Sunday, December 29, 2019

The world’s Largest 50 Asset Managers



The world’s Largest 50 Asset Managers - 2018


The data below was curated from Willis Towers Watson reports which contained the world largest 500 asset managers with 2018, 2017 and 2016 year's data. Top Money Managers from US managed over 60% of world wealth, followed by those from European countries (including UK). Only Japan's big money managers made the world top 50 from Asia.

The Top 10 largest Asset Managers for 2018 are:

1. BlackRock ($5,975,818 millions)
2. Vanguard ($4,866,611 millions)
3. State Street ($2,511,297 millions)
4. Fidelity ($ 2,424,697 millions)
5. Allianz Group ($2,242,972 millions)
6. JP Morgan Chase ($1,987,000 millions)
7. Bank of New York Mellon ($1,722,000 millions)
8. Capital Group ($1,677,381 millions)
9. AXA Group ($1,628,579 millions)
10. Goldman Sachs Group ($1,542,000 millions).

World Top 50 Asset Managers






Saturday, December 28, 2019

The Simple Way To Become A Millionaire by Making Maximum Contribution To Your Retirement Plans


The Simple Way To Become A Millionaire 

-by Making Maximum Contribution To Your Retirement Plans 


There are many ways people seek to become a millionaire, but as an average investor, the easiest way to become a millionaire is to contribute maximum to your retirement plans, invest them in a simple retirement portfolio and let the time take it course. You will become a millionaire in 25 years with a conservative 5% return per year. 

To do so, you only need to contribute maximum to your 401k plan, and get the maximum matches from your employer, and contribute maximum to your IRA (either traditional or Roth IRA). 



Thursday, December 12, 2019

How Much You Could Have If You Make The Maximum Contribution To Your 401K and IRA Contribution Each Year




 (1) Contribution: 401k and IRA Contribution Limits and Catch Up For People Over 50 Years Old

The graph below shows the total amount (including both 401k and IRA) one person can contribute to his/her retirement funds each year from 1995 to 2020. This total annual contribution does not include  employer match.

If you contribute the maximum amount each year, the total 401k funding could reach $376,740 and IRA funding could reach $105,000 for the 26 years from 1995-2020 without considering any employer match or any investment returns.



























































  (2) Final Amount: Invest the Retirement Funds With A Conservative 5% - 6% Annual Return

If you invest these funds with a 5% return, the final retirement amount could reach $900,000. With a 6% return, the total could reach $1,033,553 next year (Year 2020).










Wednesday, November 23, 2011

What's Next for Hep C Drug Stocks Following Gilead's $11B Pharmasset Buy?

By Adam Feuerstein 11/21/11 - 11:40 AM EST (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11319096/1/whats-next-for-hep-c-drug-stocks-following-gileads-11b-pharmasset-buy.html)

BOSTON (TheStreet) -- Semi-random thoughts and questions about hepatitis C drug stocks in the wake of Gilead Sciences(GILD_) buying Pharmasset(VRUS_) for $11 billion:

Wow, $11 billion is a lot of money, but that's what happens when you dangle a great hepatitis C drug (Pharmasset's PSI-7977) in front of a desperate buyer (Gilead.)


One of the best bio-pharma acquisitions measured by return on investment (ROI) was Gilead's $464 million purchase of Triangle Pharmaceuticals in 2003. The Triangle deal gave Gilead the HIV drug Emtriva, which when combined with Gilead's HIV drug Viread into a single pill, created Truvada. In turn, Gilead has generated tens of billions of dollars in sales from Truvada and various HIV regimens that incorporate Truvada as a backbone.

Gilead's challenge will be to convince investors that it can deliver a decent ROI with Pharmasset by spending $11 billion to acquire the asset.

One hedge fund shareholder isn't buying it. "They're dead to me," he said, in a phone call, spitting mad. With Gilead shares down 11% to $35.23, this hedge funder doesn’t appear to be a lone voice of dissent.

Inhibitex(INHX_) is up Monday. Achillion Pharmaceuticals(ACHN_) shares are higher too, although less so. Both companies are developing their own hepatitis C drugs and neither company has a partner yet, so no surprise that already-present speculation about M&A activity involving these two stocks is ramping even higher.


The Inhibitex buzz makes some sense because its drug belongs to the same class of nucleotide polymerase inhibitors -- "nucs" for short -- that Pharmasset is developing.

Meantime, Achillion's CEO can't seem to pass a reporter's microphone without reminding everyone that he's in "advanced talks" with potential partners or aquirers. Smart, effective bio-pharma CEOs get deals done, they don't talk about them incessantly.

Idenix Pharmaceuticals(IDIX_) shares are also up Monday on the same M&A speculation, although the stock should probably be selling off. A large part of the bull thesis on Idenix has been based on speculation that the company's intellectual property (IP) portfolio around Hep C "nucs" would allow it to demand and receive royalty payments from other companies developing similar drugs, most notably Pharmasset.
 
By spending $11 billion to acquire Pharmasset, however, Gilead doesn't appear to be worried at all about Pharmasset's patent position. On its conference call this morning, Gilead said it had conducted a lot of due diligence into Pharmasset's patents prior to buying the company.


Idenix is developing its own Hep C nuc, with important safety data expected early next year.


Should Gilead have bought Vertex Pharmaceuticals(VRTX_) instead of Pharmasset? With Vertex, Gilead would acquiring a wildly successful Hep C drug (Incivek) already on the market and more quickly accretive to its bottom line. Vertex has a pipeline of experimental Hep C drugs, which while not as advanced as Pharmasset's, still could deliver the much-coveted all-oral regimen companies crave.

Vertex is emerging as a pioneer in cystic fibrosis drug development, a treatment market in which Gilead already has a presence with the antibiotic Cayston.

Gilead could have probably acquired Vertex for less money than Pharmasset, on top of wringing out substantial cost savings.
.........

For the full report, click here.

Lazy Portfolio YTD (2011)

The World’s 500 largest asset managers - Year end 2010

(from http://www.towerswatson.com/united-kingdom/research/5707)

The P&I/Towers Watson global 500 ranking is prepared using joint research by Pensions & Investments and Towers Watson.




Highlights from this year’s report include:



Total assets of the world’s largest 300 pension funds grew by over 11% in 2010 (8% in 2009) to a record high of US$12.5 trillion and up by around US$1.2 trillion from last year’s figure.

