Just to make it clear so no one has to look back in all my posts, here's how my comparisons to benchmarks work:
1. Individual tranches - I compare the individual purchase dates (5 stocks every two months held for a year) to the return for VFINX (Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund) including reinvested dividends. I recognize that a Russell 2000 fund might be more accurate, but one, I started with the VFINX and don't feel like recalculating and two, it's not that far off. Basically, I'm trying to see how the tranche is doing against a common measure. I used the fund rather than the actual S&P 500 because I wasn't originally sure that the S&P 500 index includes reinvested dividends, which I have since learned it does. Again, since it was already set up, I haven't changed it. So, in my last post, the gain on the 9/06 tranche (purchased approximately 9/7/06) is more than double the gain on a comparable investment in VFINX. I will be "closing" that tranche next week. If I choose to keep a security, I will still treat it for purposes of my analysis as if "sold" and will include it in the new tranche as if "purchased" on that date.
2. Cumulative tranches - I take a weighted average of the individual tranche gains, both open AND closed and compare it to the weighted average VFINX return. As a result, the maximum period is one year. I don't annualize the open tranches because due to the volatility of MFI stocks, I think it's misleading to annualize returns, either gain or loss. Typically these stocks "spike" up or down at certain events (press announcements, earnings releases, etc) and these can happen at any time during the year. Essentially, this figure is somewhat of a comparison of annual return to VFINX. It is never more than annual.
3. MFI Fund gain since inception (or any other date) - I am also tracking my investments as if it is a fund and am comparing its performance to the S&P 500, as many other funds do (again, with the understanding that it is a slightly imperfect benchmark to be using). When I personally invest more money in these stocks, I treat it as though more shares have been issued in the fund. I picked an arbitrary number of starting shares and have been moving forward as if all gains and dividends are reinvested. So, when I say gain since inception (3/6/06), I am starting from my arbitrary starting share price and comparing it to the current date, much like anyone would evaluate the share price performance of a mutual fund. I also chart the "MFI Fund's" performance against the S&P 500 performance. It lagged for about 9 months, crossed the S&P gain since inception, skyrocketed through July, then came down to earth (I'd attach it, but it's not on the computer I'm currently typing on). For the last few weeks, it has been trading places with the S&P 500 for which is in the lead since inception.
4. Weighted gain - This is my REAL return since inception. Based on real dollars I've invested vs. a comparable investment in the S&P 500. Because a lot of my original investment in this methodology was while I lagged the index, even though I'm now equal since inception, I'm actually well ahead. Since I have been doing this for more than a year (a year and half now) this return is MORE than a year's return. I do not quote it on an average annual basis. This is pure return since inception, on a weighted basis.
If this is still unclear, I'll add some charts soon to make it clearer. I'd be interested if anyone thinks there's a flaw in these methods or if there's a better way to track it (aside from tracking against the Russell 2000...I really don't want to spend the time re-doing my analyses and it just hasn't been that much different from the S&P 500). Maybe I'll fix it if I ever have some free time. Ha!!
-A
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Waiting for the next tranche
Nothing going on with the portfolio lately. One day it goes up 1%, the next down...the S&P and my portfolio have been trading places on which is up more since inception. Currently MFI is in the lead, but only slightly (still well up on a weighted basis). Next tranche is on 9/7, coming up. The tranche that I'll be completing is the one that's crushing the benchmark. As of today, it stands at 36.96% vs. VFINX at 15.04%.
All tranches cumulative stands at 7.63% vs VFINX at 7.31%.
MFI fund return since inception stands at 16.06% vs. S&P 500 at 14.51%.
Weighted average MFI = 13.35% vs. S&P 500 = 8.85%.
All tranches cumulative stands at 7.63% vs VFINX at 7.31%.
MFI fund return since inception stands at 16.06% vs. S&P 500 at 14.51%.
Weighted average MFI = 13.35% vs. S&P 500 = 8.85%.
Monday, August 20, 2007
More comments on the subprime debt "crisis"
I put "crisis" in quotes because I feel that term is far too overused. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal this week about a family "trapped" in the subprime mess.
