A Poor Man's CEF Portfolio That Performs

The Eqcome CEF Big 10 Portfolio is a simple, inexpensive and self-directed way for retail investors to own a diversified CEF portfolio representative of this market segment. The portfolio consists of 10 CEF stocks. Each stock represents one of the largest within the 10 major CEF fund types (see chart below) and has been in continuous operation since Oct ‘04. The CEF Big 10 portfolio was off 3.9% during the period versus the S&P 500 (SPY) off 11.8% and Claymore CEF Index off 37.9%.

Investment Management Underperformance: Seventy percent of large cap fund managers failed to beat the S&P 500; 85.5% of small cap managers failed to beat S&P 600 (small cap); 80% of bond fund managers failed to beat benchmarks (excluding High Yield) (WSJ 4/22/09). It makes you wonder, for what purpose are we paying investment managers? The privilege to lose our money!

Basis of Comparison: As to what stocks are included in the S&P indices, the selection process is determined by the Standard & Poor’s Index Committee (“Committee"). This Committee has full discretion as to what stocks are to be added. The Committee examines five main criteria when looking for Index candidates: trading analysis, liquidity, ownership, fundamental analysis, market capitalization, and sector representation. Therefore, inclusion in an S&P index is akin to selection of stocks by an investment committee with very strict investment guidelines—and is not rule based.

Eqcome CEF Big 10 Portfolio: It might be instructive to apply a similar process to building a Poor Man’s CEF Investable Portfolio. One of the key criterions was to limit the portfolio to 10 stocks making it investable for retail investors. To meet the diversification criterion, one CEF stock was selected for each of the 10 key CEF fund types. Other criteria included a combination of large assets size within its fund type, sufficient trading volume and a continuous operating history for purposes of historical performance measurements. Below is a list of CEF stocks that meet those criteria.

Based upon 100 shares of each of the CEF stocks listed, The Eqcome CEF Big 10 Portfolio can be purchased for less than $10,000 (As of 5/27/09 the cost was $9,262.) Assuming you’d pay $10 per trade at a discount broker, the 10 stocks would cost you $100.00 in the aggregate to own. That would represent an initial cost of 1.1% of the value of the portfolio. This would compare to a 1.5% average CEF management fee. The good news is that you would only have to pay commissions once on the stocks initially purchased. Over a 3 year holding period your IRR would be 1.2% higher than an annual fee-based portfolio. (This assumes an annual 5% stock price appreciation.)

Portfolio Performance Vs CEF Index: The chart below is a comparison of the Eqcome Big 10 CEF Portfolio (unweighted) versus that of the Claymore CEF Index on a daily basis indexed to October 27^th, 2004. The prices used for Eqcome Big 10 CEF was adjusted for distribution and splits. The Claymore CEF index is a cap weighted index and distributions are adjusted on a quarterly basis.

The gap between the Eqcome Big 10 and the Claymore Index may be a function of Claymore's exclusion of CEFs with non-taxable income of greater than 50%. This would exclude most muni funds which have performed well as of late.

Data related to the Eqcome CEF Big 10 Portfolio is continuously updated and available at Joe Eqcome’s website under the tab “CEFBig10”. (An Investor may prefer to substitute an individual stock for each of the fund types or own more of one fund type than another.)

Disclosure: Author owns all CEFs in the CEF Big 10 Portfolio

Comments

[JET1C:]

Thanks very much. You have validaed my plan for retirement which I began in Nov 07. I'm getting my full SS retirement and my wife gets half as much as I do. Our dividend income is about 20% more than we receive from SSA and we are living very well, thank you.

Jun 04 11:14 AM

[Sapphire:]

Great article. I am doing the same thing and have greatly upped my monthly income.

Jun 04 01:32 PM

[Phil S:]

Hoo boy...

Where to start?

1) An investor with $10,000 to invest doesn't need the complexity of something like this. The (likely potential) incremental returns improvements from this on a $10K portfolio are small, relative to incremental costs and complexity it adds versus a plan based on 2-4 low cost index funds.

2) One of the major attractions of CEFs is the ability to buy them at a significant discount. Of your 10 funds, only 3 are at a 10%+ discount. You've even got a fund trading at a 55.72% premium in there! In my opinion, it is not smart to pay $830 (100 shares worth) for roughly $513 worth of underlying net assets.