Despite last year’s growth in total assets, annualised growth of all funds during the past five years has fallen to just over 6%.

By individual region, Europe has the highest five-year growth rate of 11% compared to Asia (9%) and North America (1%); while the Latin American and African regions combined have a growth rate for the same period of 15%, albeit from a low base.

The world’s top 300 pension funds now represent over 47% of global pension funds assets.
 
For details, follow the link below:
 
The World’s 500 largest asset managers - Year end 2010
 
 

The World’s 500 Largest Asset Managers – Year End 2009

(from http://www.towerswatson.com/research/2942)

The P&I/Towers Watson global 500 ranking is prepared using joint research by Pensions & Investments and Towers Watson.

Highlights from this year’s report include:

Assets managed by the world’s largest 500 fund managers rose by 16% in 2009 to US$62 trillion at the end of the year. This is in contrast to a 23% loss the year before.

Although the percentage rise in total assets in 2009 is the second largest since the research began in 1996, asset levels are still below 2006 levels.

During the past five years only half of the fastest growing firms have done so in a primarily organic way, with the other half doing so by merger or acquisition.

By number, bank-owned asset managers continue to dominate the top 20, although the number of independent managers in the group grew.
 
For details, click the link below:
 
The World’s 500 Largest Asset Managers – Year End 2009
 

The World’s 500 largest asset managers - Year end 2008

from (http://www.watsonwyatt.com/)

The P&I/Towers Watson global 500 ranking is prepared using joint research by Pensions & Investments and Towers Watson.
Highlights from this year’s report include:

Total assets under management of the 500 managers included in the ranking totalled US $53.4 trillion at the end of 2008, down 23.1% from the end of 2007. This is the first yearly decrease since 2002.

Barclays Global Investors stays at the top of the ranking, followed by Allianz and State Street Global.

Assets under management of North American managers were US$ 23.9 trillion at 2008 year end, a decrease of 24.3% from the previous year. European managers experienced a similar decline, ending on US $22.7 trillion for the year.

The Top 20 managers' share of the total assets increased from 37.5% to 38.5%. Yet their assests were down by 21.4% in the same period.

US managers in the Top 20 manage 50.8% of the total AuM for that group, while the remaining 49.2% is controlled by European managers.

For details, click the link below:

The World’s 500 largest asset managers - Year end 2008


The world’s 300 largest pension funds – year end 2010

(from http://www.towerswatson.com/research/5351)

The 2010 P&I/Towers Watson global 300 pension funds ranking is prepared using joint research by Pensions & Investments and Towers Watson and includes a ranking of sovereign funds.


Highlights:
 
The US and UK account for almost half of the funds in the ranking. However, a total of 45 US/UK funds have dropped out of the top 300 ranking since 2005, while only 8 new funds joined.
 
Sovereign and public sector pension funds account for more than 68% of the total assets, and 138 funds in the top 300.
 
Defined Benefit funds account for 70% of the total assets, down from 71% in 2009. DB fund asset values grew by 7.6% in 2010, compared to 12.9% asset value growth of DC funds, reserve funds and hybrid funds combined.
 
On an arithmetric average basis, the top 20 funds invested approximately 40% of their assets in fixed income instruments and the same in equities.
 
For details, click the link below:
 
The world’s 300 largest pension funds – year end 2010

27家中国大陆基金公司入选全球500大基金公司

from http://finance.sina.com.cn/money/fund/20111123/070410865312.shtml

证券时报记者 郑晓波

  全球领先的咨询服务机构韬睿惠悦咨询公司(微博)最新公布的一项研究数据显示,有27家中国基金公司进入全球500大基金公司行列,位列亚太地区第一位。
  韬睿惠悦全球500大基金公司研究显示,2010年有9家新的大陆基金公司上榜,总数上升到27家,而2006年仅有5家。
  研究表明,这27家大陆基金公司2010年总计管理3500亿美元的资产,而2006年仅有600亿美元。在大陆基金公司中,华夏基金(微博)排名第一(全球排名196位),嘉实排名第二(全球排名220位)。

  韬睿惠悦总经理毛晓佟称:“预期未来将有越来越多的中国大陆基金公司进入全球排名。中国目前正在持续推进人民币国际化进程,海外投资者有进行人民币联接投资的需求,这些都为中国基金公司资产规模的扩张创造了机会。此外,中国中产阶级的扩张也为资产管理行业带来了机会。”
  2010年全球最大的500家基金公司的资产管理规模增长4%,达到65万亿美元,保持了持续增长的势头。
--------------------------------------------------------
  中国大陆地区基金公司排名
--------------------------------------------------------

2010 排名 基金公司 2010年资产 (百万美元)

196   华夏     43,820
220   嘉实     37,060
249  易方达 29,856
254  博时      28,528
319  南方     17,899
336  广发     15,647
345  大成     15,014
364  银华     12,917
372  华安     12,467
417  富国       9,388
426  上投摩根 8,934
429  工银瑞信 8,738
432  汇添富 8,597
434  鹏华 8,520
441  交银施罗德 8,000
443  融通 7,960
450 华宝兴业 7,452
453 建信 7,333
459 国泰 7,146
463 诺安 7,090
467 景顺长城 7,013
478 兴业全球 6,659
487 海富通 6,352
490 长盛 6,225
493 招商 6,136
496 国投瑞银 6,082
499 中银 5,908
------------------------------
总计 $346,741

(注:新浪财经配表 来源:Pensions & Investments/韬睿惠悦全球500大基金公司调研)


资产管理规模排名全球前20位的基金公司 (2010年12月31日)

 
--------------------------------------------------------
排名 基金公司 市场 资产管理规模(百万美元)

1 BlackRock 美国 3,560,968
2 State Street Global 美国 2,010,447
3 Allianz Group 德国 2,009,949
4 Fidelity Investments 美国 1,811,901
5 Vanguard Group 美国 1,764,960
6 Deutsche Bank 德国 1,562,352
7 AXA Group 法国 1,462,966
8 BNP Paribas 法国 1,313,882
9 J.P. Morgan Chase 美国 1,303,372
10 Capital Group 美国 1,223,412
11 Bank of New York Mellon 美国 1,172,314
12 UBS 瑞士 933,209
13 HSBC Holdings 英国 925,000
14 Amundi Asset Mgmt. 法国 915,016
15 Goldman Sachs Group 美国 840,000
16 Prudential Financial 美国 784,046
17 Natixis France 719,336
18 Legg Mason 美国 671,799
19 Franklin Templeton 美国 670,719
20 Nippon Life Insurance 日本 656,153