There are clearly two ways to look at this article. One is that the family is a "victim" of unethical mortgage brokers. There is no way a family with $90,000 of combined income could afford a $567,000 mortgage, (2 yr ARM). Their mortgage payments alone (without regard to insurance, taxes, etc.) were $38,400/yr. That's over 42% of their pre-tax gross income. By any mortgage qualification threshold, that's far too high. And that's before any potential reset. The reset is moving them to $50,000/yr, or more than 55% of their gross. Plus, they had virtually no money down. The mortgage company was insane to lend to them.
But, and here's the libertarian in me talking, this family needed to take a little responsibility. How they ever thought they could afford the payments, even before any potential reset, is beyond me. I fully understand that many people don't understand basic finance concepts, but this example goes beyond the pale of irresponsibility. At a bare minimum, they should have recognized that they don't know what they're doing and should have conferred with a professional, i.e. a financial planner, an accountant, etc. I'd say their real estate attorney could have raised a flag, but the attorney may not have known anything about their income (I don't believe that my real estate attorney when I bought my house was privy to any of that information). As a result, the only person they probably conferred with financially was the mortgage broker, who was clearly irresponsible to begin with. I can't even believe they were talking with the same mortgage broker about arranging refinancing.
People have a responsibility to become minimally conversant in financial matters that affect them. I simply can't feel bad for this family because they were so irresponsible. My wife and I on a combined basis make a multiple of what these people make, and yet our mortgage is a fraction of theirs (and we only put 5% down on our house, so our mortgage isn't lower as if we simply had more money to begin with).
Though I doubt that the people who read my blog will cry "elitist!", let me point out that I come from a lower-middle class family, not wealth, and I started my career with college debt balance that equaled my starting pay. I was out on my own immediately after college, so I didn't live rent free with my parents and save up lots of money. The only thing my parents did "give" me was an upbringing that focused on the importance of education and, fortunately, inexpensive tastes. Oh, and I live in a pretty expensive part of the country, too, so an argument of "they had no choice" doesn't hold water either.
Finally, I recognized that unforeseen things can happen to people...illnesses, injuries, lay-offs, etc., but these people couldn't afford their decisions if everything went right.
I've been reading a lot lately about people getting in over their heads and about people who don't have enough saved for retirement. But, time and again, the articles mention all the things these people have bought or the vacations they have taken. My wife and I treat ourselves once and a while (which we can well afford), but we follow a simple rule that seems to be blasphemy to so many:
LIVE BELOW YOUR MEANS. Don't try to keep up with the Joneses, because it turns out the Joneses are living beyond their means as well.
Sorry, I know this is off-topic...however, how does one ever save enough money to participate in MFI if you can't follow that simple rule?
There are clearly two ways to look at this article. One is that the family is a "victim" of unethical mortgage brokers. There is no way a family with $90,000 of combined income could afford a $567,000 mortgage, (2 yr ARM). Their mortgage payments alone (without regard to insurance, taxes, etc.) were $38,400/yr. That's over 42% of their pre-tax gross income. By any mortgage qualification threshold, that's far too high. And that's before any potential reset. The reset is moving them to $50,000/yr, or more than 55% of their gross. Plus, they had virtually no money down. The mortgage company was insane to lend to them.
But, and here's the libertarian in me talking, this family needed to take a little responsibility. How they ever thought they could afford the payments, even before any potential reset, is beyond me. I fully understand that many people don't understand basic finance concepts, but this example goes beyond the pale of irresponsibility. At a bare minimum, they should have recognized that they don't know what they're doing and should have conferred with a professional, i.e. a financial planner, an accountant, etc. I'd say their real estate attorney could have raised a flag, but the attorney may not have known anything about their income (I don't believe that my real estate attorney when I bought my house was privy to any of that information). As a result, the only person they probably conferred with financially was the mortgage broker, who was clearly irresponsible to begin with. I can't even believe they were talking with the same mortgage broker about arranging refinancing.
People have a responsibility to become minimally conversant in financial matters that affect them. I simply can't feel bad for this family because they were so irresponsible. My wife and I on a combined basis make a multiple of what these people make, and yet our mortgage is a fraction of theirs (and we only put 5% down on our house, so our mortgage isn't lower as if we simply had more money to begin with).
