cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
     
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@racqueteer wrote:

@FD1001 wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

I didn't go through this for YOU, FD.  I understand that you see a difference in money that comes from compounding, etc IN ADDITION to the actual details of WHY it's there.  THIS is to explain the WHY behind it all.  Chang is getting what I'm saying here; it isn't the 10%, AFTER THE FACT, that matters so much as the difficulty in identifying the OPPORTUNITY which was only present if you identified it IMMEDIATELY and invested fully IMMEDIATELY.  WHO'S going to DO that?  Take away that 30-day period, and there is NO disparity in the funds!  Getting in, even three months ago, would have availed you NOTHING.  Getting in NOW?  Maybe it COSTS you a little; who knows?  Look at the numbers I gave you.  You like data; there it is; take the time to really look at it and try to understand what I'm attempting to get across to you.  Don't just dismiss it because it's contrary to what you believe to be true or important.  30 DAYS, FD, that's all the time that there was that would earn you that 10% you're talking about.  Even YOU would have trouble moving that quickly and decisively!  If you don't care about getting that deeply into the weeds, I understand, but OTHERS may find the data helpful. 

Folks, if you couldn't/didn't identify and move on the data within a few days of seeing it, there's nothing on that chart which helps you AT ALL.  I hope you can SEE that!


Racq, with all due respect, I already showed the extra performance is more than one month and why I clearly posted 3 periods with their performance. 

Are you saying that investing based on short term uptrend chart doesn't work?

Let's agree to disagree.  

That’s fine, FD, but if you refuse to look at my data or even attempt to understand it, then any attempt at discussion is pointless anyway, and the fact that I CLEARLY proved that the ENTIRE ‘difference’ you see was due to something that happened over a TOTAL of 30 days is falling on deaf ears.  I just hope that others will take the time to look at it; it’s important to understand.  There ARE charts which indicate an advantage of one fund over another, but THIS one doesn’t. 


Racq,

I agree that it's the 30 days you cite that distinguish the fund.  

But, FD says he posted about the fund months ago.  Would it be helpful if FD shows you where he posted about buying or recommended ANBEX during this 30-day period? That would demonstrate an ability to spot short-term trends early on.

That's the trick: to see in real time that which is evident with 20:20 hindsight.  I can't do it and maybe you can't do it, but perhaps FD can?

N.

Highlighted
Explorer ○○○

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@racqueteer wrote:

Don't just dismiss it because it's contrary to what you believe to be true or important. 

Don't under penalty of what? Is credibility at stake on an anonymous forum?

I'd guess that's a rhetorical plea, not a literal request.

There's never been a more common reason to dismiss anything than that it's contrary to what one believes to be true or important. It underlies nearly all discussions here.

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance

@norbertc , @racqueteer , when references to ANBEX first popped up on an alternative thread to ST bond trading in early April, I raised concern in a post then but some posters were critical and thought that finding better ST performing funds was OK for them.     https://community.morningstar.com/t5/forums/forumtopicprintpage/board-id/bonds/message-id/5844/print...

 

YBB
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@ignatz wrote:

There's never been a more common reason to dismiss anything than that it's contrary to what one believes to be true or important. It underlies nearly all discussions here.


No doubt.  One can never learn anything new that way, however. To not learn, to fail to see other points of view, is a waste of one's abilities.  You don't have to end up agreeing, but actual data shouldn't be ignored.  Imo, of course.  And, despite your assertion, I've found that most folk here will keep an open mind and actually at least LISTEN so long as the data is clear and the reasoning is logical - as long as one avoids obviously partisan topics!  :-)

I like FD personally, and I appreciate the time and energy required to generate the data he provides.  I take no position on investing on the basis of short-term data, nor on who is good at it.  I seldom outright argue with him.  My sole concern is that data found in charts be analyzed correctly.  I've been looking at that kind of thing for over 50 years now, and it's seldom as straightforward as some believe.  In THIS case, the analysis was misleading, and I sought to, and hope I did, correct that analysis for others here.  It has nothing to do with FD, or his way of doing things.  It was ALL about the data and chart.