(注:新浪财经配表 来源:Pensions & Investments/韬睿惠悦全球500大基金公司调研)


排名全球前20位的基金公司的资产管理规模比较 (2009, 2010)


Friday, November 4, 2011

Life Science VC funding

MoneyTreeTM: Reaching for growth

Life Sciences Venture Capital Investing Falls 18% in Q3 2011 from Prior Quarter but Still Shows an Increase of 22% from Q3 2010, According to the MoneyTree Report (PRNewswire)

Study: Life sciences venture funding loses steam in Q3 (by Lori Valigra from Mass High Tech)

Notes from the above articles:

Venture capitalists invested $1.8 billion in 170 Life Sciences deals, reflecting a continued interest in venture investment but still the lowest number of deals since the first quarter of 2009. Investment in the Life Sciences sector increased 22% year over year. However, dollars invested and deal volume declined 18% and 21%, respectively, compared with the $2.2 billion invested in 214 deals during the previous quarter.
 
For all sectors, venture capitalists invested $7.0 billion in 876 deals in Q3 2011, a 31 percent increase in dollars and a 3 percent increase in deals year-over-year. Compared with the previous quarter, dollars investment fell 12%, and the number of deals declined 14%. The average deal size for all industries increased for the fourth consecutive quarter and stood at $7.9 million. The life sciences share of total venture capital declined moderately from 28% for the second quarter of 2011 to 26% for the third quarter. The sector followed a similar trend during 2010.
In Q3 2011, Biotechnology investing increased by 26 percent in dollars and dropped 14 percent in deals year over year with $1.1 billion going into 96 deals. Medical device investments increased 17 percent in dollars and declined 20 percent in deals, compared to the same quarter a year ago, as 74 deals captured $728 million in funding during the third quarter of 2011.

First-Time Financing

During the third quarter of 2011, 21 Life Sciences companies received venture capital funding for the first time, capturing $181 million. This represents a decline of 54 percent in the number of companies but a six percent increase in dollars invested, compared to the third quarter of 2010. First-time deals in the Life Sciences sector averaged $8.6 million in the second quarter of 2011, a 131 percent jump year over year and notably higher than the average first-time deal size of $7.9 million for all industries during the quarter.

Funding by Subsegment

Four of the seven Biotechnology subsegments exhibited growth in the third quarter of 2011 compared to the third quarter of 2010. The Human Biotechnology subsegment captured the largest share in the third quarter with $826 million going into 61 deals, a 36 percent increase in dollars but a 20 percent decrease in deals from Q3 of 2010. Dollars invested in the Biotech Research, Biotech Equipment, and Biosensors subsegments rose 262 percent, 27 and 5,444 percent, respectively.

Funding for two of the three Medical Device subsegments decreased in Q3 2011, compared with the same quarter of 2010 - Medical/Health Products fell 51 percent and Medical Diagnostics dropped 38 percent in dollars. However, dollars invested in the Medical Therapeutics category increased by 53 percent during the third quarter of 2011, compared to the same time a year ago. This subsegment also accounted for nearly two-thirds of the deals and more than four-fifths of the dollars during the third quarter of 2011 with $602 million going into 48 deals.

Investments by Region
The top five metropolitan regions receiving Life Sciences venture capital funding during Q3 2011 were San Francisco Bay ($625 million), Dallas ($300 million), Boston ($248 million), New York Metro ($144 million), and Twin Cities ($77 million). Investments in Biotechnology deals accounted for 58 percent of the dollars invested in the top five regions in Q3 2011.


















Hep C (VRUS, INHX, ANDS, IDIX, VRTX)


Inhibitex Soars as Investors See Another Pharmasset in the Making (By Adam Feuerstein)

Shares of Inhibitex(INHX) more than doubled Friday morning after the company released promising new data on its hepatitis C drug candidate.
The Inhibitex drug INX-189 belongs to the same "nucleoside" class of potent oral hepatitis C drugs as Pharmasset's(VRUS_) heralded PSI-7977. The difference, of course, is that Inhibitex's market value is $300 million, or at least it was going into Friday's trading. Pharmasset's market value is close to $6 billion.
 
Inhibitex shares soared 133% to $9.25 in pre-market trading after the company reported a 4.25 log drop in Hep C viral load after 7 days of treatment with a 200 mg dose of INX-189 in treatment-naive patients. No serious adverse events were reported.  (Read the complete report here).
 
Vertex (VRTX) awards $1.5M to help Hepatitis C patients (by James M. Connolly)


Vertex said in a press release that nearly 4 million people in the U.S. have chronic hepatitis C and that an estimated 75 percent of them are unaware of their infection.


Multiple Sclerosis (Biogen-Idec)

Biogen-Idec's BG-12 Shines At the Top of the Charts in the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (From Marketwatch.com)

BG-12 Beats Teva's Copaxone in Biogen-Idec's CONFIRM Trial

The top-line results of DEFINE trial were replicated in the second pivotal Phase III trial CONFIRM, which significantly reduced annualized relapse rate (ARR) by 44 percent for BID (p< 0.0001) and by 51 percent for TID (p< 0.0001) versus placebo at two years.

It is believed that BG-12 has dual anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects via the Nrf2 pathway.

The results from the CONFIRM study showed that BG-12 beats Teva's Copaxone, which reduced the ARR by only 29 percent (p< 0.02) compared with placebo at two years.

With two robust and positive pivotal clinical trials that exposed BG-12 to over 2,600 patients, the drug is well positioned as a top MS therapy of choice and a formidable competitor to Gilenya from Novartis, which gained FDA approval in September 2010.











Monday, October 24, 2011

Pancreatic Cancer

According to American Cancer Society, more than 44,000 new cases of pancreatic cancer will be giagnosed in the U.S. and over 37,000 deaths are expected in 2011.

Approved Drugs:

Single agent:
Gemzar [gemcitabine] : Eli Lilly (LLY), single agent, approved  in1997 for locally advanced or metastatic panreatic exocrine cancer. Median OS: 5.7 months, one-year probability of survival rate: 18%.