Though I doubt that the people who read my blog will cry "elitist!", let me point out that I come from a lower-middle class family, not wealth, and I started my career with college debt balance that equaled my starting pay. I was out on my own immediately after college, so I didn't live rent free with my parents and save up lots of money. The only thing my parents did "give" me was an upbringing that focused on the importance of education and, fortunately, inexpensive tastes. Oh, and I live in a pretty expensive part of the country, too, so an argument of "they had no choice" doesn't hold water either.
Finally, I recognized that unforeseen things can happen to people...illnesses, injuries, lay-offs, etc., but these people couldn't afford their decisions if everything went right.
I've been reading a lot lately about people getting in over their heads and about people who don't have enough saved for retirement. But, time and again, the articles mention all the things these people have bought or the vacations they have taken. My wife and I treat ourselves once and a while (which we can well afford), but we follow a simple rule that seems to be blasphemy to so many:
LIVE BELOW YOUR MEANS. Don't try to keep up with the Joneses, because it turns out the Joneses are living beyond their means as well.
Sorry, I know this is off-topic...however, how does one ever save enough money to participate in MFI if you can't follow that simple rule?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Why the market's not done...
I have a friend who recently went through foreclosure with a major mortgage lender. He was "fortunate" in that he managed to find a buyer which covered his defaulted mortgage and left him with a little bit of cash, but unfortunately it was a bargain-basement buyer and he left a lot of his home value on the table. Still, it left him without the scar of a completed foreclosure on his credit report.
Today he received an e-mail from that lender asking him to come back and talking about great rate consolidation offers.
So, in all the talk about "sub-prime mortgage woes", and tighter lending practices, the lenders are still as stupid as ever. The e-mail may as well have said, "Hi! You almost defaulted on a six figure loan with us which would have further exacerbated our "credit woes"! But, that's ok, we think you're a good credit risk! Here's some more money!!"
Brilliant. Watch the market declines continue...
ps. the best part is that I just looked closer at that article. The lender in question was in fact Countrywide. Nice.
Today he received an e-mail from that lender asking him to come back and talking about great rate consolidation offers.
So, in all the talk about "sub-prime mortgage woes", and tighter lending practices, the lenders are still as stupid as ever. The e-mail may as well have said, "Hi! You almost defaulted on a six figure loan with us which would have further exacerbated our "credit woes"! But, that's ok, we think you're a good credit risk! Here's some more money!!"
Brilliant. Watch the market declines continue...
ps. the best part is that I just looked closer at that article. The lender in question was in fact Countrywide. Nice.
Monday, August 13, 2007
New Smart Money article
This month's issue of Smart Money has an article which references The Little Book That Beats the Market. This is significant to me, since that's where I learned about it in the first place. Jack Hough, the Stockscreen columnist, comments on how good his picks did from the 3/06 issue (it actually came out in February. I know because I was tracking those picks, which were based on January stock prices). They returned 33% vs. an S&P return of 22%. The main thrust of his article was against diversification, saying you should just pick 5 - 7 "good" cheap stocks and you won't be dragged down by the losers you might have in a diversified portfolio. I'd link to the article, but it's not up yet at SmartMoney.com. He suggests using the Magic Formula to select the stocks.
There are some significant problems with his article. The vast majority of investors are not smart enough, lucky enough, or do not have enough time to really identify which are the ones that are most likely not to decline. And, my own tranche investing has proven that there are plenty that decline. Fortunately, in the top 25 there are a lot that go up significantly as well, including ones that more than double (PNCL, WNR). But I've also had some that have lost half of their value. Could I have avoided those with some research? Maybe...but I also would have missed out on some of the winners also. Look at WNR even now. It's up 154% since September 2006. Would that seem like a prime candidate to buy into now after that run up? Yet many people, and the MFI website, still say it's a buy.
Or let's take a big loss, MTEX. I haven't sold the position, but I'm sitting on a 41% loss since May. Would I have had any clue that the Texas AG was going to sue them for improper marketing techniques? Maybe, but I doubt it.