3) Your chart includes the distribution yield, which, while somewhat useful, may very well confuse novice investors unfamiliar with CEFs (which often distribute more than they 'earn'). Your chart does NOT include each fund's expense ratio, which is VERY important.

4) Your cost comparison of the commissions of buying these funds implies that by paying some commissions up front, the investor is saving money in the long run, by avoiding "1.5% average CEF management fees". Your description is sloppy and may mislead novice investors. Perhaps you are referring to the AUM (Assets Under Management) fees that some financial advisors charge, ON TOP of fees in underlying investments. In any case, CEFs, like ETFs and mutual funds, have expense ratios that are built in. Investors don't see a line item charge on their brokerage statement for these, but they pay them all the same (they are, if I understand correctly, deducted from the assets of the funds, and effectively lower the NAV and/or distributions of the funds). Note that the expense ratios for CEFs are generally HIGHER than those for low cost, broad-based index funds or ETFs from Vanguard and similar companies.

So a small investor has to pay:

1) Commissions
2) Spreads (an implicit cost - roughly half the difference between the bid and ask price for a CEF).
3) Expense ratios

The first two are generally paid once when you buy and once when you sell. The last is an ongoing cost.

Yes, they avoid a fee to an advisor, if they don't use one. But an investor who is managing their own portfolio (and thus somewhat likely to read this article and perhaps follow the advice), is probably not using an investment advisor charging a wrap fee anyways, and may be confused by your language.

5) In an article seemingly aimed at less knowledgeable investors, you should mention that many CEFs, including some on your list, are leveraged. i.e. They borrow money in various ways to invest more in their target strategy. In good times, that can boost returns, but in bad times (such as we've recently experienced) that can magnify losses. Many leveraged CEFs are significantly riskier than similar non-CEF options.

6) Is this the first publication of your "Eqcome CEF Big 10 Portfolio"? If so, you should probably add a cautionary note for the promising-looking comparison chart. It is relatively easy to create an index or portfolio of investments that beat a benchmark like the S&P 500 over the last 5 years. Hindsight is 20/20. I shoulda/coulda bought Google back in the day. Indexes are far more reliable gauges of the value of a particular strategy or asset class going FORWARD from the time they are first constructed and published. This doesn't mean that it's wrong to show the backtest results for a newly constructed portfolio/index, but rather, you should disclose the date at which it first went 'live', and, particularly for an article aimed at novices, highlight the issues with such backtests.

===

OK, so that was a lot of criticism of a relatively short article. Still, I think investors who are interested in owning CEFs should have a reasonable understanding of the costs and risks.

All this criticism does not mean that CEFs are necessarily a bad investment. In fact, much of my portfolio is currently in various CEFs. But would-be CEF investors should educate themselves. Understand the costs, the risks, the nature of CEF distributions (and the differences relative to more conventional dividend payments from other asset classes). Understand the nature of CEF premiums and discounts. Realistically, it will take many hours of reading (in my opinion), from a variety of different sources, to really understand CEFs. For a $10K portfolio, it strikes me as unlikely that the incremental benefits of informed CEF investing (relative to other good alternatives) will be large enough to justify the time and commission investment.

In particular, be able to solidly answer the question "Why CEFs?". If you don't know why, or if, they are superior for you than other investments, then you probably shouldn't be investing in them.

Disclosure - I currently own many CEFs, but not (at the moment), any of the currently listed "Big 10".

Jun 04 02:50 PM

[Phil S:]

One more thing:

Comparing your constructed portfolio, which includes domestic and world equities and various kinds of bonds to a large cap US index (the S&P 500) is not apples-to-apples. It's not even apples-to-oranges. It's apples vs a fruit basket containing apples, oranges, plums, pears and other fruit.

If you want to make the case for CEFs as a particularly useful investing tool, you should compare CEFs to a non-CEF alternative with a similar asset class make-up. Either limit your CEF choices to domestic, large cap equity and stick with the S&P 500 as a benchmark, or find a better benchmark that more closely resembles, at the underlying level, your portfolio/index.ns

Jun 04 03:05 PM

[toomuchgas:]

What's a CEF?