Just repeating for the cheap seats, to get the 10% ($1k on a $10k investment) FD talked about, you HAD to invest fully ON 2/23 and then hold until the end of the chart.  Any delay from 2/23 cost you some of that 10%.  The key thing, though, is that if you FAILED to invest before 3/19, then you gained virtually nothing ($67 on a $10k investment).  So you had 30 days to get ANY improved return.  How many could see that pattern and get in within 30 days?  How many would get chased out by the first drop from 3/5 to 3/19 (prior to which you would have made about $500 on a $10k investment)? 

For those who may be wondering, you started the 3/19 climb up about $700 over the reference fund.  From THERE, both funds did approximately the same, but, starting ahead, AMBEX GAINS more money (compounding on the lead).  THAT'S where the confusion is coming in; AMBEX didn't do BETTER than the reference after 3/19; it merely compounded on the LEAD it had (plus that $67 actual advantage).

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance

This is the link to FD's discussion of ANBEX, posted 4/4, unsurprisingly AFTER the out performance period discussed by Racq:

https://community.morningstar.com/t5/Bond-Squad/Bond-OEF-Investing-for-More-Conservative-Investors/t...

Reposted below and for clarity, highlighted in blue to clearly indicate they are NOT my comments:

======

@FD1001 wrote:

TGLMX is a great fund.  Consider ANBAX (ANBEX at Schwab) but also VFIIX

TGLMX VS VFIIX

1) VFIIX bonds rating are higher

2) VFIIX duration=2.3 is much lower than TGLMX duration=5.8

3) VFIIX SD is lower and especially YTD.  TGLMX peak to trough in March was over 6% while VFIIX was about 2.1%.

4) And why YTD performance is close

So, for the unknown wild market, VFIIX looks more of a sleep better fund.  

TGLMX VS ANBEX 

1) ANBEX invests mostly in Gov and lower % in Corp and hardly in MBS 

2) ANBEX risk/reward is better for YTD + 1-3 years and since inception 03/2016.  See PV(link) since inception

PortfolioCAGRStdevBest YearWorst YearMax. DrawdownSharpe RatioSortino Ratio
ANBEX4.91% 3.14%7.84%0.27%-2.32% 1.122.29
TGLMX3.72% 3.43%7.27%-0.52%-3.13% 0.71.27
VFIIX2.86% 2.18%5.83%-0.04%-1.95% 0.71.1

 

3) For YTD (chart) ANBEX performance is better with a lower peak to trough loss too 

tglmx 1.PNG

4) Of course, I also like ANBEX much smaller AUM and in this market also it's much higher turnover which means the managers' skill is working and they have many years of experience prior to running this fund.

I'm expecting DT to come back and say that 4 years is not enough history  :-)

=======

Of course, this won't open the eyes of some, but for those who want to see, it should be a fairly clear vision by now.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@yogibearbull wrote:

@norbertc , @racqueteer , when references to ANBEX first popped up on an alternative thread to ST bond trading in early April, I raised concern in a post then but some posters were critical and thought that finding better ST performing funds was OK for them.     https://community.morningstar.com/t5/forums/forumtopicprintpage/board-id/bonds/message-id/5844/print...


Yes, I remember that post.  The key problem, imo, is that performance over a short period doesn't make a fund 'better' automatically and is a confounding complication.  If, as in the current example, the ENTIRE difference is ALSO only a short-term effect, then it may not have been actionable at the time, nor convey any advantage going forward.  I don't think it's an obvious point of analysis for many (most?) people.  Compounding of that short-term effect AFTERWARD misleads many into thinking it is a persistent effect.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance

@racqueteer 

Repeating my earlier comment: Isn't this the very essence of racing Yugos? You look back at short-term performance and make commentary as to why that short-term performance occurred. The trickier part is to convince others that the move was foreseeable, actionable, warranted an investment, AND that you made money on the trade. But of course, now you are on to another "foreseeable" event, to be revealed at a later date.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○○○

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance

There was never any discussion on a core/core plus fund here before the latest black swan that I can remember. Who would have bought such a fund with a sky-high SD (over 3) and paltry TR when JMSIX, VCFAX and SEMMX were flying high. April was about the first time ANBEX was brought up by dtconroe I believe. FD picked up on it then.


