Amid a high level of uncertainty, it will be prudent to pick safe mutual funds which have beta of less than 1
Mutual Fund Report for TRLGX
Mutual Fund Report for PRNHX
Below we share with you three top-ranked large-cap growth mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy)
Японская корпорация Toyota Motor определилась со стоимостью новой версии внедорожника Lexus LX 570
Jerome Powell led Federal Reserve hiked the benchmark lending rate by a quarter-percentage point and projected a steeper path of rate hikes
Mutual Fund Report for PRFDX
Mutual Fund Report for PRJPX
Today Tesla shareholders are meeting to decide one thing: is Elon Musk worth a $2.6 billion compensation package? The Tesla board will seek shareholder approval to approve the Musk comp package — the largest-ever of its kind — underscoring the company’s outsize ambitions and how intimately connected its future success is to Musk. And as Bloomberg notes, "if the plan's accepted and he turns Tesla into both a mass-market automaker and one of the world’s largest companies, he'll become perhaps the richest man on the planet." Or perhaps not, as one major shareholder has already said no. According to Reuters, CalSTRS is opposing the Musk compensation package, with Anne Sheehan, Director of Corporate Governance, sayind that "given the size of the award, we believe the potential dilution to shareholders is just too great." adding that "we have concerns about the lack of focus on profitability for the company, and the one profitability metric that is used excludes the cost of stock-based compensation." The question is will others follow? Votes on the compensation plan will be cast at a special shareholder meeting in Fremont, California, at 9 a.m. local time (noon ET). As Bloomberg adds, the board needs support from investors holding a majority of the shares—not counting those owned by Musk and his brother Kimbal, who’s a Tesla director—to make the award. Not surprisingly, CalSTRS is not alone: proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. and Glass Lewis & Co. have urged investors to vote against the package. Meanwhile, large shareholders Baillie Gifford & Co. and T. Rowe Price Group Inc. have signaled they're likely to support it. Additional details: Under the proposed terms, Musk would earn one-12th of the options every time Tesla hits a pair of goals: one tied to its market value and the other linked to either revenue or earnings excluding certain charges. For Musk to get all the options, Tesla would have to become worth $650 billion—more than Facebook Inc.—and produce more revenue than Procter & Gamble Co. Below Bloomberg lists some of the main pros and cons shareholders will be mulling as they cast their ballots: Pro: Investors (and Musk) might reap massive gains Tesla has said in regulatory filings that Musk’s award could yield him more than $50 billion if all goals are achieved. That’s an astronomical sum, compared to what other U.S. executives make. Still, Musk will reap gains only if shareholders do, too. Some large investors have said the package aligns with their interests, signaling they don’t mind if Musk gets wealthier, as long as they also see big returns. Con: Musk already owns about 20 percent of Tesla. Does he really need more money? More than half of Musk’s roughly $20 billion fortune is tied up in Tesla stock. That’s led some to question whether the largest award in corporate history is needed to make sure he remains focused on the business. Pro: Musk got a similar award in 2012, and it was a success About six years ago, Tesla gave the CEO a big bundle of stock options worth roughly $78 million at the time. He could realize gains from those only if Tesla met certain product development milestones and drastically increased its market value, and it has: Tesla celebrated delivery of its 250,000th car in the third quarter. Tesla’s market cap has grown about 16-fold, and Musk’s award has ballooned in value to more than $1 billion. Con: The award could be hugely expensive and dilutive Large stock awards can be costly for investors in two ways: They increase a company’s expenses and they dilute the stakes of existing shareholders. If Musk is successful, Tesla's investors might feel the effects of both. Pro: It signals big ambitions It’s unlikely Tesla could hit the top market value threshold of $650 billion solely by selling electric cars. As a result, the award indicates that Musk has other ideas for the company, including transforming energy storage through utility-grade applications and the kinds of future-of-mobility plans outlined in his Master Plan, Part Deux. Con: It doesn’t show how or when Tesla will be profitable Musk’s 2012 award depended on the company successfully building and mass-producing electric cars while simultaneously growing its market value. The new grant outlines an aspiration of making Tesla one of the world’s biggest companies but without any clues about how the company will get there. The plan also doesn’t offer any indication as to when Tesla will have its first-ever profitable fiscal year. Pro: It will keep Musk close to Tesla Musk is also the CEO of Space Exploration Technologies Corp. and has embarked on several other projects of late, including tunnel digger Boring Co. and a brain-computer interface startup called Neuralink. That’s led to concerns he’s looking to lessen his involvement with Tesla. But the new award binds him to the company for a decade, requiring him to remain either CEO or executive chairman and chief product officer. Con: It underscores Tesla’s reliance on Musk If Musk were to leave, it would be a huge blow, the company has repeatedly told investors in regulatory filings. The big award further emphasizes how integral the board thinks the CEO is to Tesla’s future. Several top executives have left the company lately, calling into question what Tesla would do if Musk decided to do something else. Pro: It’s the only pay he’s gonna get The big award aside, Tesla’s board has said Musk won’t receive any other compensation to underscore that he’ll win only if shareholders do, too. The company is required by California state law to pay him a minimum-wage salary that adds up to roughly $37,000 per year, but Musk has never accepted it.
