Official Shiny Things thread—Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

believeinyourself

Junior Member
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Emerging Markets, Asia ex Japan, or China?

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get your opinions on my emerging market ETF selection for my portfolio.

If I went with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, I should be using EIMI.

However, I am not so sure about the future of Brazil, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Their individual country ETFs seem to be going nowhere. As such, I am thinking of using just an Asia ex Japan (e.g. 3010.HK) or a MSCI China ETF (2801.HK).

Does this make sense?
 

swan02

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
382
Reaction score
14
To make decision easier. Decide whether u r a macro investor like ray Dalio who holds lots of broad spectrum eimi type of etfs. Definitely he has good reasons.

U see these little outliers contribute to diversification the only free cake we have in investing. Outliers need not be having good returns to be good diversifiers. Understand it well. It actually improves your chances of making a positive profit.

China etfs sounds good but have u measured it on a risk adjusted return basis ? I think it may lose to EIMI long term... go find that comparison and u will get your answer. But whichever u choose, they need to be a small component due to its high BETA.

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get your opinions on my emerging market ETF selection for my portfolio.

If I went with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, I should be using EIMI.

However, I am not so sure about the future of Brazil, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Their individual country ETFs seem to be going nowhere. As such, I am thinking of using just an Asia ex Japan (e.g. 3010.HK) or a MSCI China ETF (2801.HK).

Does this make sense?
 

zwogbwog

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
CRPA on LSE using IBKR

Dear all,

I am trying to perform my first trade of iShares Global Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CRPA) on LSE using IBKR platform. However, it seems like there is no trades done as there is no volume. It is the same on Yahoo finance and other sites.

Anyone here buying this ETF? What am I missing?
 

swan02

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
382
Reaction score
14
Just had a quick look and it appears to suffer the same illiquid of MBH and a35.

Look at the buy and sell. The traders can’t agree on the price hence no trade. I suspect those buy and sell are set by the market makers due to nice round numbers on each side volume.

This etf is an issue of u do large sums. If not,
do a snap shot and decide whether u wish to buy straight from the seller or just put in a middle price.

More liquid etfs such as iwda is spread approx 0.03 percent of the amount Per share whereas this crpa is approx 0.1 percent.

Dear all,

I am trying to perform my first trade of iShares Global Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CRPA) on LSE using IBKR platform. However, it seems like there is no trades done as there is no volume. It is the same on Yahoo finance and other sites.

Anyone here buying this ETF? What am I missing?
 
Last edited:

little pupsky

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
364
Reaction score
93
Seriously this is a very difficult question as I do not have enough information to make an opinion. I find a few info self contradictory such as age appropriate allocation-r u using an algorithm eg 120-age ? If so it may redundant the notion of moderate risk appetite and wealth preservation. I need clarity. Share with us your AA.

Even the term yield can be misconstrued. IRR or annualised ROI ? Dividend or coupon yield ?

My computer is down and pains my heart to buy or repair. Being stingy, DIY. it will take quite some time to think and reply.

Regarding yield, I’m referring to yearly dividend and coupon yield from the entire portfolio. My entire portfolio is distributing. My aim is 3% per annum.

AA is 70% stocks, diversified globally. The core in this bucket is VWRD. A few satellite ETFs provide some weightings on US companies and emerging markets. 10% of this bucket is ES3. As mentioned, all are distributing as I love the smell of cash and enjoy doing what I please with them, including reinvesting into whichever counter has strayed from AA.

Besides the above, the bond component forms 20% (diversified local bonds), and diversified REITS form the remaining 10%. CPF and other relatively illiquid assets are not included in this portfolio.

My “moderate risk tolerance” refers to my willingness to take on some risks in order to pursue higher potential for yield and/or growth — hence, my slight over-weighting of EMs and willingness to consider bond counters like VDCP, N6M etc for example.

My so-called “age appropriate” AA is just my own (complicated, but at the end, really just my intuitive) way of optimizing for age, and current life station, priorities and goals. I prefer not to discuss them in detail here.

I guess one way to reframe my question is whether you see any particular advantages or red flags, broadly speaking, for a counter like VDCP for a 7-digit portfolio with an investor profile like the one described above? (I know I wasn’t very detailed with regard to the “age appropriate” aspect but hopefully my question is still answerable to some extent?)

