife has never once asked about the value of our portfolio, so I do not believe future variations will alarm her. |
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Nov 8, 2023 22:41:44 GMT
We have all been looking at the acquisition phase of investing. Sequence-of-returns risk is real during the withdrawal phase. We even know when they occur. They occur if the investor retires shortly before a big down market. Unfortunately, we cannot predict exactly when that will happen. Research has also shown that sequence-of returns problems have more effect during the first 10-years of retirement. Risk is associated with volatility (standard deviation). Higher risk funds typically have higher returns and that is good during the acquisition phase because the investor can ride out the downturn. It isn't so good during the withdrawal phase when withdrawals are necessary to pay bills. I picked two fund because we have mostly been discussing them: FBALX and VWENX. I picked a retirement date of January 1, 2007 because I knew a crash was coming in 2008. I picked fixed dollar withdrawal because I didn't want to mess with inflation adjustments. But inflation adjusted withdrawals in 70s and 80s significantly increases withdrawals doubling and tripling them. Data: $100,000 starting balance. $4,000 withdrawal starting January 1st of each year. Returns are from Yahoo Finance. FBALX 2007: $100,000 - 4,000 = $ 96,000 x 1.09 = $104,640 2008: $104,000 - 4,000 = $100,640 x 0.69 = $ 69,442 2009: $ 69,442 - 4,000 = $ 65,442 x 1.28 = $ 83,765 2010: $ 83,765 - 4,000 = $ 79,765 x 1.14 = $ 90,932 2011: $ 90,932 - 4,000 = $ 86,932 x 1.02 = $ 88,671 2012: $ 88,671 - 4,000 = $ 84,671 x 1.13 = $ 95,678 2013: $ 95,678 - 4,000 = $ 91,678 x 1.21 = $110,931 2014: $110,931 - 4,000 = $106,931 x 1.10 = $117,624 2015: $117,624 - 4,000 = $113,624 x 1.00 = $113,624 2016: $113,624 - 4,000 = $109,624 x 1.07 = $117,298
VWENX 2007: $100,000 - 4,000 = $ 96,000 x 1.08 = $103,680 2008: $103,680 - 4,000 = $ 99,680 x 0.78 = $ 77,750 2009: $ 77,750 - 4,000 = $ 73,750 x 1.22 = $ 89,975 2010: $ 89,975 - 4,000 = $ 85,975 x 1.11 = $ 95,432 2011: $ 95,432 - 4,000 = $ 91,432 x 1.04 = $ 95,089 2012: $ 95,089 - 4,000 = $ 91,089 x 1.13 = $102,931 2013: $102,931 - 4,000 = $ 98,931 x 1.20 = $118,717 2014: $118,717 - 4,000 = $114,717 x 1.10 = $126,189 2015: $126,189 - 4,000 = $122,189 x 1.00 = $122,189 2016: $122,189 - 4,000 = $118,189 x 1.11 = $131,190
Returns varied but in 2008 FBALX was behind $8,308 because it had a 31.3% loss to VXWNX's 22.2% loss. Both funds took years to recover because of the withdrawals not crossing the $100,000 mark until 2012 and 2013. FBALX was still behind $8,505 in 2015.
Average returns do not tell the entire story when withdrawals. One fund may have greater average returns but the sequence of the returns change the outcome. When withdrawing the less volatile is usually the winner.