Combination agents:
Gemzar [gemcitabine] plus Tarceva [erlotinib] from Roche/Astellas Parma, the only successful combination approved by the FDA in 2005. Median OS: 6.4 months, one-year survival rate: 23%.


From: 13 Drug Companies Trying to Beat the Odds in Pancreatic Cancer

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Life Sciences: The Rodney Dangerfield of Venture Capital

Life Sciences: The Rodney Dangerfield of Venture Capital July 11, 2011


Note to Readers: This blog post was co-written by Bruce Booth and Bijan Salehizadeh, who co-authored an article in the July 2011 issue of Nature Biotechnology, detailing the differences in returns between Life Sciences and Tech investing.

Most venture capitalists think that Tech investing has been what makes the best returns – which is why they’re pouring money into Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and the like. They may be right now and in the future, but at least over the past decade, they’ve been wrong: in the 2000′s, venture investing in the Life Sciences has outperformed venture investing in Tech.  Continue

Monday, May 30, 2011

Health ETF

Good Health ETFs:

FBT, XPH, FXH, PJP, IHE, IBB, RYH, XBI, IHF

Monday, March 15, 2010

China Investment Corporation (CIC, 中投) portfolio

China Investment Corporation (CIC) (中国投资有限责任公司) company site:
http://www.china-inv.cn/cicen/

中国投资有限责任公司(以下简称“中投公司”)成立于2007年9月29日. 是从事外汇资金投资管理业务的国有独资公司, 注册资金2000亿美元 (US$ 200 billion). 中央汇金投资有限责任公司(简称“中央汇金”)是中投公司的全资子公司.

CIC(中投) recently filed their first 13-F disclosure with the US securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). An analysis of the portfolio by Rachel Ziemba (Feb 7, 2010) can be found here : A Glimpse Inside the CIC’s Portfolio . Here is the portfolio with a total value of $9,627,431,000(http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1468702/000095012310009135/c95690e13fvhr.txt).

Company (value x $1000):
Abbott Labs (2,700)
Aetna Inc (3,170)
American Eagle Outfitters (3,396)
American Intl Group Inc (UNIT 99/99/9999) (11,330)
American Intl Group Inc (2,998)
AMR Corp (2,324)
Anadarko Pete Corp (6,242)
Anglogold Ashanti Ltd (4,018)
Apple Inc (6,326)
Arcelormittal SA Luxembourg (9,150)
A123 Sys Inc (3,478)

Bank of America Corporation (19,888)
Blackrock Inc (713,805)
Burlington Northn Santa Fe C (4,931)

Chesapeake Energy Corp (5,176)
Citigroup Inc (29,790)
Coca Cola Co (9,012)
Comerica Inc (2,957)
CSX Corp (1,455)
Cummins Inc (4,586)

D R Horton Inc (2,436)

Expeditors Intl Wash Inc (421)

Fidelity National Financial (2,692)
Freeport-McMoran Copper & Go (4,736)

Gold Fields Ltd New (SPONSORED ADR) (4,589)
Goodyear Tire & Rubr Co (1,410)

Hartford Finl Svcs Group Inc (4,652)
Health Net Inc (2,329)

Ingersoll-Rand PLC (6,147)

iShares Inc MSCI JAPAN (58,440)
iShares TR Index FTSE XNHUA IDX (105,675)
iShares TR Index MSCI EMERG MKT (186,750)
iShares TR Index MSCI EAFE IDX (207,375)
iShares TR Index RUSSELL 2000 (108,955)
iShares TR Index S&P GBL ENER (106,862)
iShares TR S&P GLB MTRLS (254,293)

Johnson & Johnson (9,339)

Kar Auction Svcs Inc (6,640)
Keycorp New (1,110)
Kinross Gold Corp (4,600)
KLA-Tencor Corp (2,518)

Lilly Eli & Co (3,571)
Lincoln Natl Corp Ind (5,125)

Market Vectors ETF TR GOLD MINER ETF (116,357)

MEMC Electr Matls Inc (1,362)
Merck & Co Inc New (7,308)
Metlife Inc (2,298)
Morgan Stanley (1,772,761)
Motorola Inc (3,880)

Navistar Intl Corp New (7,730)
News Corp (4,107)
New York Cmnty Bancorp Inc (4,353)
Noble Corporation BAAR NAMEN- AKT (4,070)

Pfizer Inc (2,821)
Potash Corp Sask Inc (5,425)
Powershares QQQ Trust UNIT SER1 (137,760)
Precision Castparts Corp (2,594)
Pulte Homes Inc (3,000)

Research in Motion Ltd COM (1,013)

Select Sector SPDR TR SBI CONS DISCR (89,310)
Select Sector SPDR TR SBI CONS STPLS (52,940)
Select Sector SPDR TR SBI HEALTHCARE (93,240)
Select Sector SPDR TR SBI INT-ENERGY (235,446)
Select Sector SPDR TR SBI INT- FINL (129,510)
Select Sector SPDR TR SBI INT-INDS (97,265)
Select Sector SPDR TR SBI MATERIALS (82,500)

Smith Intl Inc (5,434)
Shanda Games Ltd (1,529)

SPDR Gold Trust GOLD SHS (155,600)
SPDR Series Trust S&P OILGAS EXP (4,121)
SPDR TR UNIT SER 1 (139,300)

Sprint Nextel Corp (1,468)

Teck Resources Ltd. CL B (3,542,617)
Terex Corp New (4,796)
Tesoro Corp (2,710)
Textron Inc (3,048)

UnitedHealth Group Inc (3,048)
United States Oil Fund LP (78,560)

Valero Energy Corp New (1,675)
Vales S A ADR (200,207)
Vales S A ADR REPSTG PFD (297,840)
Visa Inc (353,815)

Weatherford International LT (3,582)
Wells Fargo & Co New (31,039)

Thursday, November 26, 2009

2009 Top 100 Chinese Real Estate Development Companies

2009年中国房地产开发企业500强之百强榜单

(Sources: http://news.dichan.sina.com.cn/2009/11/26/89879.html)