Thanks, swan02, for considering the question. I hope your computer woes will be resolved soon!
 

swan02

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
382
Reaction score
14
I’m glad we clarified. Appears we do not share the same definitions for risk appetite.

Let’s clarify AA.
IMO
1. 70/30 means 70 percent of equities inclusive of risky bond proxies such as reits. 30 percent would be pure untainted high quality safe haven sovereign bonds.
2. looks like in my eyes your diversified bonds is likely more investment grade corporate bonds rather than any sovereign.
3. Hence your AA appears to be a 82/18 in my view. This is not surprising considering u wish to obtain a 3 percent income yield. U have no choice but to push the boundaries for income as u hold a lot of growth via VWRD.
4. U r definitely an aggressive risk appetite.
5. Your notion of wealth preservation and willingness to take SOME risk to achieve this objective certainly runs contradictory to what u currently hold. Cuz u actually r taking a lot of risks.
6. hence adding another bond such as VDCP that has equity like Risks would only continue to add to your already volatile portfolio. This is not wealth preservation.
7. I hope u were a recipient of the recent crash and hence understand your risk tolerance. If u did not, please re-evaluate.
8. VDCP is ok as an etf. I know no other investment grade bond etf that shines anyways in LSE.


 

little pupsky

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
364
Reaction score
93
I’m glad we clarified. Appears we do not share the same definitions for risk appetite.

Let’s clarify AA.
IMO
1. 70/30 means 70 percent of equities inclusive of risky bond proxies such as reits. 30 percent would be pure untainted high quality safe haven sovereign bonds.
2. looks like in my eyes your diversified bonds is likely more investment grade corporate bonds rather than any sovereign.
3. Hence your AA appears to be a 82/18 in my view. This is not surprising considering u wish to obtain a 3 percent income yield. U have no choice but to push the boundaries for income as u hold a lot of growth via VWRD.
4. U r definitely an aggressive risk appetite.
5. Your notion of wealth preservation and willingness to take SOME risk to achieve this objective certainly runs contradictory to what u currently hold. Cuz u actually r taking a lot of risks.
6. hence adding another bond such as VDCP that has equity like Risks would only continue to add to your already volatile portfolio. This is not wealth preservation.
7. I hope u were a recipient of the recent crash and hence understand your risk tolerance. If u did not, please re-evaluate.
8. VDCP is ok as an etf. I know no other investment grade bond etf that shines anyways in LSE.

Thanks so much for the perspective, swan02! Yes, you are right. I’m pushing my portfolio hard for 3% income yield.

I didn’t think I was that aggressive or have a risky portfolio, but it’s good to hear someone I deem credible giving me a reality check.

Naturally, I’m still interested in wealth preservation though I can see now why that sounded contradictory to you. (Actually according to some portfolio tracking tools, like the one on IBKR for instance, the portion of my portfolio on IKBR is more or less hugging the indices. From the days I checked this year, it is usually at least 1-2% above the world index and just slightly below the S&P500.)
 

swan02

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
382
Reaction score
14
I’m getting an even clearer pix now. When I first heard u mention 7 figures, wealth preservation etc I start to think of a retiree, bond tent or glide path, sequence of returns risk and SWR. And AA of 30/70 to the max of 50/50 at start of retirement.

Risk to me r dangers affecting your SWR due to SORR especially in large draw downs that last for several years. U maybe obliterated.

There r arguments for focussing on income such as holding to banks for dividends for retirees. However I see that as myth. Total returns that matters.

Now I see u r comparing within the realm of mostly equity like investments where the 100 percent equity AA can start from a very little risk like yours to all the way risky Leveraging dollar shares, trading and timing etc.

Your total returns being close to World market returns but at lesser risk I presume is what U r really striving for ? I say stick to your AA if u have found a winning formula.

I’ve mentioned within risky assets, sovereign emerging bonds has the best risk adjusted return even beating emerging corporate measured 2000 to 2018. It’s annualised is highest too. Note that AFC 1997 excluded.

Obviously now due to high prices is isn’t as attractive. But U prolly don’t have much of a choice but to look into emerging as inv grade income is too little.