Jun 04 03:46 PM

[Phil S:]

CEF = Closed-End Fund

Jun 04 04:57 PM

[joatmon:]

A number of problems with this portfolio suggestion:

1. A statistician would properly take strong issue with you for claiming that your portfolio is doing better than the S&P 500. In fact the two plots have crossed several times in the interval you selected - you just pick a time when your portfolio is ahead. In statistical terms I'm sure there would be a very small percentage probability that there is any significance to the claim.

2. CEFs as a class have performed miserably during the ongoing secular bear market (from 2000 to present). Being inherently more volatile as an asset class because of leverage, this is understandable. Only if your macro view is that this period is going to end would wanting to invest in an index of a very poor performing asset class make any sense. I believe this has (and is) a time for surgical buying and selling of CEFs. I have held a modest number of high quality debt security CEFs which have had a positive total return while your portfolio has lost.

3. If you had really followed your suggestion from back in 2004, you would have been invested in REIT CEFs too. There were several of these funds with asset size like those in your portfolio. There are currently none in the Claymore Index, as most of them have lost the lion's share of their asset value, and which would have added to your losses also.

4. CSQ is not a decent representative of the preferred stock CEFs. It holds only a very small amount of them. If you would have picked a true preferred secuties fund you would have also seen higher losses.because they are all very leveraged.

5. EVV is really an investment grade bond fund. It has a lot of bank loans, all of which are non-IG, and very many of its bonds are non-IG, some very poor quality, such as Charter Communications which defaulted this year.

Bob

Jun 04 05:38 PM

[Phil S:]

I've realized that my explanation of the ongoing component of CEF expenses (#3 in my list) is somewhat oversimplified.

CEFs do "charge" internally, to run the fund. The manner in which those charges are computed varies from fund to fund. If I understand correctly, most funds charge a management and or similar fee(s), based on a fixed percentage of the total or net assets in the fund, and then charge various actual expenses (legal, accounting, printing, or whatnot) on top of that. So a fund's ongoing expenses are not necessarily fixed over time (the actual expenses may vary, and if the fund shrinks in size, a given amount of fixed expenses constitutes a larger percentage). In normal times, I would think that last year's expenses are a good estimate of what this year's will be. After the shrinkage that a lot of funds have gone through, that may not hold up very well for the near term.

Also, a few funds (like ADX - Adams Express, which is in Eqcome's "Big 10") are internally managed. If I understand correctly, the fund managers work directly for the fund, so instead of deducting some percentage of the fund assets for management, the fund actually pays their salaries and benefits. In ADX's case, these expenses have in recent years been somewhat lower than typical for the more prevalent structure I outlined above.

Also, when looking at CEFs that use leverage, depending on the source you look at, the interest cost of that leverage (what the fund pays to borrow the money) sometimes get lumped in with other expenses. This is misleading, IMO, and in some cases may make CEFs look worse, from an expense standpoint, than more unleveraged alternatives.

OK, so that was perhaps a confusing description, and it's possible I didn't capture reality perfectly for some or all CEFs. Still, it's important to understand CEF expenses, because they are, as far as I've seen, generally much higher than that for low cost index funds and/or ETFs. If your portfolio has average annual expenses of 1.2%, and you could construct a similar portfolio of ETFs with expenses of 0.2%, then you want to see the CEFs make up that extra cost in some fashion.

In my opinion, higher cost CEFs *can* be worthwhile in certain circumstances, primarily when trading at a significant discount. But you need to understand what you're getting and what you're paying for it. Again, unless you're willing to accept sub-par performance, you shouldn't stumble into them without doing your homework, and the time you'll likely need to invest to do your homework is probably too much to justify with a very small portfolio.

Jun 04 05:43 PM

[Old Trader:]

Phil S and joatmon,

Both of you had some great comments to make regarding this article. Stuff I was aware of (for the most part), but you articulated things very well. Personally, I tend to only use CEFs for the fixed income side of my portfolio, because debt analysis is NOT my strong suit (putting it charitably). As mentioned above, I look for funds selling at a discount to NAV, a 10+ year track record, and where I think I want to be portfolio-wise, from a macro standpoint (global sovereign debt, vs. HY, for example). Pretty simplistic, I know, but its worked for me

Jun 04 07:31 PM

[Gwailo:]

Investors in CEF's are giving up something valuable: Liquidity. Open-end mutual funds and ETF's (usually) allow investors to cash out at net asset value at any time, but CEF assets are held captive by fund managers. Except for some specialized investment sectors, I'd suggest that the *only* reason to look at closed end funds is to take advantage of the discounts.