I'm willing to say that if this was my career and all I did was track a few companies, I would be able to do well, but even then I would be exposed to much more risk in such a non-diversified portfolio. Joel Greenblatt says that if you can closely identify a smaller number of good companies, you can drop the number of companies you invest in, but I hold that most people can't do that, which is why I think this was an irresponsible article.
Other issues the article doesn't address:
1. When should you sell? The concept is still value investing, so when you hit the point that the stock is "fairly priced" do you take your gains?
2. Beyond simply running a stock screen (such as MFI), how do you pick the 7 best? No discussion of this at all.
It was a highly simplistic article, and quite a shame since I usually find that column fascinating. I'll stick to diversification.
There are some significant problems with his article. The vast majority of investors are not smart enough, lucky enough, or do not have enough time to really identify which are the ones that are most likely not to decline. And, my own tranche investing has proven that there are plenty that decline. Fortunately, in the top 25 there are a lot that go up significantly as well, including ones that more than double (PNCL, WNR). But I've also had some that have lost half of their value. Could I have avoided those with some research? Maybe...but I also would have missed out on some of the winners also. Look at WNR even now. It's up 154% since September 2006. Would that seem like a prime candidate to buy into now after that run up? Yet many people, and the MFI website, still say it's a buy.
Or let's take a big loss, MTEX. I haven't sold the position, but I'm sitting on a 41% loss since May. Would I have had any clue that the Texas AG was going to sue them for improper marketing techniques? Maybe, but I doubt it.
I'm willing to say that if this was my career and all I did was track a few companies, I would be able to do well, but even then I would be exposed to much more risk in such a non-diversified portfolio. Joel Greenblatt says that if you can closely identify a smaller number of good companies, you can drop the number of companies you invest in, but I hold that most people can't do that, which is why I think this was an irresponsible article.
Other issues the article doesn't address:
1. When should you sell? The concept is still value investing, so when you hit the point that the stock is "fairly priced" do you take your gains?
2. Beyond simply running a stock screen (such as MFI), how do you pick the 7 best? No discussion of this at all.
It was a highly simplistic article, and quite a shame since I usually find that column fascinating. I'll stick to diversification.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Good Day
Today. S&P up .04%. MFI Fund up 3.39%. Weighted average stays above. MFI return since inception rises back above the S&P 500. The tranches squeak back ahead of VFINX.
Today's gains driven by AXCA earnings release, CRYP, EPIQ, LRW and WNR.
Not bad for a day that started pretty lousy.
Today's gains driven by AXCA earnings release, CRYP, EPIQ, LRW and WNR.
Not bad for a day that started pretty lousy.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Wow.
That's literally all I can say about the market lately. Wow. A friend and I were talking today about the gyrations up and down and I compared it to fibrillation. The market is in serious need of a defibrillator. Today's drop was insane. Change in S&P today, 2.96% decline. Change in MFI today 3.35% decline. Decline since peak on 7/19, MFI = 17.51%, S&P = 6.44%. OUCH. I am just barely ahead of the S&P 500 on a weighted basis currently since inception. MFI = 8.64% (an annual average of only 6.08%. What a return since I've been getting 5% on my money market). S&P weighted average since inception (3/6/07) = 8.06% or 5.68% annual average.
Yeeeeesh.
Yeeeeesh.
Litany of Boredom and Frustration
That's what this is starting to sound like. Plus, it's an excuse to quote the Police (saw them this past Friday night...great concert, only we had possibly the worst seats available in Madison Square Garden (but at least we weren't behind the stage)). Back on topic...
Despite the moaning and groaning, I remain committed to the MFI method. Yesterday the MFI fund didn't increase as much as the rest of the market due to a big hit to EPIQ...it dropped over 14% on poor earnings. Fortunately, due to other gains, the MFI fund rose .16% vs. an S&P rise of 1.41%.
What did make me feel good is that the upcoming tranches continued to rise nicely. The September tranche continues to whomp the benchmark, currently standing at 38.3% vs. 17.55% for VFINX. The November tranche, which I recently wrote was on its way to being the first tranche to lose principal is almost back in the black, sitting at a -.31% loss vs. 9.75% for VFINX.
Beyond that, only the January tranche is ahead of the benchmark and not a loss, standing at 11.11% vs. 7.03%. With the rest, I certainly know from a year and 5 months on MFI that time will tell. A lot can happen in the 7 months till those tranches start to become due.