排名 企业名称
1 万科企业股份有限公司
2 中国海外发展有限公司
3 保利房地产(集团)股份有限公司
4 绿地集团
5 华润置地有限公司
6 恒大地产集团有限公司
7 世茂集团
8 碧桂园控股有限公司
9 广州富力地产股份有限公司
10 万达集团股份有限公司
11 龙湖集团
12 雅居乐地产控股有限公司
13 金地(集团)股份有限公司
14 合生创展集团有限公司
15 远洋地产控股有限公司
16 绿城中国控股有限公司
17 招商局地产控股股份有限公司
18 大华(集团)有限公司
19 金融街控股股份有限公司
20 北京首都开发股份有限公司
21 融侨集团股份有限公司
22 首创置业股份有限公司
23 SOHO中国有限公司
24 世纪金源集团
25 中信地产
26 星河湾地产控股有限公司
27 瑞安房地产有限公司
28 中华企业股份有限公司
29 越秀城建地产
30 重庆市金科实业(集团)有限公司
31 北京北辰实业股份有限公司
32 复地(集团)股份有限公司
33 新湖中宝股份有限公司
34 上置集团有限公司
35 江苏新城地产股份有限公司
36 方兴地产(中国)有限公司
37 四川蓝光和骏实业股份有限公司
38 凯德置地
39 北京万通地产股份有限公司
40 中铁置业集团有限公司
41 鸿荣源房地产开发有限公司
42 上海陆家嘴金融贸易区开发股份有限公司
43 卓越置业集团有限公司
44 珠海华发实业股份有限公司
45 北京融科智地房地产开发有限公司
46 上海中星(集团)有限公司
47 泛海建设集团股份有限公司
48 合景泰富地产控股有限公司
49 亿达集团有限公司
50 浙江省商业集团有限公司
51 厦门建发股份有限公司
52 新世界中国地产有限公司
53 建业地产股份有限公司
54 河北卓达房地产集团有限公司
55 上海城投控股股份有限公司
56 雅戈尔集团股份有限公司
57 苏宁环球股份有限公司
58 上海实业发展股份有限公司
59 沿海绿色家园有限公司
60 天津市房地产发展(集团)股份有限公司
61 鑫苑(中国)置业有限公司
62 南京栖霞建设股份有限公司
63 佳兆业集团控股有限公司
64 北京金隅股份有限公司
65 旭辉集团股份有限公司
66 青岛海尔房地产开发投资有限公司
67 荣盛房地产发展股份有限公司
68 杭州滨江房产集团股份有限公司
69 北京城建投资发展股份有限公司
70 恒盛地产控股有限公司
71 上海城投置地有限公司
72 上海建工股份有限公司
73 武汉地产开发投资集团有限公司
74 上海宝华企业集团有限公司
75 阳光100置业集团
76 上海市上投房地产有限公司
77 青岛海信房地产股份有限公司
78 北京住总集团有限责任公司
79 安徽元一集团
80 农工商房地产(集团)股份有限公司
81 宁波银亿房地产开发有限公司
82 中粮地产(集团)股份有限公司
83 上海证大房地产有限公司
84 亿城集团股份有限公司
85 中国奥园地产集团股份有限公司
86 天津泰达股份有限公司
87 深圳华侨城控股股份有限公司
88 江苏国信地产
89 盛高置地(控股)有限公司
90 湖北福星科技股份有限公司
91 上海爱家投资(集团)有限公司
92 中国宝安集团股份有限公司
93 上海新长宁(集团)有限公司
94 广东珠江投资股份有限公司
95 阳光新业地产股份有限公司
96 华远地产股份有限公司
97 中体产业集团股份有限公司
98 上海鹏欣(集团)有限公司
99 上海景瑞地产(集团)股份有限公司
100 坤和建设集团股份有限公司

  榜单说明:根据用主成份分析法对房地产上市公司的各项指标进行测算的结果,发现其第一主成分指标对企业综合实力的代表性达到70%以上。考虑到房地产开发企业500强测评研究需要收集的数据量巨大,本次测评排行中,将房地产销售收入作为第一核心测评指标,其中,对于租赁经营业务、自主开发经营业务占比较大的开发企业,加上房地产租赁经营收入和房地产其他业务收入;将房地产销售面积作为第二核心测评指标,而对于考核年度内,核心指标数据差距较小的企业,我们则通过企业提供调查表中的相应参考指标,并将所有指标数据录入测评模型进行测算,得出最终的排行结果。

Sunday, June 7, 2009

YTD performance of India related ETFs

There are three ETFs trading in the US market that invest in India stocks. All of them performed very well this year.

iPath MSCI India Index ETN(INP) invests in 59 Giant and large stocks. The YTD return is 66.50%. It's top 10 holdings make up 58.13% of the assets. The biggest holding is Reliance Industries Ltd. at 16.99%. Infosys Technologies, Ltd. at 10.33%, ICICI Limited at 5.58%, Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. at 5.43%, HDFC Bank, Ltd. at 4.54%.

WisdomTree India Earnings (EPI) invests in 142 stocks. The YTD return is 66.36%. 43.92% of the assets are invested in the Giant companies. 33.28% in large companies and 20.96% in medium companies. It's top 10 holdings make up 48.77% of the assets. The single biggest holding is Reliance Industries Ltd. (18.61%). Infosys Technologies, Ltd. 7.62%, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. 5.67%, Bharti Airtel Ltd. 4.31%, ICICI Limited 2.87%.

PowerShares India (PIN) invests in 50 stocks. The YTD return is 57.85%. 43.55% of the assets are invested in giant companies, 50.09% in large companies and 6.37% in Medium companies. It's top 10 holdings make up 55.06% of the assets. The biggest holding is also Reliance Industries Ltd. at 11.27%, Infosys Technologies, Ltd. at 9.29%, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. at 9.05%, Hindustan Unilever Ltd. at 4.85%, Bharti Airtel Ltd. at 4.66%.























Related Posts:

YTD performance of China Related ETFs (2009/05/30)

Sunday, May 31, 2009

YTD performance of China Related ETFs (2009/05/30)

YTD performance of China Related ETFs (2009/05/30):

Two new China related ETF funds: Claymore/AlphaShares China Real Estate (TAO) and Claymore/AlphaShares China Small Cap Index ETF(HAO) performed very well so far this year with YTD return of ~ 58%. iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index Fund (FXI) returned only 28%, lagging all of the China ETF funds. The bear market fund ProShares Ultrashort FTSE/Xinhua China (FXP) last -61%, confirming the uptrend of the market.