Jun 05 01:11 PM

[Joe Eqcome:]

Phil, Phil, Phil……..,

You seemed to have missed the point.

The point of the article was to construct a CEF portfolio as the S&P stock selection committee would have selected a stock to add to its indices and see how it performed. That selection process included certain criteria when looking for Index candidates: trading analysis, liquidity, ownership, fundamental analysis, market capitalization, and sector representation.

This portfolio was not meant to be a portfolio of best CEFs picks base upon a portfolio managers criteria, but one constructed on a limited set of rules to test a basis thesis: If you constructed a CEF portfolio like S&P does, what would you get? It just happened to perform favorably relative to a CEF rule based index.

Anyone can change the stock in the fund types that best suits them. I have no economic interest in the portfolio.

Since you’ve taken the time to provide a detailed response, let me response in a detail manner addressing your points.

Point 1: “An investor with $10,000 to invest doesn't need the complexity of something like this.”

Response: I wouldn’t disagree with this observation but you failed to provide any recommendations or data to support your contention. Is this a case of "proof by assertion".

Point 2: “One of the major attractions of CEFs is the ability to buy them at a significant discount.”

Response: The stock for inclusion in the portfolio were based on the limited criteria stated above and not representative of the best stock picks in the sector based upon a criteria, as you’ve mentioned, premium or discount. (Some CEF portfolios are not liquid and are priced infrequently and can cause discounts or premiums not reflect the true underlying value of the assets. This is “mark to market” issue that banks are currently faced with; I’d assume this would apply for high yield bond funds where the last trade may not represent the current value.)

Point 3: “Your chart includes the distribution yield….Your chart does NOT include each fund's expense ratio, which is VERY important.

Response: As it relates to the observation regarding distribution yield, I agree that it does represent the dividends from investment income, that is why I labeled it distribution yield and not dividends. Nonetheless, I agree with this observation and given more space I would have made that point.

Again, an expense ratio would have been helpful given the space. On average the expense ratio is 1.8% versus 1.5% for the industry. The reason for this slighty higher expense ratio is that there are far less higher skilled funds (convert, high yield, etc. represented as fund types) that would charge more than more than the garden variety equity funds.

Also, your focus on expense ratios might be misplaced if it isn’t compared against a peer group and/or the return generated by the CEF. Sometimes when you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

4: Your cost comparison of the commissions of buying these funds implies…

Response: I don’t see what’s so confusing about this point. Let me make it simple for you. There are CEFs that invest in CEFs (FOF is an example). The managements are paid a fee for that purpose; let’s say 1.5%. Let’s say you construct this portfolio yourself of the group of stocks owned by the CEF, wouldn’t you eliminate paying that 1.5% management fee annually? What difficult about this concept.

Point 5: You should mention that many CEFs, including some on your list, are leveraged….

Response: Yes, some of these are leveraged, but so are some of the companies that are in the S&P 500. (Do they mention that?) Again, that wasn’t a criterion for the construction of the portfolio.

Point 6: It is relatively easy to create an index or portfolio of investments that beat a benchmark like the S&P 500 over the last 5 years. Hindsight is 20/20…

Response: The portfolio was modeled on the selection process of the S&P 500 committee to see if it could be applied to CEFs. The portfolio wasn’t constructed to be a superior performer; it just ended up that way.

Joe Eqcome



On Jun 04 02:50 PM Phil S wrote:

