Tag Archives: nasdaq

401(k) Fund Spotlight: Dodge & Cox Stock Fund

Summary Dodge & Cox Stock Fund’s top holdings are a reflection of its nostalgic value approach. Dodge & Cox Stock Fund’s “long term” approach faces “near term” risks from technological disruptions. Dodge & Cox Stock Fund’s low yield is a major shortcoming for a large cap fund in the current market environment. I select funds on behalf of my investment advisory clients in many different defined contribution plans, namely 401(k)s and 403(b)s. I have looked at a lot of different funds over the years. 401(k) Fund Spotlight is an article series that focuses on one particular fund at a time that is widely offered to Americans in their 401(k) plans. 401(k)s are now the foundational retirement savings vehicle for many Americans. They should be maximized to the fullest extent. A detailed understanding of fund options is a worthwhile endeavor. To get the most out of this article it is helpful to understand my approach to investing in 401(k)s . I strive to write these articles for the benefit of the novice and professional. Please comment if you have a question. I always try to give substantive responses. Dodge & Cox Stock Fund The Dodge & Cox Stock Fund (MUTF: DODGX ) is a large capitalization (“cap”) growth and income fund that tends to lean towards the value camp. It has only one share class, the simplicity of which is refreshing in this day and age. The fund is a giant. With $60 billion in assets, it is the second largest large cap value fund out there. The median market cap of the fund’s 64 holdings is $48 billion. I like the fact that, despite its size, the fund still remains relatively concentrated versus its benchmark, the S&P 500 index and its 500 holdings. It does stray a little overseas. 10% of the fund’s holdings are in dollar-denominated foreign stocks (as of June 30, 2015). DODGX is managed by the Dodge & Cox Investment Policy Committee , which has an average tenure of 27 years. These managers have consistently stayed true to their long term value approach. This is evidenced by the fund’s measly annual turnover of 17%. I do not particularly care for most of the fund’s largest holdings, but I at least give them credit for actually being stock pickers and not just index huggers. Interestingly, I think the fund’s ten largest holdings somewhat reflect the firm’s nostalgic approach. Here they are as of June 30, 2015: Ten Largest Holdings Fund Allocation Capital One Financial Corp (NYSE: COF ) 4.2% Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC ) 4.0% Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE: HPQ ) 3.6% Microsoft Corp (NASDAQ: MSFT ) 3.6% Time Warner Cable, Inc. (NYSE: TWC ) 3.4% Time Warner, Inc. (NYSE: TWX ) 3.3% Novartis AG ( Switzerland ) (NYSE: NVS ) 3.2% Charles Schwab Corp (NYSE: SCHW ) 3.2% Bank of America Corp (NYSE: BAC ) 3.0% Comcast Corp (NASDAQ: CMCSA ) 2.7% DODGX has a lot riding on the future success of traditional media, computing, and finance. However, given the fund’s large cap value focus this is not a surprise. I am not an expert on these industries, but from a real world standpoint, I am skeptical. I am a 38 year old business owner who will never use a Microsoft product again and I would like an alternative to overpriced Comcast cable internet as soon as possible. My family also does not have cable television. The “long term” approach to these investments could become precarious, if they run into serious “near term” technological disruptions that younger generations will not hesitate to use. Where Are The Dividends? I find no compelling reason to choose DODGX over the standard, lower fee S&P 500 index fund offering available in most 401(k) plans. The fund’s .52% expense ratio is not overbearing, but I am dismayed by its paltry 1.30% dividend yield. Given the fund’s historical performance versus the S&P 500 index, I would rather just own the index with its higher 2.1% yield. According to a DODGX fund report , the 10-year annualized total return, as of July 31, 2015, was 6.94% versus 7.73% for the S&P 500 Index. The long term value approach of the fund has failed to shine over this longer period. Conclusion Based on my forecast for a lackluster stock market over the next 6 years, dividends will be a critical part of investor returns. If possible, 401(k) investors should consider bypassing DODGX for a higher yielding S&P 500 index fund. To me, high dividend yields and “value” tend to go hand and hand. Investing Disclosure 401(k) Spotlight articles focus on the specific attributes of mutual funds that are widely available to Americans within employer provided defined contribution plans. Fund recommendations are general in nature and not geared towards any specific reader. Fund positioning should be considered as part of a comprehensive asset allocation strategy, based upon the financial situation, investment objectives, and particular needs of the investor. Readers are encouraged to obtain experienced, professional advice. Important Regulatory Disclosures I am a Registered Investment Advisor in the State of Pennsylvania. I screen electronic communications from prospective clients in other states to ensure that I do not communicate directly with any prospect in another state where I have not met the registration requirements or do not have an applicable exemption. Positive comments made regarding this article should not be construed by readers to be an endorsement of my abilities to act as an investment adviser. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Season Of The Glitch