Despite the moaning and groaning, I remain committed to the MFI method. Yesterday the MFI fund didn't increase as much as the rest of the market due to a big hit to EPIQ...it dropped over 14% on poor earnings. Fortunately, due to other gains, the MFI fund rose .16% vs. an S&P rise of 1.41%.
What did make me feel good is that the upcoming tranches continued to rise nicely. The September tranche continues to whomp the benchmark, currently standing at 38.3% vs. 17.55% for VFINX. The November tranche, which I recently wrote was on its way to being the first tranche to lose principal is almost back in the black, sitting at a -.31% loss vs. 9.75% for VFINX.
Beyond that, only the January tranche is ahead of the benchmark and not a loss, standing at 11.11% vs. 7.03%. With the rest, I certainly know from a year and 5 months on MFI that time will tell. A lot can happen in the 7 months till those tranches start to become due.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Sad, sad days
Well, I'll start with the good news. On a weighted average, I'm still up over the S&P 500. That matters more, since that's my "real money" compared to if it had been invested in an S&P index fund. Weighted average return since inception = 12.22% vs S&P weighted of 9.81%. This is thanks to the earlier days when I did lag the index.
The sad thing is that yesterday, for the first time, my tranche analysis was below the benchmark (VFINX). Today it stands at MFI tranches (open and closed) = 6.95% and VFINX tranches = 7.84% (it was worse today than yesterday because the MFI fund went down while the market went up).
Today's sad news is the MFI fund's price per share over the inception price fell below the S&P 500 gain for the first time since it crossed it on 12/22/06. MFI gain since inception (non-weighted) = 14.9%. S&P 500 = 15.53%. The fund has lost nearly 15% in value since 7/19. Only three weeks.
Year to date the MFI fund is up 2.21% vs. the S&P 500 at 4.12%.
It will be interesting to see what happens next, but I hope the bloodletting is done. A 15% decline is plenty.
The sad thing is that yesterday, for the first time, my tranche analysis was below the benchmark (VFINX). Today it stands at MFI tranches (open and closed) = 6.95% and VFINX tranches = 7.84% (it was worse today than yesterday because the MFI fund went down while the market went up).
Today's sad news is the MFI fund's price per share over the inception price fell below the S&P 500 gain for the first time since it crossed it on 12/22/06. MFI gain since inception (non-weighted) = 14.9%. S&P 500 = 15.53%. The fund has lost nearly 15% in value since 7/19. Only three weeks.
Year to date the MFI fund is up 2.21% vs. the S&P 500 at 4.12%.
It will be interesting to see what happens next, but I hope the bloodletting is done. A 15% decline is plenty.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Amendment
One additional thought...when I ask if there's a better method than random, let me clarify that I am not comparing this methodology to professionals who spend their full time analyzing companies, etc. I am referring solely to a methodology that is appropriate for someone who is investing on their own but cannot devote the amount of time needed to really identify and track good investments. Nevertheless, plenty of pros do pretty crappy.
Is thinking bad?
Coming back to the topic of allowing bias into the MFI methodology. I was looking at some other blogs and came across this particular one regarding FTD.
Even though it was an MFI selection, this blogger chose to avoid FTD based on a further evaluation, some of which was qualitative. The result? Assuming he had bought FTD on the date of his post and sold it exactly one year later, he would have had a 117% gain!
I don't suggest this blogger is unintelligent. Far from it, he strikes me as very intelligent. In fact, he came up with a very interesting idea. He took the principles in another value investing methodology and cross referenced it with MFI to see if he could further refine the MFI selection process.
Since these selections were made over a year ago, I decided to check the results. The average return, adjusted for splits and dividends, was 24.9% vs. S&P 500 at 21.5%, a respectable 3.5% spread over the index. Here were the results:
(split & div adjusted)
5/30/06 5/30/07 Return
AEO, 20.54, 26.98, 31.4%
BEBE, 14.11, 17.61, 24.8%
DECK, 35.22, 86.87, 146.6%
HNR, 13.74, 9.44, -31.3%
HRB, 21.9, 23.46, 7.1%
KSWS, 26.44, 28.77, 8.8%
NUE, 50.26, 67.17, 33.6%
PTEN, 28.15, 26.4, -6.2%
USNA, 37.25, 40.76, 9.4%
Avg, 24.9%
Sorry, I don't know how to make a pretty chart yet on this thing.