@norbertc wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

@FD1001 wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

I didn't go through this for YOU, FD.  I understand that you see a difference in money that comes from compounding, etc IN ADDITION to the actual details of WHY it's there.  THIS is to explain the WHY behind it all.  Chang is getting what I'm saying here; it isn't the 10%, AFTER THE FACT, that matters so much as the difficulty in identifying the OPPORTUNITY which was only present if you identified it IMMEDIATELY and invested fully IMMEDIATELY.  WHO'S going to DO that?  Take away that 30-day period, and there is NO disparity in the funds!  Getting in, even three months ago, would have availed you NOTHING.  Getting in NOW?  Maybe it COSTS you a little; who knows?  Look at the numbers I gave you.  You like data; there it is; take the time to really look at it and try to understand what I'm attempting to get across to you.  Don't just dismiss it because it's contrary to what you believe to be true or important.  30 DAYS, FD, that's all the time that there was that would earn you that 10% you're talking about.  Even YOU would have trouble moving that quickly and decisively!  If you don't care about getting that deeply into the weeds, I understand, but OTHERS may find the data helpful. 

Folks, if you couldn't/didn't identify and move on the data within a few days of seeing it, there's nothing on that chart which helps you AT ALL.  I hope you can SEE that!


Racq, with all due respect, I already showed the extra performance is more than one month and why I clearly posted 3 periods with their performance. 

Are you saying that investing based on short term uptrend chart doesn't work?

Let's agree to disagree.  

That’s fine, FD, but if you refuse to look at my data or even attempt to understand it, then any attempt at discussion is pointless anyway, and the fact that I CLEARLY proved that the ENTIRE ‘difference’ you see was due to something that happened over a TOTAL of 30 days is falling on deaf ears.  I just hope that others will take the time to look at it; it’s important to understand.  There ARE charts which indicate an advantage of one fund over another, but THIS one doesn’t. 


Racq,

I agree that it's the 30 days you cite that distinguish the fund.  

But, FD says he posted about the fund months ago.  Would it be helpful if FD shows you where he posted about buying or recommended ANBEX during this 30-day period? That would demonstrate an ability to spot short-term trends early on.

That's the trick: to see in real time that which is evident with 20:20 hindsight.  I can't do it and maybe you can't do it, but perhaps FD can?

N.


 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance

ANBEX is still a reasonable trade even if purchased in early April.  It's just not "dominant" when compared to many other bond OEFs. In fact, it's a laggard.

See chart below:

ScreenHunter 774.png

To gain the fund's outperformance described by FD in this thread, I would need to own a time machine.  It's only thanks to 20:20 hindsight that I can grab that 10%.

N.

 

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@racqueteer wrote:

@ignatz wrote:

There's never been a more common reason to dismiss anything than that it's contrary to what one believes to be true or important. It underlies nearly all discussions here.


No doubt.  One can never learn anything new that way, however. To not learn, to fail to see other points of view, is a waste of one's abilities.  You don't have to end up agreeing, but actual data shouldn't be ignored.  Imo, of course.  And, despite your assertion, I've found that most folk here will keep an open mind and actually at least LISTEN so long as the data is clear and the reasoning is logical - as long as one avoids obviously partisan topics!  :-)

I like FD personally, and I appreciate the time and energy required to generate the data he provides.  I take no position on investing on the basis of short-term data, nor on who is good at it.  I seldom outright argue with him.  My sole concern is that data found in charts be analyzed correctly.  I've been looking at that kind of thing for over 50 years now, and it's seldom as straightforward as some believe.  In THIS case, the analysis was misleading, and I sought to, and hope I did, correct that analysis for others here.  It has nothing to do with FD, or his way of doing things.  It was ALL about the data and chart.

