From an investment theory viewpoint, I can see the argument for 50% of bond allocation to international. But I think now wouldn't be the best time to pile in, with the dollar having dropped quite a bit already. "Everyone knows" the dollar is in trouble, so I'm thinking contrarian.
Certainly some international allocation greater than 0% would be prudent. I'd love to see a chart of bond portfolio return vs. risk for various allocations of domestic/international... I've seen such studies for EQUITIES, and usually going from 0% to about 30% international, you are getting higher (historical) returns with less overall risk. That's a no-brainer! Beyond that, both return and risk increases, so the decision isn't so clear cut.
Thank you for sharing your "trip report". The conference sounds really interesting. I haven't heard of it before. Is it open to the general public? Do they post any proceedings online?
ETFs and the Little Guy: Viva la Revolución [View article]
Nice article. But, ...
You dismiss the argument that ETFs are just another way of owning mutual funds, but I think that's just what they are. You ended up comparing ER of ETFs, which are nearly all tracking indices, with average mutual funds, which are usually actively managed. So your argument is more for indexing vs. active management than ETFs vs. mutual funds.
A more apples-apples comparison would be average ERs of ETFs vs. INDEX Mutual Funds. Although on average the EFTs would still be cheaper, there is the question of brokerage commissions and then it becomes a horse race.
ARM Resets to Hit the Fan in 2008 - WSJ [View article]
A definition for Ms. Bair:
Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently, for example, that an insured party's behaviour will be more risky than it would without the insurance. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.
Sort by:
Latest | Highest ratedGauging the Market’s Appetite for Risk in the Bond Market [View article]
REITs: No Longer Over-Valued [View article]
Bill Gross: 5 Picks for 2008 - Barron's [View article]
are you talking about High-Yield corporate bonds, specifically?
Where's the Logic Behind Sony BMG's Decision to Drop DRM? [View article]
If this is all there is to it, it brings back memories of ATRAC, Minidisk, Memory Stick, virus-infected CDs, and other Sony missteps.
Six Calls for 2008 [View article]
The Incredible Lightness of Being (Employed) [View article]
International Bonding [View article]
Certainly some international allocation greater than 0% would be prudent. I'd love to see a chart of bond portfolio return vs. risk for various allocations of domestic/international... I've seen such studies for EQUITIES, and usually going from 0% to about 30% international, you are getting higher (historical) returns with less overall risk. That's a no-brainer! Beyond that, both return and risk increases, so the decision isn't so clear cut.
Subprime Crisis Claims California: Arnold to Declare Fiscal Emergency [View article]
The 2007 Superbowl Of Indexing [View article]
ETFs and the Little Guy: Viva la Revolución [View article]
You dismiss the argument that ETFs are just another way of owning mutual funds, but I think that's just what they are. You ended up comparing ER of ETFs, which are nearly all tracking indices, with average mutual funds, which are usually actively managed. So your argument is more for indexing vs. active management than ETFs vs. mutual funds.
A more apples-apples comparison would be average ERs of ETFs vs. INDEX Mutual Funds. Although on average the EFTs would still be cheaper, there is the question of brokerage commissions and then it becomes a horse race.
Junk Yield Premiums Highest in 4 Years [View article]
ARM Resets to Hit the Fan in 2008 - WSJ [View article]
Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently, for example, that an insured party's behaviour will be more risky than it would without the insurance. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.
-- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Advantages of Asset Allocation [View article]
Talking Turkey about Taxes for Commodities' ETFs [View article]
A Google Brain Drain? [View article]