So, the best I could do is compare this to the MFI "fund" on those dates which had a 31.8% return. But that's not fair because the selections above are at one point in time and the MFI Fund benefits from other "tranches". So, I next compared it to my tranche from 5/8/06, which is as close as I'm going to get to those selections. My return on that tranche was 27%. And, for context, between 5/8/06 and 5/30/06, the S&P 500 declined by 5%. Therefore, the 24.9% return above was after buying into a lower market than I did at 5/8/06. (Plus, 5/7/07 to 5/30/07, the market increased 1.4%, which further strengthens the argument, but that's nominal).
Now, as I've said many times, one example does not prove anything. But, consistently, I seem to be finding that entering bias into the system hurts the results.
I'd be curious to see if anyone else has seen a system that has been resulting in better returns. I'd like to stress, I don't know that random is better...it's still too soon to tell, but I haven't found a better methodology yet.
-A
PS. Incidentally, despite my comparison above, I do find his combination of two successful methods to be an intriguing idea. I may play around with it on a mock portfolio to see what happens. Has anyone else done this?
Even though it was an MFI selection, this blogger chose to avoid FTD based on a further evaluation, some of which was qualitative. The result? Assuming he had bought FTD on the date of his post and sold it exactly one year later, he would have had a 117% gain!
I don't suggest this blogger is unintelligent. Far from it, he strikes me as very intelligent. In fact, he came up with a very interesting idea. He took the principles in another value investing methodology and cross referenced it with MFI to see if he could further refine the MFI selection process.
Since these selections were made over a year ago, I decided to check the results. The average return, adjusted for splits and dividends, was 24.9% vs. S&P 500 at 21.5%, a respectable 3.5% spread over the index. Here were the results:
(split & div adjusted)
5/30/06 5/30/07 Return
AEO, 20.54, 26.98, 31.4%
BEBE, 14.11, 17.61, 24.8%
DECK, 35.22, 86.87, 146.6%
HNR, 13.74, 9.44, -31.3%
HRB, 21.9, 23.46, 7.1%
KSWS, 26.44, 28.77, 8.8%
NUE, 50.26, 67.17, 33.6%
PTEN, 28.15, 26.4, -6.2%
USNA, 37.25, 40.76, 9.4%
Avg, 24.9%
Sorry, I don't know how to make a pretty chart yet on this thing.
So, the best I could do is compare this to the MFI "fund" on those dates which had a 31.8% return. But that's not fair because the selections above are at one point in time and the MFI Fund benefits from other "tranches". So, I next compared it to my tranche from 5/8/06, which is as close as I'm going to get to those selections. My return on that tranche was 27%. And, for context, between 5/8/06 and 5/30/06, the S&P 500 declined by 5%. Therefore, the 24.9% return above was after buying into a lower market than I did at 5/8/06. (Plus, 5/7/07 to 5/30/07, the market increased 1.4%, which further strengthens the argument, but that's nominal).
Now, as I've said many times, one example does not prove anything. But, consistently, I seem to be finding that entering bias into the system hurts the results.
I'd be curious to see if anyone else has seen a system that has been resulting in better returns. I'd like to stress, I don't know that random is better...it's still too soon to tell, but I haven't found a better methodology yet.
-A
PS. Incidentally, despite my comparison above, I do find his combination of two successful methods to be an intriguing idea. I may play around with it on a mock portfolio to see what happens. Has anyone else done this?
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Tranche update
Now that (hopefully) the bleeding has slowed, let's take a look at where my tranches stand overall and vs. the benchmark (VFINX)
Purchase date, MFI return, VFINX return
9/06, 37.59%, 15.52%. Ahh, remember the high-flying days when this one was up nearly 60%, led by WNR and FTO? So nice. Still, I'll take a nearly 38% return one month shy of a year any day.