I would personally rather allocate more to reits ratio of 50 to 50 growth vs income to achieve easily the desired income and growth.

Emerging bonds though attractive may work until it doesn’t and it hits hard but a smattering wouldn’t hurt when coupled with mainly investment grade bonds such as u have. up to 10 percent ?

lastly I tend to like idtl etf for aggressive portfolios but then again to them 50 percent drawdowns ain’t an issue. What is saving 10 percent ?

 
Last edited:

zwogbwog

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Bond ETFs

Thanks Swan02 for your reply.

Like many on these forums, I have been struggling to map out what to do with my bond component.

I was reading through your posts with little pupsky. You mentioned no good Bond ETFs on LSE. Do you have any recommendations then that I can look at?
I current hold MBH and A35 and a wee bit of CRPA (My first trade on CRPA was done soon after I posted here) :s13:

This question is one that troubles me the most as I will have to start unwinding my equities component into bonds as I approach my 50s.
 

swan02

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
382
Reaction score
14
I don’t have any recommendations. We r stuck at lse simply for lower dividend tax.

If only a total bond etf like vanguard has in lse, liquid as well ... that would shine, at least to me.

Amongst all mentioned. Only MBH that Currently shines for a Singapore domiciled.

however I did mention IDTM and IDTL both sovereign safe haven. Only use them if u believe in the concept of negative correlation, afraid of large draw downs, rebalancing and drawing your returns mainly from equity, IDTL be careful if u do not know your theory well, best avoid.

and the currency of USD that these bonds are denominated on which itself is an excellent ballast to both income crisis and credit crisis.

Thanks Swan02 for your reply.

Like many on these forums, I have been struggling to map out what to do with my bond component.

I was reading through your posts with little pupsky. You mentioned no good Bond ETFs on LSE. Do you have any recommendations then that I can look at?
I current hold MBH and A35 and a wee bit of CRPA (My first trade on CRPA was done soon after I posted here) :s13:

This question is one that troubles me the most as I will have to start unwinding my equities component into bonds as I approach my 50s.
 
Last edited:

keyboard_warrior

Master Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
3,459
Reaction score
0
If I want to plan for my kid's retirement (~ 50 years later) instead of my own retirement, is there a different investing strategy to adopt?

I would think it's the same, but then again I don't know much.
 

zwogbwog

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
I don’t have any recommendations. We r stuck at lse simply for lower dividend tax.

If only a total bond etf like vanguard has in lse, liquid as well ... that would shine, at least to me.

Amongst all mentioned. Only MBH that Currently shines for a Singapore domiciled.

however I did mention IDTM and IDTL both sovereign safe haven. Only use them if u believe in the concept of negative correlation, afraid of large draw downs, rebalancing and drawing your returns mainly from equity, IDTL be careful if u do not know your theory well, best avoid.

and the currency of USD that these bonds are denominated on which itself is an excellent ballast to both income crisis and credit crisis.
Tyvm, Swan02.

Indeed, my understanding of bonds is superficial at best. That's why I have been struggling with bond investment. I shudder at the thought that I will need to put 6 figure sums into instruments that I don't quite understand in the coming years :(
 

zwogbwog

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
If I want to plan for my kid's retirement (~ 50 years later) instead of my own retirement, is there a different investing strategy to adopt?

I would think it's the same, but then again I don't know much.
For 50 y horizon, I would say 100% equities makes the most sense to me.

Having said that, my personal philosophy is my children can take whatever is left behind after my wife and I are gone. I don't intend to set aside a separate amount just to leave them a "legacy", as is often parroted to me by many FAs :p

To me, if I don't "sandwich" them, I consider it job done.
 

buaytuckchek

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2017
Messages
227
Reaction score
18
If I want to plan for my kid's retirement (~ 50 years later) instead of my own retirement, is there a different investing strategy to adopt?

I would think it's the same, but then again I don't know much.

Max out their CPF accounts.

Do CPF nomination that they will receive bequest as CPF instead of cash when you kick the bucket.

I feel it is important to "lock the money" away from them especially if they are young and not mature enough to handle finance themselves.
 

little pupsky

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
364
Reaction score
93
I’m getting an even clearer pix now. When I first heard u mention 7 figures, wealth preservation etc I start to think of a retiree, bond tent or glide path, sequence of returns risk and SWR. And AA of 30/70 to the max of 50/50 at start of retirement.