Just repeating for the cheap seats, to get the 10% ($1k on a $10k investment) FD talked about, you HAD to invest fully ON 2/23 and then hold until the end of the chart.  Any delay from 2/23 cost you some of that 10%.  The key thing, though, is that if you FAILED to invest before 3/19, then you gained virtually nothing ($67 on a $10k investment).  So you had 30 days to get ANY improved return.  How many could see that pattern and get in within 30 days?  How many would get chased out by the first drop from 3/5 to 3/19 (prior to which you would have made about $500 on a $10k investment)? 

For those who may be wondering, you started the 3/19 climb up about $700 over the reference fund.  From THERE, both funds did approximately the same, but, starting ahead, AMBEX GAINS more money (compounding on the lead).  THAT'S where the confusion is coming in; AMBEX didn't do BETTER than the reference after 3/19; it merely compounded on the LEAD it had (plus that $67 actual advantage).


Rac, I'm really sorry if you can't look at a simple chart and see the difference.  It's below

anbex-4.PNG

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance

Just to be clear, my point is not, and has not been, about trading or this or that person.  I'm not picking sides in that debate.  I'm simply focusing on the data and interpreting the chart of same; nothing more.  And note that this is ONE chart only, and constitutes no pattern, trend, or proclivity on its own.  I think we're maybe drifting off my point just a tad.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@norbertc wrote:

ANBEX is still a good trade even if purchased in early April.  It's just not "dominant" when compared to many other bond OEFs.  See chart below:

ScreenHunter 774.png

To gain the fund's outperformance described by FD I would need to own a time machine.

N.

 


We finally see an analysis from you. But, you are comparing different categories to ANBEX which is in Intermediate Core-Plus.  ANBEX has over 90% in investment grade, PUCZX only over 50%, JNK=0%

Of course, these funds did better, SPY+QQQ did even better.  ANBEX is a ballast fund the others are not

Thank you for stopping by and your great contribution :-)

anbex-5.PNG

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@norbertc wrote:

ANBEX is still a reasonable trade even if purchased in early April.  It's just not "dominant" when compared to many other bond OEFs. In fact, it's a laggard.

See chart below:

ScreenHunter 774.png

To gain the fund's outperformance described by FD in this thread, I would need to own a time machine.  It's only thanks to 20:20 hindsight that I can grab that 10%.

N.


And, were it me, I would cut out that 'bumpy' section in early April and start looking where everything leveled out.  It looks at first glance that, for THIS chart, PUCZX and PIGIX look pretty good (I'm partial to widening gaps with little volatility).  ANBEX looks nice and steady, though, and didn't lose anything from mid-April on.  As you say, solid fund and is stable.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@FD1001 wrote:

@norbertc wrote:

ANBEX is still a good trade even if purchased in early April.  It's just not "dominant" when compared to many other bond OEFs.  See chart below:

ScreenHunter 774.png

To gain the fund's outperformance described by FD I would need to own a time machine.

N.

 


We finally see an analysis from you. But, you are comparing different categories to ANBEX which is in Intermediate Core-Plus.  ANBEX has over 90% in investment grade, PUCZX only over 50%, JNK=0%

Of course, these funds did better, SPY+QQQ did even better.  ANBEX is a ballast fund the others are not

Thank you for stopping by and your great contribution :-)

anbex-5.PNG


There you go again!

  • The fund shows up on your radar in April, but you post a chart starting in January.  Thanks, Mr. Hindsight! 
  • Within category, ANBEX scores in the 42% percentile since it was identified.  Is that your standard for "dominance"? 

Of course, with the benefit of hindsight we're all brilliant bond traders.

N.

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@norbertc wrote:

@FD1001 wrote:

@norbertc wrote:

ANBEX is still a good trade even if purchased in early April.  It's just not "dominant" when compared to many other bond OEFs.  See chart below:

ScreenHunter 774.png

To gain the fund's outperformance described by FD I would need to own a time machine.

N.

 


We finally see an analysis from you. But, you are comparing different categories to ANBEX which is in Intermediate Core-Plus.  ANBEX has over 90% in investment grade, PUCZX only over 50%, JNK=0%

Of course, these funds did better, SPY+QQQ did even better.  ANBEX is a ballast fund the others are not

Thank you for stopping by and your great contribution :-)

anbex-5.PNG


There you go again!