The return of the Shanghai Composite in June for the last 18 years

How will the China related ETF funds perform in June? Here is the list of the returns of the Shanghai Composite index in June in the last 18 years. It remains to be seen if there is any correlation between the returns of the ETF funds and the the Shanghai Composite index.



Sunday, March 29, 2009

Lazy Portfolios: Quarterly Performance Update (3/27/09)

First quarter has passed, how did the Lazy Portfolios do? The table below shows the YTD performance update of the Lazy Portfolios on 3/27/09. The Total Bond portfolio continued to rank at the top. The best performing Lazy Portfolio is now the Aronson Family Portfolio (Rank 2) , moved up from rank3 in the previous performance period, although the YTD return fell from -4.67% (1/28/09) to -4.9%. Another portfolio remained relatively steady was the Margaritaville portfolio, up from -5.52% previously (1/28/09) to -5.31% now. The best performaning portfolio - Dr. Bernstein's Smart Money portfolio fell from rank2 (-4.34% on 1/28/09) to rank4. The worst performing portfolio was still the Yale Unconventional Portfolio, down -11.65% YTD. (Note: All YTD data are from Vanguard.com)


1. Total Bond Index (Rank 1) (Benchmark)
2. Aronson Family Portfolio (Rank 2)
3. Margaritaville (Rank 3)
4. Dr. Bernstein's Smart Money (Rank 4)
5. The Ultimate Buy&Hold (Rank 5)
6. Starter portfolio (Rank 6)
7. Total Stock Index (Rank 7) (Benchmark)
8. Dr Bernstein's No Brainer (Rank 8)
9. Coffeehouse (Rank 9)
10. Yale Unconventional (Rank 10)



Related Posts:
Lazy Portfolio Research:

Individual Fund Performance in the Lazy Portfolios

Lazy Portfolios: Weekly performance Update of the individual Funds (2/20/2009)

Lazy Portfolios: Weekly performance Update of the individual Funds (2/13/2009)

Lazy Portfolios: Weekly performance Update of the individual Funds (2/7/2009)


Other
Which is better? An Index Fund Portfolio or An Actively Managed Fund Portfolio?

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Lazy Portfolios (5): Realized and Unrealized Gain/Losses of The Individual Funds

Following the recent stock market crash, The stock and international funds suffered heavy losses. Many mutual funds frequently make year-end capital gains distributions. Lat year, many of them distributed the realized losses by the end of the year. You can also sell your funds that suffered heavy losses so you can use the realized losses to offset the realized gains (if any) for tax purpose. This is called "Tax Loss Harvesting". However, many of the funds also have some unrealized losses carried over from last year. How big the unrealized losses could be?

The realized and unrealized capital gain or loss can be found from Vanguard's website under Fund Distribution tab for each of the fund. Here are the results for the individual funds making the Lazy Portfolios.

As of 1/31/09, the US stock funds have realized capital losses of -5% to -115%. The unrealized appreciation/depreciation ranges from -2% to -275%. The worst funds that have huge total realized and unrealized losses are: Vanguard Small Cap Value Index (VISVX): -346.85%, Vanguard Small Cap Growth Index (VISGX): -288.10%, Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX): -282.84%, Vanguard Value Index (VIVAX): -186.10%. In comparison, the Vanguard 500 Index (VFINX) and the Vanguard Total Stock Mkt Idx (VTSMX) have total losses of -11.15% and -43.80% respectly.

Most of the international funds have total losses ranged from -46% to -69%. The only international fund that carries the worst loss is the Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX), a huge loss of -315.89%.

These numbers look very scary. How many years will it take for the funds to recover the heavy losses even in good times, let alone in a worst recession of our life time?



























Related Posts:

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Lazy Portfolios: Weekly Performance Update of The Individual Funds (2/20/09)

Following last week's heavy loss (with the stock funds down an average of -5%), this is the 2nd week that the entire stock market lost grand, with both the US and international stock markets lost an average of another 6% each. The Vanguard Total Stock Mkt Idx (VTSMX) and the Vanguard 500 Index (VFINX) are both down more than 14% YTD. The Vanguard Total Intl Stock Index (VGTSX) is down more than 17% YTD. The biggest loser of the stock funds is the REIT Index (VGSIX), down about 29%, nearly 1/3 of its value, following a -37% return last year.

The bond funds still hold up fine, especially the Vanguard High-Yield Corporate fund (VWEHX) , up > 5% YTD. Although up ~ 1% last week, the Vanguard Long-Term U.S. Treasury (VUSTX) is still the big loser among the bond funds, down -7.5% YTD.

The average YTD returns for both markets are now down -17%, comparable to a whole year return for a bear market, and we are just two months into this year. The questions are: how long this bear market will drag on? Can the lazy portfolios stand another bad bear market year? Both are the questions no one can answer now, only time can tell.


(1) The YTD and Weekly change table of the individual Vanguard funds in the lazy portfolios (2/20/2009). (Note: data from google finance)


















(2) The weekly change of the individual Vanguard funds in the lazy portfolios (2/20/2009)


















(3) The YTD return of the individual Vanguard funds in the lazy portfolios (2/20/2009).


Sunday, February 15, 2009

Lazy Portfolios: Weekly Performance Update of the Individual Funds (2/13/09)

Last week's up momentum has vanished. This week, the individual stock funds in the Lazy portfolios all lost grand, giving up most of the gains from last week. Bond funds kept steady, recovered most of the small losses from last week. The following table shows the performance changes from the last two weeks. (Note: Data from Google finance).






















Results:


(1) The YTD returns of the bond funds in the Lazy Portfolios kept steady last week with little change. The Vanguard High-Yield Corporate fund (VWEHX) is still the best performer, up 6.72% YTD. Last year's best performer, the Vanguard Long-Term U.S. Treasury (VUSTX), is the big loser among the bond funds, down -8.5% YTD.

(2) The US stock funds lost from 5 to 26%. The Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX) is the worst YTD performer, lost a wopping 26%.

(3) The international funds lost from 3 - 13% YTD. The best performing international fund is still the Vanguard Emerging Mkts Stock Idx(VEIEX), lost only -3.36% YTD, compared with more than 10% lost with all other international funds.


