Mutual Fund Report for PRSIX
T. Rowe Price's (TROW) assets under management decrease from the prior month due to lower sponsored U.S. mutual funds and other investment assets.
Invesco (IVZ) reported a decrease in its February 2018 preliminary AUM compared with the prior month.
Legg Mason (LM) reports decline in assets under management (AUM) on decrease in equity and fixed income AUM.
Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, Let me start out by saying I hate market comparisons. While history certainly does “rhyme,” they are never the same. This is especially the case when it comes to the financial markets. Chart patterns may align from time to time, but such is more a function of pattern-fitting than anything else. However, when it comes to fundamentals, standard-deviations, extensions, etc., it is a different story. A recent article by Ryan Vlastelica brought this to mind. “While the strategy of investing in internet-related companies will likely always be first associated with the dot-com era, the long-lived bull market has proved to be just as strong a period for a sector that has influenced nearly every aspect of the economy. Friday marks the ninth anniversary of the financial crisis bottom, and since that period—by one measure, the start of the current bull market—internet stocks have been among the best performers on Wall Street.” “’The current tech rally is possibly the greatest investment story ever told,’ wrote Vincent Deluard, global macro strategist at INTL FCStone, who was speaking about the sector broadly, and not these ETFs in particular. He noted that the MSCI World Technology Index has added $5.7 trillion in market capitalization since February 2009, ‘when the entire sector amounted to just $1.5 trillion.’” Since Ryan was probably in elementary school during the “Dot.com” era, and many current fund managers weren’t managing money either, it is easy to dismiss “history” under a “this time is different” scenario. Even the ETF’s used as an example of the “this time is different” scenario didn’t even exist prior to the “dot.com bubble” (The QQQ didn’t come into existence until 1999) Unfortunately, while the names of the companies may have changed, the current “dot.com boom” is likely more than just a “rhyme” with the past. Investors Once Again Being Misled From a fundamental basis, there is a difference between today and the “Dot.com days of yore.” In 1999, “dot.com” companies were all bunched together and few actually made money. Fast forward to 2018, and the division between an “internet company” and every other company is now invisible. In fact, companies like Apple and Amazon are no longer even classified as “technology” companies but rather consumer goods companies. But nonetheless, fundamentals don’t discriminate between classifications, and once again investors are paying excessively high prices for companies that generate very little, if any, profit. Just after the “dot.com” bust, I wrote a valuation article quoting Scott McNeely, who was the CEO of Sun Microsystems at the time. At its peak, the company was trading at 10x its sales. (Price-to-Sales ratio) In a Bloomberg interview Scott made the following point. “At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees.That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes. What were you thinking? How many of the following “dot.com” companies do you currently own which are currently carrying price-to-sales in excess of 10x? (Price-to-Sales above 2x becomes expensive. If I included companies with P/S of 5x or more, the list was just too expansive for this post.) As noted above, there were only 3-ETF’s that existed just prior to the “dot.com” bubble -SPY, QQQ, and DIA. In order to do some better comparative analysis, I had to dig to find a technology-based mutual fund that existed back in 1990. Not surprisingly, there were very few but the T. Rowe Price Science and Technology (PRSCX) fund fit the bill and tracks the technology index very closely. When we compare the fund to Shiller’s CAPE ratio, not surprisingly, since Technology makes up a quarter of the S&P 500 index, there is a high correlation between Technology and overall market valuation expansion and contraction. As was the case in 1998-2000, the fund exploded higher as exuberance over