  • The fund shows up on your radar in April, but you post a chart starting in January.  Thanks, Mr. Hindsight! 
  • Within category, ANBEX scores in the 42% percentile since it was identified.  Is that your standard for "dominance"?

N.


We found out you compared apples to oranges.  Did you make a mistake? why did you show different categories? please answer this question before we can continue our discussion.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@FD1001 wrote:

@norbertc wrote:

@FD1001 wrote:

@norbertc wrote:

ANBEX is still a good trade even if purchased in early April.  It's just not "dominant" when compared to many other bond OEFs.  See chart below:

ScreenHunter 774.png

To gain the fund's outperformance described by FD I would need to own a time machine.

N.

 


We finally see an analysis from you. But, you are comparing different categories to ANBEX which is in Intermediate Core-Plus.  ANBEX has over 90% in investment grade, PUCZX only over 50%, JNK=0%

Of course, these funds did better, SPY+QQQ did even better.  ANBEX is a ballast fund the others are not

Thank you for stopping by and your great contribution :-)

anbex-5.PNG


There you go again!

  • The fund shows up on your radar in April, but you post a chart starting in January.  Thanks, Mr. Hindsight! 
  • Within category, ANBEX scores in the 42% percentile since it was identified.  Is that your standard for "dominance"?

N.


We found out you compared apples to oranges.  Did you make a mistake? why did you show different categories? please answer this question before we can continue our discussion.


Good idea, FD.  I also sometimes change the subject when I'm losing a debate.  Insist that your opponent answer an irrelevant question. 

Just to remind you, the subject is the feasibility of trading your identification of ANBEX as "dominant" after the fact.  

As for comparing funds of multiple categories, you've compared bond OEFs to Wellesley more times than I've asked Scarlett Johansson for a date.  So what?

N.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@FD1001 wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

@ignatz wrote:

There's never been a more common reason to dismiss anything than that it's contrary to what one believes to be true or important. It underlies nearly all discussions here.


No doubt.  One can never learn anything new that way, however. To not learn, to fail to see other points of view, is a waste of one's abilities.  You don't have to end up agreeing, but actual data shouldn't be ignored.  Imo, of course.  And, despite your assertion, I've found that most folk here will keep an open mind and actually at least LISTEN so long as the data is clear and the reasoning is logical - as long as one avoids obviously partisan topics!  :-)

I like FD personally, and I appreciate the time and energy required to generate the data he provides.  I take no position on investing on the basis of short-term data, nor on who is good at it.  I seldom outright argue with him.  My sole concern is that data found in charts be analyzed correctly.  I've been looking at that kind of thing for over 50 years now, and it's seldom as straightforward as some believe.  In THIS case, the analysis was misleading, and I sought to, and hope I did, correct that analysis for others here.  It has nothing to do with FD, or his way of doing things.  It was ALL about the data and chart.

Just repeating for the cheap seats, to get the 10% ($1k on a $10k investment) FD talked about, you HAD to invest fully ON 2/23 and then hold until the end of the chart.  Any delay from 2/23 cost you some of that 10%.  The key thing, though, is that if you FAILED to invest before 3/19, then you gained virtually nothing ($67 on a $10k investment).  So you had 30 days to get ANY improved return.  How many could see that pattern and get in within 30 days?  How many would get chased out by the first drop from 3/5 to 3/19 (prior to which you would have made about $500 on a $10k investment)? 

For those who may be wondering, you started the 3/19 climb up about $700 over the reference fund.  From THERE, both funds did approximately the same, but, starting ahead, AMBEX GAINS more money (compounding on the lead).  THAT'S where the confusion is coming in; AMBEX didn't do BETTER than the reference after 3/19; it merely compounded on the LEAD it had (plus that $67 actual advantage).


Rac, I'm really sorry if you can't look at a simple chart and see the difference.  It's below

anbex-4.PNG


No need to be nasty...