> Hoo boy...
>
> Where to start?
>
> 1) An investor with $10,000 to invest doesn't need the complexity
> of something like this. The (likely potential) incremental returns
> improvements from this on a $10K portfolio are small, relative to
> incremental costs and complexity it adds versus a plan based on 2-4
> low cost index funds.
>
> 2) One of the major attractions of CEFs is the ability to buy them
> at a significant discount. Of your 10 funds, only 3 are at a 10%+
> discount. You've even got a fund trading at a 55.72% premium in there!
> In my opinion, it is not smart to pay $830 (100 shares worth) for
> roughly $513 worth of underlying net assets.
>
> 3) Your chart includes the distribution yield, which, while somewhat
> useful, may very well confuse novice investors unfamiliar with CEFs
> (which often distribute more than they 'earn'). Your chart does NOT
> include each fund's expense ratio, which is VERY important.
>
> 4) Your cost comparison of the commissions of buying these funds
> implies that by paying some commissions up front, the investor is
> saving money in the long run, by avoiding "1.5% average CEF management
> fees". Your description is sloppy and may mislead novice investors.
> Perhaps you are referring to the AUM (Assets Under Management) fees
> that some financial advisors charge, ON TOP of fees in underlying
> investments. In any case, CEFs, like ETFs and mutual funds, have
> expense ratios that are built in. Investors don't see a line item
> charge on their brokerage statement for these, but they pay them
> all the same (they are, if I understand correctly, deducted from
> the assets of the funds, and effectively lower the NAV and/or distributions
> of the funds). Note that the expense ratios for CEFs are generally
> HIGHER than those for low cost, broad-based index funds or ETFs from
> Vanguard and similar companies.
>
> So a small investor has to pay:
>
> 1) Commissions
> 2) Spreads (an implicit cost - roughly half the difference between
> the bid and ask price for a CEF).
> 3) Expense ratios
>
> The first two are generally paid once when you buy and once when
> you sell. The last is an ongoing cost.
>
> Yes, they avoid a fee to an advisor, if they don't use one. But an
> investor who is managing their own portfolio (and thus somewhat likely
> to read this article and perhaps follow the advice), is probably
> not using an investment advisor charging a wrap fee anyways, and
> may be confused by your language.
>
> 5) In an article seemingly aimed at less knowledgeable investors,
> you should mention that many CEFs, including some on your list, are
> leveraged. i.e. They borrow money in various ways to invest more
> in their target strategy. In good times, that can boost returns,
> but in bad times (such as we've recently experienced) that can magnify
> losses. Many leveraged CEFs are significantly riskier than similar
> non-CEF options.
>
> 6) Is this the first publication of your "Eqcome CEF Big 10 Portfolio"?
> If so, you should probably add a cautionary note for the promising-looking
> comparison chart. It is relatively easy to create an index or portfolio
> of investments that beat a benchmark like the S&P 500 over the
> last 5 years. Hindsight is 20/20. I shoulda/coulda bought Google
> back in the day. Indexes are far more reliable gauges of the value
> of a particular strategy or asset class going FORWARD from the time
> they are first constructed and published. This doesn't mean that
> it's wrong to show the backtest results for a newly constructed portfolio/index,
> but rather, you should disclose the date at which it first went 'live',
> and, particularly for an article aimed at novices, highlight the
> issues with such backtests.
>
> ===
>
> OK, so that was a lot of criticism of a relatively short article.
> Still, I think investors who are interested in owning CEFs should
> have a reasonable understanding of the costs and risks.
>
> All this criticism does not mean that CEFs are necessarily a bad
> investment. In fact, much of my portfolio is currently in various
> CEFs. But would-be CEF investors should educate themselves. Understand
> the costs, the risks, the nature of CEF distributions (and the differences
> relative to more conventional dividend payments from other asset
> classes). Understand the nature of CEF premiums and discounts. Realistically,
> it will take many hours of reading (in my opinion), from a variety
> of different sources, to really understand CEFs. For a $10K portfolio,
> it strikes me as unlikely that the incremental benefits of informed
> CEF investing (relative to other good alternatives) will be large
> enough to justify the time and commission investment.
>
> In particular, be able to solidly answer the question "Why CEFs?".
> If you don't know why, or if, they are superior for you than other
> investments, then you probably shouldn't be investing in them.<br/>
>
> Disclosure - I currently own many CEFs, but not (at the moment),
> any of the currently listed "Big 10".

Jun 05 02:20 PM

[Phil S:]

Joe, I don't think your Big 10 is particularly analogous to the S&P 500. The S&P 500 has a long history of live data. The history for your index is, if I understand correctly, largely or entirely backfilled. Moreover, the S&P 500 focuses on one area of investing (large cap companies actively traded in the US), but your Big 10 is all over the board on asset classes.

Re: Investing in something like this with $10K. What do you estimate the outperformance of your portfolio is, relative to a similar baseline portfolio (using index funds)? I estimate it to be most likely negative, but even if you are optimistic and think this portfolio will outperform a baseline portfolio by, say, 2% per year, how much time do you think an investor will need to spend to really understand all the nuances of CEF investing? Are the time investment and the brokerage costs going to be justified on a $10K portfolio for an average American?