(4) The US stock funds and the international funds run into deep red this week, lost most of the gains from last week. The US stock funds were down ~ 5.53% for the week, dragged down by the Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX) which lost more than 11% for the week. The international funds lost an average of 3.93% for the week. The best performer is the Vanguard Interm-Term Treasury fund (VFITX), up 0.73% for the week.
















Related Posts:


Saturday, February 7, 2009

Lazy Portfolios: Weekly Performance Update of the Individual Funds (2/7/2009)

Following the worst January ever, down more than 10% for many of the stock funds, how did we do this week? The following table shows the YTD performance of the individual funds that constitute the eight Lazy Portfolios as of 2/6/09 . (Note: The data were collected from Google Finance.)


Weekly Performance Update of the Individual Funds (2/7/2009)























Results:

(1) The stock and international funds are still down YTD as of 2/6/09, although this week's strong performance has reduced the loss of many stock and international funds.



















(2) The US stock funds performed better this week, up an average of 4.85%.


(3) The international funds did pretty well too, up an average of 4.5%. The Vanguard Emerging Mkts Stock Idx (VEIEX) performed the best for the week, up 7.32%.


(4) The bond funds lagged behind this week with many posted negative returns. The two bond funds that posted positive returns are: the Vanguard Inflation-Protected Secs (VIPSX) and the Vanguard High-Yield Corporate (VWEHX). The Vanguard High-Yield Corporate fund is also the best performer YTD, up 6.54%.
























Related Posts:

Lazy Portfolios (4) Detailed Analysis of the Individual Funds
Lazy Portfolios: 2009 YTD Performance Update
Lazy Portfolios (3): Surprise, Surprise, the total bond portfolio beats them all
Lazy Portfolios (2): Risk Analysis
Lazy Portfolios (1): A 10 year Performance Comparison
Which is better? An Index Fund Portfolio or An Actively Managed Fund Portfolio?


Sunday, February 1, 2009

Lazy Portfolios (4): Detailed Analysis of the Individual Funds

The eight famous Lazy Fortfolios consist of a mix of 3-11 funds from 21 individual Vanguard funds. Seven of them are bond funds, eight are stock funds including a speciality real estate fund, and six are international funds. The funds in each group are listed below:

Bond Funds:

Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade (VFSTX)
Vanguard Short-Term Treasury (VFISX)
Vanguard Interm-Term Treasury (VFITX)
Vanguard Long-Term U.S. Treasury (VUSTX)
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX)
Vanguard Inflation-Protected Secs (VIPSX)
Vanguard High-Yield Corporate (VWEHX)

Stock Funds:

Vanguard Small Cap Index (NAESX)
Vanguard Small Cap Value Index (VISVX)
Vanguard Small Cap Growth Index (VISGX)
Vanguard Extended Market Idx (VEXMX)
Vanguard Value Index (VIVAX)
Vanguard 500 Index (VFINX)
Vanguard Total Stock Mkt Idx (VTSMX)
Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX)

International Funds:

Vanguard Emerging Mkts Stock Idx (VEIEX)
Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX)
Vanguard Developed Markets Index (VDMIX)
Vanguard European Stock Index (VEURX)
Vanguard International Value (VTRIX)
Vanguard Total Intl Stock Index (VGTSX)


Results:


The following table shows the YTD return (1/30/09) of these individual funds. (Note: data from finance.google.com)

(1) The bond funds performed better as a group, except the Vanguard Long-Term U.S. Treasury (VUSTX) fund which returned -8.49%, similar to the Vanguard Total Stock Mkt Idx (VTSMX) .















(2) The stock and international funds all performed not well for the first month of the year, returned an average of -10% YTD.















(3) The risk of the fund is normally reflected by the STD (standard deviation) of the fund. The larger the STD, the risker the fund. When compared the one year STD of the funds to the one year returns, the bond funds (with an average STD of 9.98) returned an average of -0.29%.






















(4) The stock funds with a average STD of 27.11, returned an average of -38.97% last year. However, the REIT index lost -47.82%.

(5) Although the average STD (28.91) of the international funds was similar to that of the stock funds, the international funds performed worst (with an average return of -45.26% last year). Again proved the common notion that the international funds were generally more risky.






















Conclusion:

Although the returns of the assets in a group are generally variable, the differences of the returns among the different investment classes (bonds, stocks, international stocks) are generally greater. The asset allocation among these investment classes would be a bigger factor to determine the final return of a portfolio.





Related Posts:

Lazy Portfolios: 2009 YTD Performance Update
Lazy Portfolios (1): A 10 year Performance Comparison
Lazy Portfolios (2): Risk Analysis
Lazy Portfolios (3): Surprise, Surprise, the total bond portfolio beats them all
Which is better? An Index Fund Portfolio or An Actively Managed Fund Portfolio?

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Lazy Portfolios: 2009 YTD Performance Update

In the past 10 years (1998-2008), the Ultimate Buy&Hold portfolio performed the best. Now how did they do this year? Which one is the winner up to now?

The table below shows the YTD performance update of the Lazy Portfolios on 1/28/09. The Total Bond portfolio continued to perform well (Rank 1). The best performing Lazy Portfolio is now Dr. Bernstein's Smart Money (Rank 2) . The 10 year best performing portfolio - The Ultimate Buy&Hold - is Ranked at 6, only slightly better than the total stock market index portfolio (Ranked 7). The three portfolios performed below the markets are Dr Bernstein's No Brainer (Rank 8), the 8 year old Starter portfolio (Rank 9), and the Yale Unconventional Portfolio (Rank 10). (Note: All YTD data are from Vanguard.com)

1. Total Bond Index (Rank 1) (Benchmark)
2. Dr. Bernstein's Smart Money (Rank 2)
3. Aronson Family Portfolio (Rank 3)
4. Margaritaville (Rank 4)
5. Coffeehouse (Rank 5)
6. The Ultimate Buy&Hold (Rank 6)

7. Total Stock Index (Rank 7) (Benchmark)
8. Dr Bernstein's No Brainer (Rank 8)
9. Starter portfolio (Rank 9)
10. Yale Unconventional (Rank 10)






























Related Posts:

Lazy Portfolios (1): A 10 year Performance Comparison
Lazy Portfolios (2): Risk Analysis
Lazy Portfolios (3): Surprise, Surprise, the total bond portfolio beats them all
Which is better? An Index Fund Portfolio or An Actively Managed Fund Portfolio?



































































































Sunday, January 11, 2009

Lazy Portfolios (3): Surprise, Surprise, the Total Bond Portfolio Beats Them All

In the last post, we analyzed the asset allocation and risk associated with the 8 famous lazy portfolios, and found that the three portfolios (the Ultimate Buy & Hold, the Coffee House and Dr. Bernstein's Smart Money) with 40% /60% bond/stock allocation performed best in the last 10 years (1998-2008). We also found that the more stocks in a portfolio, the worse the total return. It strikes me that what mattered here might not be the funds the portfolios contain, but rather the stock/bond asset allocation in a portfolio.