11/06, -1.30%, 7.85%. Will this tranche be the first to actually lose principal? Its poor performance is led by the wipeout that is CLHI, a company in liquidation (half of which has already been distributed) and VCI, which was once nicely up but is now down due to poor 2Q results after a recent acquisition. This title says it all: Valassis 2Q Profit Falls 50 Percent. Lovely. The saving grace of this tranche is FCX, up 51.27%.
1/07, 6.75%, 5.18%. Slight pace ahead of the market. Led by OVTI (28.43% gain) and TRLG (14.75% gain) and dragged down by RAIL (17.02% loss)
3/07, -5.05%, 6.44%. THIS one hurts! 4 loss positions, ranging from a 3.52% loss (PNCL) to a 23.74% loss (OPTI). Only one gain position, LRW at 28.23%. Still more than half a year to go, and much could happen, but OUCH.
5/07, -1.92%, -2.05%. My MFI fund has already given back all its gains since May. All told, this is line with the market as far as I'm concerned. One high flyer, FDG at a 26.26% gain offset primarily by one big loser, MTEX at a 34.54% loss thanks to the Texas AG and a poor 2Q.
7/07, -4.07%, -3.71%. Basically even with the market. Actually has 3 solid gain positions, ranging from 3.24% (EPIQ) to 9.46% (LRCX). Unfortunately, dragged down horrendously by IVAC (29.94%) thanks to a reduced outlook.
Still, overall ahead of the benchmark. Return for open and closed tranches = 9.37% MFI vs. 7.62% VFINX. Overall weighted return since inception for MFI = 16.26% vs. S&P 500 = 9.48% (annualized amounts weighted = approx. 11.48% MFI vs. 6.69% S&P 500. Works for me.
Current MFI Fund price = $51.14/share. Last time at this price was 5/10/07. Peak was on 7/19/07 at $57.93. How's that for a fast decline (of nearly 12%!). The S&P in that same time frame lost nearly 6%. That's in only 10 trading days! Well, this is definitely not boring...
Purchase date, MFI return, VFINX return
9/06, 37.59%, 15.52%. Ahh, remember the high-flying days when this one was up nearly 60%, led by WNR and FTO? So nice. Still, I'll take a nearly 38% return one month shy of a year any day.
11/06, -1.30%, 7.85%. Will this tranche be the first to actually lose principal? Its poor performance is led by the wipeout that is CLHI, a company in liquidation (half of which has already been distributed) and VCI, which was once nicely up but is now down due to poor 2Q results after a recent acquisition. This title says it all: Valassis 2Q Profit Falls 50 Percent. Lovely. The saving grace of this tranche is FCX, up 51.27%.
1/07, 6.75%, 5.18%. Slight pace ahead of the market. Led by OVTI (28.43% gain) and TRLG (14.75% gain) and dragged down by RAIL (17.02% loss)
3/07, -5.05%, 6.44%. THIS one hurts! 4 loss positions, ranging from a 3.52% loss (PNCL) to a 23.74% loss (OPTI). Only one gain position, LRW at 28.23%. Still more than half a year to go, and much could happen, but OUCH.
5/07, -1.92%, -2.05%. My MFI fund has already given back all its gains since May. All told, this is line with the market as far as I'm concerned. One high flyer, FDG at a 26.26% gain offset primarily by one big loser, MTEX at a 34.54% loss thanks to the Texas AG and a poor 2Q.
7/07, -4.07%, -3.71%. Basically even with the market. Actually has 3 solid gain positions, ranging from 3.24% (EPIQ) to 9.46% (LRCX). Unfortunately, dragged down horrendously by IVAC (29.94%) thanks to a reduced outlook.
Still, overall ahead of the benchmark. Return for open and closed tranches = 9.37% MFI vs. 7.62% VFINX. Overall weighted return since inception for MFI = 16.26% vs. S&P 500 = 9.48% (annualized amounts weighted = approx. 11.48% MFI vs. 6.69% S&P 500. Works for me.
Current MFI Fund price = $51.14/share. Last time at this price was 5/10/07. Peak was on 7/19/07 at $57.93. How's that for a fast decline (of nearly 12%!). The S&P in that same time frame lost nearly 6%. That's in only 10 trading days! Well, this is definitely not boring...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)