Risk to me r dangers affecting your SWR due to SORR especially in large draw downs that last for several years. U maybe obliterated.

There r arguments for focussing on income such as holding to banks for dividends for retirees. However I see that as myth. Total returns that matters.

Now I see u r comparing within the realm of mostly equity like investments where the 100 percent equity AA can start from a very little risk like yours to all the way risky Leveraging dollar shares, trading and timing etc.

Your total returns being close to World market returns but at lesser risk I presume is what U r really striving for ? I say stick to your AA if u have found a winning formula.

I’ve mentioned within risky assets, sovereign emerging bonds has the best risk adjusted return even beating emerging corporate measured 2000 to 2018. It’s annualised is highest too. Note that AFC 1997 excluded.

Obviously now due to high prices is isn’t as attractive. But U prolly don’t have much of a choice but to look into emerging as inv grade income is too little.

I would personally rather allocate more to reits ratio of 50 to 50 growth vs income to achieve easily the desired income and growth.

Emerging bonds though attractive may work until it doesn’t and it hits hard but a smattering wouldn’t hurt when coupled with mainly investment grade bonds such as u have. up to 10 percent ?

lastly I tend to like idtl etf for aggressive portfolios but then again to them 50 percent drawdowns ain’t an issue. What is saving 10 percent ?

Good tips there for me to think about. I've also been thinking about 50:50 growth:income to achieve my objectives. Topping up with REITS did cross my mind, but as you know, the house view of REITS on this thread is not too supportive. I probably will skip IDTL for the very reasons you mentioned, haha!
 

martypants

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Dear All and Shiny, first time poster here, have gotten so much out of your book and everyone's discussion on the thread :)

I'm looking for a 1.5k/month dividend to cover my monthly expense, and my RM is recommending PIMCO income fund hedge on SGD (Bloomberg PIMESHI). It's the largest bond fund on 67 billion AUM.

Dividend on fund is 4%
Here's the outlay
250k SGD
1x leverage t make the dividend goes up to 6.6% (cos the bank charges interest cost of 1.25%)

There are several things I like:
* Monthly dividend
* high and stable dividend (the fund is really large)

Is there other ways I can achieve this? I checked LQDA and SDIA, their dividends are not monthly, and they are lower, plus no leverage to achieve the 6.6%.
 

Shiny Things

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
9,588
Reaction score
828
OK, time to hop back on. Getting away from everything for a week has been a very nice change.

As for myself, due to the complexities, i have decided for now a simple equity/nominal bond is good enough without any TIPs but I do fear stagflation especially if I'm retired.

I think this is a good take, and it’s what I’d recommend if you were a paying client. Stagflation (high unemployment and high inflation) is a country-specific problem, so holding US linkers will only help you protect against stagflation in the USA, which doesn’t seem like something you’ll care about. If you’re retired in, say, Europe or Taiwan, owning US linkers isn’t going to be much help.

A good hedge against high-inflation low-growth outcomes is just to own overseas equities. You don’t need to over complicate these things.

I’m struggling in splitting my money on getting insurance saving which promise high guarantee return and a track record of around 4%~ non guarantee return. While also invest accordingly to shiny’s guide.

You’ve got a good handle on where you want to go with your investments, which is great - it makes it easier to figure out how you should invest to reach those goals.

A couple of things to keep in mind about insurance-linked investments:
* The penalties for early withdrawal are HUGE. If you need the money early - or even if you just don’t like how the insurance company invests your money - they’re going to make you pay hefty amounts to get out of their grip.
* Insurance companies mostly invest in bonds, and bonds have done very well over the last few years (well, decades!) because interest rates have collapsed. Interest rates in most of the world are basically zero right now; there’s not a lot of yield left out there, so those 4%+ historical returns are not going to happen in the future.

:s13::s13: Still not sure what he's advocating, hold cash and China stock?

He mostly advocates yelling at people who don’t care to listen, tbh.

Hello, I am new to investing late 20s - looking at IWDA vs VWRA? but not really sure which to pick since IWDA has no exposure in China, any advice appreciated!