Ok...  I finally reproduced the chart I was looking at; so much time had passed that I wasn't sure what it had been.  I apologize for the date error I made, but the chart was from 3/21, not 3/19 and ran to 7/06 when I made the first post.  So I was off by two days.  Not sure why I didn't catch that, but the principle is unchanged.  The period of import was therefore from 2/23 to 3/21; which, btw, also isn't 30 days - It's 28.  So now that I looked at YOUR point and acknowledged it, will you do the same for mine?  Please adjust your chart to begin at 3/21, look at it, and see if what I'm telling you is correct or not.  Fair?

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@racqueteer wrote:

@FD1001 wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

@ignatz wrote:

There's never been a more common reason to dismiss anything than that it's contrary to what one believes to be true or important. It underlies nearly all discussions here.


No doubt.  One can never learn anything new that way, however. To not learn, to fail to see other points of view, is a waste of one's abilities.  You don't have to end up agreeing, but actual data shouldn't be ignored.  Imo, of course.  And, despite your assertion, I've found that most folk here will keep an open mind and actually at least LISTEN so long as the data is clear and the reasoning is logical - as long as one avoids obviously partisan topics!  :-)

I like FD personally, and I appreciate the time and energy required to generate the data he provides.  I take no position on investing on the basis of short-term data, nor on who is good at it.  I seldom outright argue with him.  My sole concern is that data found in charts be analyzed correctly.  I've been looking at that kind of thing for over 50 years now, and it's seldom as straightforward as some believe.  In THIS case, the analysis was misleading, and I sought to, and hope I did, correct that analysis for others here.  It has nothing to do with FD, or his way of doing things.  It was ALL about the data and chart.

Just repeating for the cheap seats, to get the 10% ($1k on a $10k investment) FD talked about, you HAD to invest fully ON 2/23 and then hold until the end of the chart.  Any delay from 2/23 cost you some of that 10%.  The key thing, though, is that if you FAILED to invest before 3/19, then you gained virtually nothing ($67 on a $10k investment).  So you had 30 days to get ANY improved return.  How many could see that pattern and get in within 30 days?  How many would get chased out by the first drop from 3/5 to 3/19 (prior to which you would have made about $500 on a $10k investment)? 

For those who may be wondering, you started the 3/19 climb up about $700 over the reference fund.  From THERE, both funds did approximately the same, but, starting ahead, AMBEX GAINS more money (compounding on the lead).  THAT'S where the confusion is coming in; AMBEX didn't do BETTER than the reference after 3/19; it merely compounded on the LEAD it had (plus that $67 actual advantage).


Rac, I'm really sorry if you can't look at a simple chart and see the difference.  It's below

anbex-4.PNG


No need to be nasty...

Ok...  I finally reproduced the chart I was looking at; so much time had passed that I wasn't sure what it had been.  I apologize for the date error I made, but the chart was from 3/21, not 3/19 and ran to 7/06 when I made the first post.  So I was off by two days.  Not sure why I didn't catch that, but the principle is unchanged.  The period of import was therefore from 2/23 to 3/21; which, btw, also isn't 30 days - It's 28.  So now that I looked at YOUR point and acknowledged it, will you do the same for mine?  Please adjust your chart to begin at 3/21, look at it, and see if what I'm telling you is correct or not.  Fair?


Absolutely fair, but based on what you said there were several nasty posts by other posters.  The chart below according to your dates 3/21 to 7/6 still shows that ANBEX is close to 0.5% ahead.

anbex.PNG

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@FD1001 wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

@FD1001 wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

@ignatz wrote:

There's never been a more common reason to dismiss anything than that it's contrary to what one believes to be true or important. It underlies nearly all discussions here.


No doubt.  One can never learn anything new that way, however. To not learn, to fail to see other points of view, is a waste of one's abilities.  You don't have to end up agreeing, but actual data shouldn't be ignored.  Imo, of course.  And, despite your assertion, I've found that most folk here will keep an open mind and actually at least LISTEN so long as the data is clear and the reasoning is logical - as long as one avoids obviously partisan topics!  :-)

I like FD personally, and I appreciate the time and energy required to generate the data he provides.  I take no position on investing on the basis of short-term data, nor on who is good at it.  I seldom outright argue with him.  My sole concern is that data found in charts be analyzed correctly.  I've been looking at that kind of thing for over 50 years now, and it's seldom as straightforward as some believe.  In THIS case, the analysis was misleading, and I sought to, and hope I did, correct that analysis for others here.  It has nothing to do with FD, or his way of doing things.  It was ALL about the data and chart.