the transformation of the world was occurring before our eyes. Investors globally were willing to pay “any price” to “get in on the action.” Currently, investors are once again chasing returns in the “FANG” stocks with little regard to underlying value. The near vertical ramp in the fund is reminiscent of the late 1990’s as valuations continue to escalate higher. The chart below shows this a bit more clearly. It compares the fund to both the RSI (relative strength index) and inflation-adjusted reported earnings of the S&P 500 on a QUARTERLY basis. Using quarterly data smooths volatility of these measures over time. A couple of interesting points arise. The RSI of the market is as overbought today as it was leading up to the “Dot.com” crash and more overbought today than just before the “financial crisis.” Despite massive stock buybacks and cost reductions through wage and employment suppression, reported earnings have only grown by a little more than $11 / share since the peak of the market in 2007. In other words, despite the ongoing bullish commentary about how great earnings are, they have actually only achieved a 1.14% annualized rate of growth. Of course, investors have disregarded the lack of real earnings growth. The valuation surge is also shown in the analysis below. I have taken the price of the fund and divided by the inflation-adjusted reported earnings of the S&P 500, or a modified “P/E” ratio. While not a strictly apples-to-apples comparison, the point is that since Technology makes up roughly 25% of the market, it is a big driver of the “P” and not a huge contributor to the “E.” Again, on this basis, investors are once again paying a high price for poor fundamental quality in the “hope” that someday the fundamentals will catch up with the price. It has never been the case, but one can always “hope.” Is The Dot.Com Bubble Back? Whether you believe there is a “bubble” in the Technology stocks, or the markets, is really not important. There are plenty of arguments for both sides. At the peak of every bull market in history, there was no one claiming that a crash was imminent. It was always the contrary with market pundits waging war against those nagging naysayers of the bullish mantra that “stocks have reached a permanently high plateau” or “this is a new secular bull market.” (Here is why it isn’t.) Yet, in the end, it was something unexpected, unknown or simply dismissed that devastated investors. This is why the discussion of “this time is not like the last time” is largely irrelevant. Individuals no longer “invest” to become a “shareholder” in a publicly traded business. The “quaint concept” of “valuations” died with the mainstreaming of investing during the 1990’s as the “Wall Street Casino” opened for business. Today, investors only think in terms of speculating on “electronically traded bits of paper” in the hopes the value will rise over time. The problem, of course, is they are never told when to “sell” to capture that valuation increase which is the most critical aspect of the investment process. Instead, individuals continue to “bet” the “greater fool” will always appear. For now, the “bullish case” remains alive and well. The media will go on berating those heretics who dare to point out the risks that prevail, but the one simple truth is “this time is indeed different.” “When the crash ultimately comes the reasons will be different than they were in the past – only the outcome will remain same.” Eventually, like all amateur gamblers in the Las Vegas casinos, the ride is a “blast while it lasts” but in the end, the “house always wins.”
Franklin's (BEN) preliminary assets under management (AUM) of $744.9 billion for February 2018 were down 3.4% from the prior month, impacted by net market losses and outflows.
Mutual Fund Report for PRFDX
The ECB raises its 2018 growth view to a healthy 2.4%, from 2.3% estimated last December
Scofield: Textron в 2007 году приобрела AAI Corporation. Bit Defender (BD) в 2007 году вышла на российский рынок. Т. В.: BD я уже упоминала в связи с обнаружением вредоносной программы в компьютерах киевского правительства, основанной на программе Bit Defender. Мифические «Русские хакеры» тогда помогли в получении вполне реального многомиллионного контракта ее материнской компанией SoftWin.