When I look over my shoulder What do you think I see? Some other cat lookin’ over His shoulder at me. – Donovan, “Season of the Witch” (1966) Josh Leonard: I see why you like this video camera so much. Heather Donahue: You do? Josh Leonard: It’s not quite reality. It’s like a totally filtered reality. It’s like you can pretend everything’s not quite the way it is. – “The Blair Witch Project” (1999) Over the past two months, more than 90 Wall Street Journal articles have used the word “glitch”. A few choice selections below: Bank of New York Mellon Corp.’s chief executive warned clients that his firm wouldn’t be able to solve all pricing problems caused by a computer glitch before markets open Monday. – “BNY Mellon Races to Fix Pricing Glitches Before Markets Open Monday”, August 30, 2015 A computer glitch is preventing hundreds of mutual and exchange-traded funds from providing investors with the values of their holdings, complicating trading in some of the most widely held investments. – “A New Computer Glitch is Rocking the Mutual Fund Industry”, August 26, 2015 Bank says data loss was due to software glitch. – “Deutsche Bank Didn’t Archive Chats Used by Some Employees Tied to Libor Probe”, July 30, 2015 NYSE explanation confirms software glitch as cause, following initial fears of a cyberattack. – “NYSE Says Wednesday Outage Caused by Software Update”, July 10, 2015 Some TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. customers experienced delays in placing orders Friday morning due to a software glitch, the brokerage said.. – “TD Ameritrade Experienced Order Routing, Messaging Problems”, July 10, 2015 Thousands of investors with stop-loss orders on their ETFs saw those positions crushed in the first 30 minutes of trading last Monday, August 24th. Seeing a price blow right through your stop is perhaps the worst experience in all of investing because it seems like such a betrayal. “Hey, isn’t this what a smart investor is supposed to do? What do you mean there was no liquidity at my stop? What do you mean I got filled $5 below my stop? Wait… now the price is back above my stop! Is this for real?” Welcome to the Big Leagues of Investing Pain. What happened last Monday morning, when Apple was down 11% and the VIX couldn’t be priced and the CNBC anchors looked like they were going to vomit, was not a glitch. Yes, a flawed SunGard pricing platform was part of the proximate cause, but the structural problem here- and the reason this sort of dislocation WILL happen again, soon and more severely- is that a vast crowd of market participants- let’s call them Investors- are making a classic mistake. It’s what a statistics professor would call a “category error”, and it’s a heartbreaker. Moreover, there’s a slightly less vast crowd of market participants- let’s call them Market Makers and The Sell Side- who are only too happy to perpetuate and encourage this category error. Not for nothing, but Virtu and Volant and other HFT “liquidity providers” had their most profitable day last Monday since… well, since the Flash Crash of 2010. So if you’re a Market Maker or you’re on The Sell Side or you’re one of their media apologists, you call last week’s price dislocations a “glitch” and misdirect everyone’s attention to total red herrings like supposed forced liquidations of risk parity strategies. Wash, rinse, repeat. The category error made by most Investors today, from your retired father-in-law to the largest sovereign wealth fund, is to confuse an allocation for an investment. If you treat an allocation like an investment… if you think about buying and selling an ETF in the same way that you think about buying and selling stock in a real-life company with real-life cash flows… you’re making the same mistake that currency traders made earlier this year with the Swiss Franc (read “ Ghost in the Machine ” for more). You’re making a category error, and one day- maybe last Monday or maybe next Monday- that mistake will come back to haunt you. The simple fact is that there’s precious little investing in markets today- understood as buying a fractional ownership position in the real-life cash flows of a real-life company- a casualty of policy-driven markets where real-life fundamentals mean next to nothing for market returns. Instead, it’s all portfolio positioning, all allocation, all the time. But most Investors still maintain the pleasant illusion that what they’re doing is some form of stock-picking, some form of their traditional understanding of what it means to be an Investor. It’s the story they tell themselves and each other to get through the day, and the people who hold the media cameras and microphones are only too happy to perpetuate this particular form of filtered reality. Now there’s absolutely nothing wrong with allocating rather than investing. In fact, as my partners Lee Partridge and Rusty Guinn never tire of saying, smart allocation is going to be responsible for the vast majority of public market portfolio returns over time for almost all investors. But that’s not the mythology that exists around markets. You don’t read Barron’s profiles about Great Allocators. No, you read about Great Investors, heroically making their stock-picking way in a sea of troubles. It’s 99% stochastics and probability distributions – really, it is – but since when did that make a myth less influential? So we gladly pay outrageous fees to the Great Investors who walk among us, even if most of us will never enjoy the outsized returns that won their reputations. So we search and search for the next Great Investor, even if the number of Great Investors in the world is exactly what enough random rolls of the dice would produce with Ordinary Investors. So we all aspire to be Great Investors, even if almost all of what we do- like buying an ETF- is allocating rather than investing. The