Both of them are very good ETFs. I recommended IWDA back before VWRA existed, and VWRA isn’t quite mature enough for me to change my default recommendation. You don’t need exposure to China, though.

Hi Shiny Things,

As I don't know yet where I'm going to retire, I'm planning to add VAGU/AGGU as my global bond portion. What are your thoughts on them?

I prefer LQDE, because I don’t think it’s particularly appealing to invest in government bonds with zero or negative yields—especially when there are good-quality high-grade corporate bonds out there that yield significantly more. Over the long term, owning high-grade corporates will make you more money than hiding under the bed in treasuries.

Hi all,

Anyone came across and traded using trading212 with experience to share?

Absolutely not. No. Don’t ever use random CFD brokers.

Hi shinny and all, thinking of doing a 80/20 vwra/sti split. Currently 29 this year. Only planning to add bonds later on at around 40. Is this not advisable?

Yeah, I don’t think this is advisable. Bonds are useful, even for young investors (I’m only a few years older than you!)—they give you a war chest when stock markets dip, and they take some of the volatility out of your portfolio if there’s a big dip. People who were 100% in stocks in March had to grapple with much bigger drawdowns than people who had even a small allocation to bonds.

Hi,

I have a ibkr us account for my IWDA and my local stocks are in cdp. I am inclined to open a ibkr sg to consolidate all my stocks in ibkr sg, to accumulate towards USD100K. Any opinion if this is the way to go, or anything i may be overlooking?

Thank you.

Yep, IBKR Singapore is the way to go.

Anyone familiar, thanks.....

VWRA/VWRD vs IWDA+EIMI combo

Is there an update where perhaps VWRD/VWRA cannot be replicated by an IWDAa+EIMI combo ?

I can poke around at this if you’d like, but this seems pretty unlikely; I think it might be a data quality issue. What specifically are you seeing?


Instead, I would most likely be putting $5k lump sum and DCA the rest(together with my usual DCA sum) in over 5 months. Would this be a sound strategy?

Sent from Samsung SM-G985F using GAGT

That is a very sound strategy. Go for it.

Hi ST or anyone else.
My father signed a pruactive saver. Good thing I went to see the plan and I'm going to activate the free look. He's putting in almost 50k a year.

He's past his retirement now. Where should he put his money?

“Where should I put my money” is always a really broad question, and it varies depending on what the person needs from their investments - do they care about having income now, do they want income in a few years’ time, do they want to leave it to their kids...?

In general, the rule for someone who’s retired is that they want it mostly in local-currency bonds (for stability and income), with a little bit of equities for capital gains.

Anyone here changes his mind about gold and think we should be buying now?

Only momentum traders are still looking at metals - the sort of people who pile on trends and ride them until they stop, then immediately turn around and sell out.

For small investors (like us) it may be better to buy Junior Gold Miners. There could be more upside potential (to make more profit) than a large gold mining company.

OK, I’m going to go on a bit of a rant here - mining companies are TERRIBLE investments. Like, systematically terrible. If you disregard every other bit of advice I give on here, just pay attention to this: don’t buy miners, and especially don’t buy junior miners.

The mining sector is full of spivs and spruikers, unethical practices, pump-and-dumps, and straight-up frauds. And even if you manage to pick a company that’s not a fraud, mining companies’ hedging practices make them counterproductive investments: when metal prices are low, they lock in those low prices by hedging, and when metal prices are high, they unwind all their hedges because their investors want exposure to those go-go metals markets, which costs squillions of dollars and just locks in losses.

In the mid-2000s, I worked on the gold desk at ANZ. We wrote billions of dollars of hedges dated as far out as ten years for gold companies who were disillusioned with gold prices and were quite happy to lock in $400-an-ounce gold prices, because they thought it was never going to go up ever again. You’d think gold mining companies would be better at trading gold, but... gold-miners are the second-worst gold traders in the world, behind emerging-market central banks. Don’t invest in them.

If I went with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, I should be using EIMI.

However, I am not so sure about the future of Brazil, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Their individual country ETFs seem to be going nowhere. As such, I am thinking of using just an Asia ex Japan (e.g. 3010.HK) or a MSCI China ETF (2801.HK).

Does this make sense?

Use EIMI. You don’t have any knowledge of what the Brazilian, Russian, or Saudi markets are going to do.