Just repeating for the cheap seats, to get the 10% ($1k on a $10k investment) FD talked about, you HAD to invest fully ON 2/23 and then hold until the end of the chart.  Any delay from 2/23 cost you some of that 10%.  The key thing, though, is that if you FAILED to invest before 3/19, then you gained virtually nothing ($67 on a $10k investment).  So you had 30 days to get ANY improved return.  How many could see that pattern and get in within 30 days?  How many would get chased out by the first drop from 3/5 to 3/19 (prior to which you would have made about $500 on a $10k investment)? 

For those who may be wondering, you started the 3/19 climb up about $700 over the reference fund.  From THERE, both funds did approximately the same, but, starting ahead, AMBEX GAINS more money (compounding on the lead).  THAT'S where the confusion is coming in; AMBEX didn't do BETTER than the reference after 3/19; it merely compounded on the LEAD it had (plus that $67 actual advantage).


Rac, I'm really sorry if you can't look at a simple chart and see the difference.  It's below

anbex-4.PNG


No need to be nasty...

Ok...  I finally reproduced the chart I was looking at; so much time had passed that I wasn't sure what it had been.  I apologize for the date error I made, but the chart was from 3/21, not 3/19 and ran to 7/06 when I made the first post.  So I was off by two days.  Not sure why I didn't catch that, but the principle is unchanged.  The period of import was therefore from 2/23 to 3/21; which, btw, also isn't 30 days - It's 28.  So now that I looked at YOUR point and acknowledged it, will you do the same for mine?  Please adjust your chart to begin at 3/21, look at it, and see if what I'm telling you is correct or not.  Fair?


Absolutely fair, but based on what you said there were several nasty posts by other posters.  The chart below according to your dates 3/21 to 7/6 still shows that ANBEX is close to 0.5% ahead.

anbex.PNG


Yes, $48 out of a $10k initial investment.  Is that significant or not?  If we look between 3/19/2016 and 3/21/2020, we find the reference ahead by...wait for it... $48 out of a $10k initial investment.  So outside of that little squiggle area we have... nothing.  THAT'S what I've been trying to make clear all along.  You HAD to move inside that small time frame to really benefit.  Now this last 0.5% MAY be the start of something - or not; hard to say.  ANBEX clearly better?  Not so sure we can SAY that based on the chart.  Again, fair?

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: American Funds’ Quiet Rise to Bond Dominance


@norbertc wrote:


Good idea, FD.  I also sometimes change the subject when I'm losing a debate.  Insist that your opponent answer an irrelevant question. 

Just to remind you, the subject is the feasibility of trading your identification of ANBEX as "dominant" after the fact.  

As for comparing funds of multiple categories, you've compared bond OEFs to Wellesley more times than I've asked Scarlett Johansson for a date.  So what?

N.


Now, we can continue.  The discussion here is specifically about ANBEX vs Core plus.  It is also true that I compared Wellesley to bond OEFs but I also explained the merit of it such as

1) certain bond fund like PIMIX used to be, there is another option to get similar performance with lower SD 

2) I also posted many times about VWINX vs VWELX and why I like VWELX for retirees.  If you look LT VWELX made about 10-12% more with about 50% more SD.  I also like PRWCX LT vs SPY for similar reasons.

You never bothered (or just don't like to admit) to read the whole context of my thread.  I point out many funds with good ST and LT results plus risk attributes(SD, Sharpe...).  It depends on the subject and goals. These are subjects for discussion, more options and the rest is up to each one to do whatever they want. In the past, I always used some of the funds I post about.  Please show where I promised a guaranteed future return.  It's clear that my system worked for my goals pretty well.

Several posters, including you, think is all BS, others like it. I'm OK with that.  

0 Kudos
Announcements