|
Janin posted:You can buy it for a Kindle, though Amazon doesn't seem to offer it in a usable format like PDF If you buy the 6th Edition, it comes with a CD. I believe the CD assists you in downloading pdf's from the McGraw Hill website for the entire original 2nd edition of the book. But I have not tried it, as I would rather read it in actual book form. I do have the book so maybe I'll try the CD someday for kicks.
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2010 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
mcsuede posted:Does anyone know of a fund that focuses on solid domestic companies that pay dividends (JNJ, GE, etc.), and that doesn't have insane load/fees? VDIGX (managed by Wellington and with a low expense ratio) is close to what you are looking for. For a passive option, VIG as you mentioned is a close proxy. Careful with VYM (high dividends do not mean stability). Bridgeway Blue Chip 35 (BRLIX) is another option. Also low expense ratio.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2010 23:06
|
|
|
loud-bob posted:Question about evaluating performance and mathematics. XIRR function in Excel can handle this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:Yeah AT&T is on my radar, pretty good price and good yield. The ER is subtracted from the yield of the underlying securities. However, the published yield of the CEF is likely already net of expenses. So 6% is what the CEF is yielding and the 3% ER is for information purposes (i.e. the fund actually got 9% yield due to leveraging and subtracted 3% which includes management fees and interest expenses). The Morningstar quote you provided is correct. The standard procedure of requiring interest expense as part of the ER means you need to dig deeper to find out what the real expense ratio is. If the Morningstar poster's numbers are accurate, then 1.27% is the more accurate number to use when evaluating the ER of this CEF. I do take exception to a technicality in the Morninstar quote: "Because the fund has been reaping a gain from this leverage, one could argue that the benefits outweigh the costs. Strip out the expenses related to the beneficial leverage..." It has nothing to do with benefits and has nothing to do with whether the leverage has improved returns or hindered it. Understanding that the interest expense is related to leverage is one matter, and is all that is important in understanding how the ER breaks down. Whether you want the increased risk of leverage and/or trust the manager's decisions is another matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
Also, look closely at the CEF's policies. The yield needs to be evaluated based on the fund's use of leverage as well as any managed distribution policies it may have. For instance, FT may have a policy of maintaining a stable monthly dividend even when it exceeds the net investment income. They make up for it with a return of capital to prop of the yield. This is not at all uncommon with CEFs. If you don't know how to evaluate a CEF's policies and history closely, then avoid them altogether.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:From what I can tell, FT hasnt done any ROC according to CEFConnect.com "Income, Long Gain, Short Gain and ROC breakdowns will only be shown for the past year." Do your due diligence. That's all i'm saying.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
MotoMind posted:How do people feel about prospects on VIPSX Inflation Protected Securities-based ETF ? Realistically my timeframe of concern is at least 5 to 10 years, but my present preoccupation is to not enter the fund when it is reflecting an overvaluation on bond prices. TIPS returned 11%-ish in 2009 as well. They went from undervalued end of '08 (yielding close to 3% REAL) to overvalued today (neg real yield on 5-yr TIPS, less than .5% on 10-yr... again REAL not nominal). Runup happened for the same reason nominal bonds rallied: declining yields. Time to buy was end of 2008 in the midst of the liquidity crisis. Time to sell is now. FWIW, end of 2008, my entire portfolio was nearly 60% TIPS (an outrageous amount for someone my age during normal financial conditions). It is less than 5% now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Dr. Gaius Baltar posted:Of 9 mutual funds that I like: So we are supposed to guess what your 9 mutual funds are and pick the best broker for your needs?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
Dr. Gaius Baltar posted:No, not at all. I didn't realize that specifying what mutual funds I like would be helpful, sorry for not mentioning that. I am pretty sure DFEPX is available only through advisors and some employer plans. Check Wellstrade if you qualify for free trades (need $25k or so?). They have a decent mutual fund lineup. If you are dead set on those funds, it will be impossible to find one broker to meet your needs and get transaction-free trades unless you qualify for premium services. (Flagship at Vanguard provides you with fabulous choices, at free or highly discounted rates, but you need $1M in assets to qualify). And so, the best course of action is to NOT be deadset on those funds and find alternative funds or ETF's to meet your needs. Ideally you avoid mutual funds entirely and just use ETF's in which case you can easily find a broker with free or cheap ETF trades and forget all about mutual fund availability and high transaction costs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
Dr. Gaius Baltar posted:It's not that I think mutual funds are awesome to the max and ETFs are for bozos or anything, it's just that the mutual funds that I have selected outperform their ETF equivalents, to the best of my knowledge (if I'm wrong, then I would appreciate being corrected). The entire investment world is looking for ETF equivalents of DFA funds since DFA funds are unavailable to most people (unless through an advisor or some employer or 529 plans). It is ok. You can live without DFA. Just use VWO and get access to the value premium with other asset classes (like broad international value or us small value which have many available vehicles). A portfolio can be designed many different ways.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
alnilam posted:I got this email from etrade; I think I understand it but I'm not sure. "Actual Cost Basis" is an incomplete designation as it needs to be accompanied by a method for specification of shares (FIFO, Spec ID, LIFO) etc. It basically means that the cost basis is the ACTUAL COST BASIS of the actual share you sold. This means you need to decide if you are doing FIFO, LIFO, Highest-Cost, or Specific ID of which lot you are selling from, after which the actual cost basis becomes clear. Spec ID is by far the best for tax optimization since you can choose highest-cost basis while choosing between long term and short term capital gains. 80k fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 20:34
|
|