P.S. I tested Wellington with a 1968 start date using the 4% Rule with inflation adjusted returns. The fund experienced losses in 1969, 1973 and 1974. It struggled to recover reaching 65% of it starting balance in 1992. Inflation had increased withdrawals 277%. It never caught up and ran out of money after 25 years (planned payout was 30%). If a fund falls behind in the beginning it is very hard for it to catch up.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogibearbull on Nov 8, 2023 22:59:15 GMT
Mustang , see PV runs 01/2007-10/2023. Starting lump-sum $100K, withdraw initial $333/mo. This period includes GFC, pandemic, historic 3-yr worst stretch for hybrids, etc. Even then, they came out fine. No inflation adjustment, residuals $177.37K, $179.58K www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=7D72ETL1Wr0P7Av4MbYSEMInflation adjustment, residuals $155.21K, $158.90K www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=1oaw4W2olbhBcECg23ggPE
|
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Nov 8, 2023 23:41:30 GMT
You way is much easier and withdrawing monthly makes a difference. If I read them correctly your charts show that portfolio 1's (FBALX's) returns were almost always higher yet portfolio 2's (VWENX'S) ending balance was always higher. That was what I was trying to point out. Being able to see the difference drives the point home. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by retiredat48 on Nov 9, 2023 3:31:44 GMT
bruce, yogibearbull, Chahta, retiredat48, steadyeddy, Mustang, mozart522, FD1000, racqueteer, chang, anitya,@django,... chang,posted: "I agree with R48 that balanced funds have outlived their usefulness" I will confirm I have posted this...often. And just to add to the record of balanced funds, note the following history. "BOGLE QUOTE ON WELLINGTON FUND POOR PERFORMANCE" So you think the past is prologue, then ponder what Jack Bogle wrote in the history of Wellington Fund having a long rocky road over two decades, over market conditions similar to today: "After (assets ) cresting at $2 billion in 1965, the Wellington's long era of growth came to a temporary halt. Performance faltered badly, the dividend tumbled, and fund assets plummeted by 75%, to $470 million by mid 1982..." John Bogle. ---------------------------------------------- R48
|
|
|
|
Post by retiredat48 on Nov 9, 2023 3:41:22 GMT
Noting the above post re Wellington's (a balanced fund) poor performance for a long period, then here is (partly) why I prefer splitting off the stock and bond allocations into two funds.
If we experience again a return to interest rates at from 15-20%, then Wellington will surely suffer. Wellington's charter (from memory) is to invest in intermediate term bond funds. Vanguard does not stray much from its knitting (nor would I want them to). With rising rates this duration is problematic.
During the 1970's the top performing bond fund was Money Market Funds(per Gundlach)! Very short duration. By having your bond side separate from the stock side, one shortens duration for capital preservation...all the way to 100% money market funds...without having to touch (sell) the stock side, which one has to do exiting balanced funds.
R48
|
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Nov 9, 2023 4:40:31 GMT
The problem of course is when you start looking at the numbers. 2010-2023 were much better for growth compared to value and why FBALX is better. The biggest difference started in 2017 where growth took off. It made more than double of value. If you are sure that growth will be better go for FBALX. See the chart below. Let's look at 2000-2010 and VWELX won=( www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=2oBqTzPYGYadS3Kj8pLqlA) Let's go as far as we can and VWELX won again=( www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=6CuRBxJHdzoJyrW1SZ1HAF). Another question: are you going to switch funds or you let it run for at least 20 years. I have instructions for my wife to use only indexes and Wellington funds because these are the only ones that I trust for LT without a change. FBALX can have a new manager next year and start lagging. VWELX/VWENX is managed by a group of conservative managers, there is a good reason VG selected Wellington management. What happened in the 70s is an old story. I also prefer splitting stocks and bond into separate funds, but that also means you must see the future and select great funds. R48 goes further and discuss MM...and that means trading, timing and changing AA. From my experience following many "experts" and investors, many made mistakes sometime big one. Mr G made some huge bad predictions in the past. See ( link). Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by racqueteer on Nov 9, 2023 5:36:12 GMT
FD, I don't think that scenario of a new manager for FBALX applies. FBALX has 11 managers to VWELX's 2. I can't see a management change for the former to be an issue. For VWELX it might well be, however. I think more of a concern would be to have a rigid mentality wrt holdings. VWELX seems pretty consistently conservative/value-focused. I don't know if FBALX is locked into being growthy regardless of the environment, however. I think I recall that it was more valuey in the past? On balance, it still seems to me that FBALX is the better choice for a long-time hold.
|
|
bd1
Ensign
Posts: 20
|
Post by bd1 on Nov 9, 2023 5:47:15 GMT
If this issue hasn’t been raised already, you should check out the MorningStar review of FBALX. MorningStar gives the fund a neutral rating because the lead manager, Lee, has only been on board since January. His investing philosophy seems to be different from that of the previous lead manager.
|
|