An ETF that holds large-cap stocks is highly liquid regardless of its trading volume. A common misconception is that ETFs with low volume are illiquid. What really determines an ETF's liquidity is its underlying securities.

ETFs are open-ended funds, which means that new units can be created or redeemed as needed on the secondary market. Because of this, an ETF's liquidity is largely determined by its underlying securities.

This isn’t quite right. An ETF can be stuffed full of mega caps and still be illiquid if there’s no market-maker for it. It’s easier to market-make large cap equity ETFs, so they’re more likely to have market-makers, but it’s not a guarantee.

swan02, I’d like to seek your opinion on the counter VDCP, since you clearly know a lot about bonds, far more than the average retail investor on the street anyway.

You’d want to compare VDCP to LQDE, because they’re basically direct competitors. If you want a global-bond allocation, “USD IG corporates” is a good way to get it, but when it comes to how you get your USD IG corporates exposure, you’ll want to look at which one has a lower expense ratio, a tighter bid-ask, etc etc.

Dear All and Shiny, first time poster here, have gotten so much out of your book and everyone's discussion on the thread :)

Thanks!

I'm looking for a 1.5k/month dividend to cover my monthly expense, and my RM is recommending PIMCO income fund hedge on SGD (Bloomberg PIMESHI). It's the largest bond fund on 67 billion AUM.

That’s... not the largest bond fund. Your RM is making stuff up.

There are several things I like:
* Monthly dividend
* high and stable dividend (the fund is really large)

So, let’s get a couple of things clear here:
1) Your RM is not working in your best interests here - your RM is trying to sell you things so that they earn fees. They’re going to make big fees on the unit trust, and bigger fees on the loan. We’ve seen lots of people coming in here asking about leveraged bond unit trusts before, and we can usually figure out that the salesman is making gargantuan fees without telling them.

1a) This investment can go wrong in all sorts of interesting ways. The fund could cut its dividend; the interest rate on the loan could go up; the value of the fund could drop... either way, you’ll either be forced to sell the fund and repay the loan and lock in a huge loss, or you’ll have to put in more money to secure the loan again.

2) The size of the fund doesn’t have anything to do with how stable the dividend is. Pimco could cut their dividend at any time - and because interest rates are dropping, they probably will. (Either that, or they’ll sell assets to pay the dividend, which means your investment will be worth less.)

3) “Monthly dividends” isn’t really a selling point, unless you’re such a spendthrift that you can’t make $4,500 last for three months. And you’re smarter than that, right?

Is there other ways I can achieve this? I checked LQDA and SDIA, their dividends are not monthly, and they are lower, plus no leverage to achieve the 6.6%.
This isn’t correct. You can absolutely get leverage to buy ETFs. (SDIA isn’t what you want: it’s a “short duration” fund, which means it has lower yield as well.)

To be frank, there is no safe way to get a 6.6% yield out of investment-grade SGD bonds, no matter how hard you leverage them. You’re taking a lot of risk; my advice would be to lower your expectations. (Hey, I’m just being honest, because your RM isn’t.)

(Also, LQDA and SDIA own USD-denominated bonds, so they have currency risk as well. They’re not the appropriate investment for someone in your situation.)

If you need $1500 a month, safely, you can get that by buying $800k worth of MBH. That’s safe, and sensible, and it won’t go wrong and you won’t have to pay tens of thousands a year in hidden fees to do it.

Any good clean energy etf and irish domiciled? I only found INRG but its in GBP.

You might have to construct this yourself. What’s a “clean energy” stonk, in your definition?

If I want to plan for my kid's retirement (~ 50 years later) instead of my own retirement, is there a different investing strategy to adopt?

Firstly, congratulations on being so well-off that your own retirement is already taken care of! Setting your kid up for retirement is something you’ll want to think about very carefully; you don’t want your kid to become lazy because they think they’ve got their entire life already paid for.

I’d advocate a very different strategy in this case—teaching your kid the value of money, so that they don’t become spoiled and idle, and preparing them to inherit. And I’d also make sure that you really have covered your own retirement; the only thing worse than having a spoiled kid would be a spoiled kid who doesn’t want to support his parents.