Re: Buying discounts. It's true that NAVs may not always be accurate/up to date for the point in time they're supposed to be valid for. That's yet another element of CEFs that would-be investors should take into account (adding complexity and research time). But I think that issue is relatively minor for MOST CEFs. To the extent that some CEFs have laggy NAVs right now, they are probably more likely to be overstated than understated (because the market, despite the recent rally, is far below peak values). So where significant discrepancies exist, they are more likely, in my mind, to overstate discounts.

Buying a fund at a >55% premium is almost certainly a tremendously foolish decision, in my opinion. Perhaps, with tremendous research into the true merits of the portfolio or some proven Buffett-like track record for the manager, one could justify such a thing, but IMO, the likelihood that PHK would be a "buy" (for me) after such research is low.

Re: Expenses. I don't like 1.5% *OR* 1.8% for expense ratios. I may be convinced to buy a CEF with such high expense ratios, but it will take a compelling discount and/or other factors (for example, a smaller discount but a high likelihood of near-term open-ending) to get me to do so. If you are aware of compelling research indicating that funds with higher fees outperform those with lower fees, I suggest you share it.

Re: Management fees/FOF. FOF is, as far as I know, the ONLY CEF (of the hundreds out there) that invests primarily in other CEFs (though, IIUC, some others do it with a limited slice of their portfolio). I suggest that it is more likely your readers would have taken your original reference to a "1.5% average CEF management fee" to refer to the fees charged by the CEFs themselves.

Re: Leverage. Many CEFs, like many companies, are leveraged. But when a leveraged CEF invests in equities which are themselves leveraged, the leveraging effects are compounded. Moreover, many of the leveraged CEFs are bond CEFs. Taking a relatively safe asset class (bonds) and leveraging it ratchets up the risk/volatility in a way that novice investors may not expect.

Re: Portfolio focus - performance? Finally, you make the claim in your comment that the portfolio "was not meant to be a portfolio of best CEFs" and that it "wasn't constructed to be a superior performer". Yet the article title is "A Poor Man's CEF Portfolio That Performs" In the second paragraph of the article, you highlight the underperformance of various fund managers. You include a graph (with "Performance" in the label) showing comparison of your index with two others. You have a paragraph labeled "Portfolio Performance Vs CEF Index:". I can't read your mind and don't know your original motives for the portfolio or the article, but in reading the article, it certainly comes across to ME as quite performance oriented, and thus I think my original criticisms of the performance claims are worthwhile.

Jun 09 04:28 PM

[Chris Sandys:]

This is not a comment on the greater article, rather it is specifically regarding Phil's comment on leverage. I fully agree with the cautious note to novice investors, as I will illustrate by examining one CEF in the portfolio.

The High Yield CEF used in this portfolio is PHK: The PIMCO High Income Fund. This fund is currently leveraged approximately 45%. That is a very, very high level of leverage, even for a junk bond CEF.

This particular fund uses auction rate preferreds (ARPs) for its leverage. The Investment Company Act of 1940 will not permit a fund to pay a dividend if it is levered over 50%, which it has been several times in the past year. The result? This fund has had several late distributions as it unwound positions and repurchased preferreds.

To illustrate the effect of this leverage, compare it to the non-levered CEF Western Asset Management Fund [MHY] and the S&P 500. Look what happened from approx market top of 20 July 2007 to 5 March 2009 botton. MHY was down -41%. The S&P 500 lost -56%, and PHK lost -73%.

Since 5 March, here is how the 3 approx performed: MHY: +39%, S&P 500: +42%, and PHK: +98%.

How did PHK do it? Incredible amounts of leverage. They also removed the restrictions on derivatives for purposes other than hedging. Finally, they also removed restrictions on illiquid securities (let's hope Bill Gross doesn't have to do any forced selling).

In short, a novice investor may think he is buying a HY CEF, with an impressive track record for the past 6 months. What he is really buying are the common shares of a greatly leveraged portfolio of high yield bonds, derivatives, and illiquid securities. Over 15% of the distribution is a return of capital (July 09 distribution), not investment income, and sometimes the distributions are delayed. Furthermore, the investor is paying a premium of nearly 40% over the value of the assets in the fund.

Disclosure: My portfolio holds MHY; it does not hold SPY or PHK.

Aug 13 07:30 PM