key letter in an ETF is the F. It’s a Fund, with exactly the same meaning of the word as applied to a mutual fund. It’s an allocation to a basket of securities with some sort of common attribute or factor that you want represented in your overall portfolio, not a fractional piece of an asset that you want to directly own. Yes, unlike a mutual fund you CAN buy and sell an ETF just like a single name stock, but that doesn’t mean you SHOULD. Like so many things in our modern world, the exchange traded nature of the ETF is a benefit for the few (Market Makers and The Sell Side) that has been sold falsely as a benefit for the many (Investors). It’s not a benefit for Investors. On the contrary, it’s a detriment. Investors who would never in a million years consider trading in and out of a mutual fund do it all the time with an exchange traded fund, and as a result their thoughtful ETF allocation becomes just another chip in the stock market casino. This isn’t a feature. It’s a bug. What we saw last Monday morning was a specific manifestation of the behavioral fallacy of a category error, one that cost a lot of Investors a lot of money. Investors routinely put stop-loss orders on their ETFs. Why? Because… you know, this is what Great Investors do. They let their winners run and they limit their losses. Everyone knows this. It’s part of our accepted mythology, the Common Knowledge of investing. But here’s the truth. If you’re an Investor with a capital I (as opposed to a Trader with a capital T), there’s no good reason to put a stop-loss on an ETF or any other allocation instrument. I know. Crazy. And I’m sure I’ll get 100 irate unsubscribe notices from true-believing Investors for this heresy. So be it. Think of it this way… what is the meaning of an allocation? Answer: it’s a return stream with a certain set of qualities that for whatever reason – maybe diversification, maybe sheer greed, maybe something else – you believe that your portfolio should possess. Now ask yourself this: what does price have to do with this meaning of an allocation? Answer: very little, at least in and of itself. Are those return stream qualities that you prize in your portfolio significantly altered just because the per-share price of a representation of this return stream is now just below some arbitrary price line that you set? Of course not. More generally, those return stream qualities can only be understood… should only be understood… in the context of what else is in your portfolio. I’m not saying that the price of this desired return stream means nothing. I’m saying that it means nothing in and of itself. An allocation has contingent meaning, not absolute meaning, and it should be evaluated on its relative merits, including price. There’s nothing contingent about a stop-loss order. It’s entirely specific to that security… I want it at this price and I don’t want it at that price, and that’s not the right way to think about an allocation. One of my very first Epsilon Theory notes, “ The Tao of Portfolio Management ,” was on this distinction between investing (what I called stock-picking in that note) and allocation (what I called top-down portfolio construction), and the ecological fallacy that drives category errors and a whole host of other market mistakes. It wasn’t a particularly popular note then, and this note probably won’t be, either. But I think it’s one of the most important things I’ve got to say. Why do I think it’s important? Because this category error goes way beyond whether or not you put stop-loss orders on ETFs. It enshrines myopic price considerations as the end-all and be-all for portfolio allocation decisions, and it accelerates the casino-fication of modern capital markets, both of which I think are absolute tragedies. For Investors, anyway. It’s a wash for Traders… just gives them a bigger playground. And it’s the gift that keeps on giving for Market Makers and The Sell Side. Why do I think it’s important? Because there are so many Investors making this category error and they are going to continue to be, at best, scared out of their minds and, at worst, totally run over by the Traders who are dominating these casino games. This isn’t the time or the place to dive into gamma trading or volatility skew hedges or liquidity replenishment points. But let me say this. If you don’t already understand what, say, a gamma hedge is, then you have ZERO chance of successfully trading your portfolio in reaction to the daily “news”. You’re going to be whipsawed mercilessly by these Hollow Markets , especially now that the Fed and the PBOC are playing a giant game of Chicken and are no longer working in unison to pump up global asset prices . One of the best pieces of advice I ever got as an Investor was to take what the market gives you. Right now the market isn’t giving us much, at least not the sort of stock-picking opportunities that most Investors want. Or think they want. That’s okay. This, too, shall pass. Eventually. Maybe . But what’s not okay is to confuse what the market IS giving us, which is the opportunity to make long-term portfolio allocation decisions, for the sort of active trading opportunity that fits our market mythology. It’s easy to confuse the two, particularly when there are powerful interests that profit from the confusion and the mythology. Market Makers and The Sell Side want to speed us up, both in the pace of our decision making and in the securities we use to implement those decisions, and if anything goes awry … well, it must have been a glitch. In truth, it’s time to slow down, both in our process and in the nature of the securities we buy and sell. And you might want to turn off the TV while you’re at it.