Dear all,

I am trying to perform my first trade of iShares Global Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CRPA) on LSE using IBKR platform. However, it seems like there is no trades done as there is no volume. It is the same on Yahoo finance and other sites.

Anyone here buying this ETF? What am I missing?

Volume in CRPA isn’t zero, but it’s pretty low - I see about 6,000 shares traded Tuesday (about $30k USD worth). Compare that to LQDE or LQDA, which do $5 million to $10 million USD of volume on an average day. Use those instead.
 
Last edited:

swan02

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
382
Reaction score
14
Thanks Shiny, I think hwc..or something like that has provided detailed info of possible reasons. For now I'm ok with my current options.

If I want to plan for my kid's retirement (~ 50 years later) instead of my own retirement, is there a different investing strategy to adopt?

I would think it's the same, but then again I don't know much.

Via x2 tragic tales. I've learnt.......

1. Practice stealth wealth which you should anyway kids or not.
2. Never distribute wealth before death. As an old person, your only power left is your wealth. Use that to control kids/reward those who look after you.
3. Be wary of their spouses-thus you can never trust your kids.
4. Children can turn against their parents easily. You may cunningly either appear poor or inform them they receive nothing on death to discover who genuinely care for you. But ensure you bring them up well from start. These days, too many spoilt kids, worse when parents are not recognising it.
5. Be more wary of male born kids especially of chinese like culture. I hope the generation has changed. Be fair to your daughters. They are likely to be at your death bed and care for you.
6. If you r genuinely rich, look into setting up a Trust upon death. 90/10 Asset allocation 50 years. As mentioned, you can't trust the spouses. I think AA $2 million and above is economically viable.
7. if you r not rich, also 90/10 AA, but also be wary of how to manage it or at least know someone who does before your death, as the aim if possible is to enrich their CPF after death especially SA.

Drawing down or changing AA require some knowledge.

Statistically, most people can't manage wealth, thus hire a professional for short term if need be. Select your administrator carefully, has to be trustworthy and finance smart.

Tyvm, Swan02.

Indeed, my understanding of bonds is superficial at best. That's why I have been struggling with bond investment. I shudder at the thought that I will need to put 6 figure sums into instruments that I don't quite understand in the coming years :(

I agree. I actually find bond investing much harder. Especially when articles talk about the long cycle of Debit instrument. ie. if they plummet in value, it takes a long time to recover. And we r talking about greater than 10 years.

Then you read conflicting articles, about intermediate debt 7-10 years duration typically only requires up to 5 years to recover.......

both have merit as one stresses on the end of the interest rate cycle hence big risk when interest rates rises big time. While the other still argues that the last leg is still viable, ie. -1% interest rate.

That is why I favor MBH etf a lot. And I can see if things remain as it is, i.e. expensive Bonds -low interest rates environment........I'll be moving gradually to a 100% equity like investments zero bonds of any type.

that is also why i don't invest in STI anymore as I perceive it as greater risk without the rewards. And little allocation to EM stocks. And favor S&P 500 even expensive (as I believe US stocks have some intrinsic USD buffer, and will usually be a default investment for any investor as they are attractive) , and developed markets (still less volatile than EM, less risk premium required than say STI or EM).

In other words, IWDA is very important. The less quality bonds you hold, the greater the balance of risk and return need be within equity. .........and eg of poor balance AA in current times would be. 20 percent IWDA, 40 percent China ETF, 40 percent STI.

e.g IMO in future would just be IWDA or VWRD/VWRA, and USD currency as my fixed income ballast. Asset allocation maybe 80/20. or 90/10......As much as I favor MBH, its short duration where the bonds it holds will renew to a lower interest rate as the old ones expires making it less attractive over time.


Good tips there for me to think about. I've also been thinking about 50:50 growth:income to achieve my objectives. Topping up with REITS did cross my mind, but as you know, the house view of REITS on this thread is not too supportive. I probably will skip IDTL for the very reasons you mentioned, haha!

BBC did point out several good reasons. However, I do see it as painting the whole industry in one brush. I did come across a detailed reit article, well research that explains its variety and how it works in different environment. They can be very different to each other. In other words, you would have already known, there are REITs which are like Tech stocks, REITs that perform like Cyclicals etc.