Since the three portfolios contain different bond funds and it's not easy to compare them directly, I used the Vanguard Total Bond Index fund and Total Stock Index fund to form different sample portfolios from 100% stock to 100% bond as benchmark to do the comparison here. Surprise, surprise, the 100% bond portfolio performed better than all the Lazy Portfolios tested.


Results:

(1) The 100% bond sample portfolio (the green line in the following chart) performed the best, safely avoided the stock market crash during 2000-2002 and the most recent massive stock market crash in 2008 that pushed the economy in severe recession.





















(2) When compared to the sample portfolios of the same stock/bond asset allocation, the Lazy portfolios beat all of the sample portfolios by a wide margin.




















(3) The Ultimate Buy& Hold portfolio performed the best until 2007. The -20% return in 2008 pushed it's total return to $176,680, slightly behinds the 90% bond/10% stock portfolio ($179,242) and the 100% bond portfolio ($183,129).


















Conclusion:

Where should I invest my money now? If you want to play it safe and be really really lazy, you could put all your money in the total bond fund and forget about it. If you still want to play, the Ultimate Buy& Hold portfolio should still be a very good choice if the stock market reverses it's current downturn and becomes bullish again.


Related Posts:

Lazy Portfolios (1): A 10 year Performance Comparison
Lazy Portfolios (2): Risk Analysis
Which is better? An Index Fund Portfolio or An Actively Managed Fund Portfolio?

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Lazy Portfolios (2): Risk Analysis

In the previous post, we compared the total 10 year return of the lazy portfolios and found that the Ultimate Buy&Hold Portfolio was the winner. However, the portfolios are not created equal, since the allocation of the bond funds and stock funds are not the same in these portfolios. How much risk we would have to take in order to achieve the total return in each of these portfolios?

Historical return suggests that stocks always out-perform bonds in the long run. General assumption is that the more stocks in a portfolio, the higher return, and also the higher risk involved. So what is the bond and stock allocation in each of the portfolio and how the asset allocation corresponds to the total return in 10 years?

The table below lists the total return, bond and stock allocation of the Lazy Portfolios.

(1) The first group of the portfolios (Ultimate Buy & Hold, Coffee House and Dr. Bernstein's Smart Money) contains 40% bond funds and 60% stock funds, the highest bond allocation (40%) in the group. They can be considered to be the safest in the Lazy Portfolios.
(2) The next group of portfolios (Margaritaville, Yale unconventional, Aronson Family Portfolio) contains ~ 70% stock funds and 30% bond funds. This group can be considered the 2nd safest portfolios.
(3) Dr. Bernstein's No Brainer portfolio contains 75% stock funds. This is a relatively aggressive portfolio.
(4) The second grader's Starter Portfolio contains 90% stock funds. It can be considered as a very aggressive portfolio.
(5) The last one is the Vanguard S&P500 Index which contains 100% stock, used as comparison.
















In contrast to our general belief that more stocks, higher return, the first group of portfolio with 60% stock and 40% bond performed the best during the period studied (1998-2008). As you can see from the graph below, it looks like that the total return is inversely related to the stock allocation in these portfolios. The higher the stock allocation, the lower the total return, with the S&P500 Index performed the worst.

















Conclusion:
The first group of Lazy portfolios with 40% bond/60% Stock allocation (Ultimate Buy & Hold, Coffee House and Dr. Bernstein's Smart Money) gave the best return during the 10 year (1998-2008) studied. In this case, the higher the stock allocation, the lower total return. The Ultimate Buy&Hold portfolio gave the best return with a relatively safe asset allocation (40% bond, 60% stock), the best choice with controlled risk in the group.

Saturday, January 3, 2009

Lazy Portfolios (1): A 10 Year Performance Comparison

I was reading Paul Farrell's most recent article "Lazy Portfolios vote for a winning 2009 -Upbeat new year ahead after beating S&P 500 by 3-18 points in 2008" today and found it very interesting. In a 5 year period, the portfolios returned from 0.62% - 3.07% annually compared to -1.53% for S&P500 (see results published on Marketwatch.com Lazy Portfolios). The results didn't looked that much different in a 5 year turn and I wondered how these portfolios would really perform in a long run (e.g. for 10 year).

Each of these portfolios consist of a 3-11 low cost, no-load mutual funds from Vanguard with different percentage allocations. Assuming each portfolio started with $100,000 at the beginning of 1998, here are the final performance results for these portfolios for the past 10 years (1998-2008).
















(Note: The annual return data for each of the funds was from Vanguard.com. For funds do not have a full 10 years return, it was assumed that the money allocated was kept in cash with 0% return).

Conclusions:

1. Portfolio return compared to S&P500: The final 10 year total return of each of the Lazy Portfolio comfortably beats that of S&P500. The first place portfolio Ultimate Buy&Hold Portfolio returned 59% more than that of S&P500.





























2. Comparison of 10 year total return: The Ultimate Buy&Hold Portfolio was the winner with a final value of $161,480 (without annual rebalancing) or $176,680 (with annual rebalancing) after 10 year. The least return was obtained by the 2nd grader's starter portfolio with a final value of $128,880 (without annual rebalancing) or $132,608 (with annual rebalancing) . A difference of $32,600 without rebalancing or $44,072 with annual rebalancing.


















3. Annual rebalancing improved the final return for each portfolio.
















4. While the final winner at 2008 was the Ultimate Buy&Hold Portfolio , the S&P500 fund gave slightly better return during the .com bubble during 1998-2000.
















Related Posts:


Lazy Portfolios (2): Risk Analysis
Lazy Portfolios (3): Surprise, Surprise, the total bond portfolio beats them all
Which is better? An Index Fund Portfolio or An Actively Managed Fund Portfolio?