In other words, short term they do not behave similar to physical properties , but more equity like. Long term they do behave like physical property and likely grow at inflation rate but fortunately not capped by the govt allowing boom and bust and benefiting from crashes and DCA.

I do know a wealthy 100% REIT investor. And he holds all types, well diversified, can afford not to invest in an ETF, buys individual, loves cash, believes in cashflow is king....thus can leverage i.e. borrow from banks as his TDSR is always fantastic from the REITs income, gets more cheap financing, gets richer and richer.

The cycle keeps repeating, so what if REITs crashes more than 50 percent, he recognises its due to leverage (cheap leverage within the underlying securities)..........

his argument is simple, his large recurring cash flow and the astute management of debt as a ballast/buffer due to cheap financing is superior to any buffer you get from bonds or a safer AA. He fundamental aim is to outlast any recessions. I believe he involves his physical property investments. Synergises them for greater borrowing power.

How can I argue against that ?....at least on surface he seems to enjoy life better than I. Thus I won't be surprised, once my emotions allows me to endure a 50 percent crash, i'll just set my AA fixed income to risky bond proxies as diversified REITs.

This is the realm of the 100 percent equity like investment arena. I've not quite reach there yet in practice.

Anyone wishes to critque this 100% Reit/physical property synergy for both return and buffer ? The more eyes the better.
 

ArLumber

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Hi Shiny, have you listened to Grant Williams podcast series "the end game"? He and his co-host talk to various guests about the current market, the fed interventions and if the crazy valuations can go on. Episode 3 is relevant to this thread particularly as it talks about passive investing and its affects on the market. Below is a summary that I took from elsewhere. What are your thoughts?

The rising influence of passive. Despite many investors believing they've seen this setup before and know how it plays out, there's evidence that we're playing a new game.

Passive ownership is heterogeneous. Boomers, who are leaving the market, have a higher proportion of discretionary ownership. Under 40's, who are entering the market, are weighted to passive. That inflation is extraordinary and exponential in its power.

Rules of discretionary: As price goes up, propensity to buy goes down and when markets crash, reduce redemptions. Rules of passive are literally the exact opposite. Every price is the right price, it simply does not matter.

The dominant force in passive is momentum. Momentum is a strategy that rewards low volatility (eg 10% up and 10% down = 1% down). Money that is flowing into passive that is allocating on the basis of market cap, high volatility becomes a negative momentum contributor.

Discretionary funds carry ~5% cash, passive funds carry 10bps. The math says that is we move from a 5% to 10bps cash universe, the market goes up by 50x, simultaneously taking volatility through the roof.

As long as you can ride through the volatility, you want to be buying stocks. But there are simulations with this market dynamic where the price goes to $0. In an all passive market when passive wants to sell, there's no price at which the market will clear.

In March when discretionary tried to unwind it was not that passive sold, it was that it did not buy any more.

The problem is when they get large enough in the market where the net buying, or more importantly net selling, becomes large enough that the scale that hits the market is incapable of being absorbed by the market.

The Fed thinks that by printing money it is lowering the incentive to defer consumption, but all the empirical data shows the exact opposite. What the Fed is actually doing is increasing the price of bonds, which is increasing the value of collateral.

If the price of a 10yr bond goes up, a portfolio that is 60/40 needs to rebalance by selling bonds and buying equities. Modern portfolio theory tells us that an asset has a negative correlation with risk assets, yield must be less than risk free rate, otherwise optimal = levered.

The 10yr bond has 'put like' characteristics, because I'm being paid to own it as it has a positive yield. The minute 10yr US bonds have a negative yield then you cease to have a positive carry put and those portfolios have to collapse. Think this could be the end game.

The objective of financial markets is to facilitate capital flows to pursue positive NPV projects, but if we continue to follows this passive path the catastrophe becomes so large that capital markets cease to function and the Fed is forced to step in as its too big to fail.

We have created a system that is so stable and where the focus itself become stability / preserving the status quo, that we’ve created all the problems of specialisation, fragility and inequality associated with it where very few members of society control the resources.

The reasons we adopted the ‘fictions’ of the limits of government spending is because by allowing governments to spend at will, eg MMT, is because it makes them all powerful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ Forums. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts. Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards and Terms and Conditions for more information.
Top