Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Post Reply
Topic Author
boglecranium
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:28 pm

Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by boglecranium » Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 pm

Serious question here but these two vanguard funds, one in energy/oil and one in metals/mining seem like theyre close to a nadir and maybe a very good buy? Im definitely no expert but just curious on other peoples thoughts.
The energy fund may even go lower if the predictions about oil going lower this summer are correct.

vgenx (energy)
vgpmx (metals/mining)

z3r0c00l
Posts: 1538
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by z3r0c00l » Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:55 pm

There is simply no way to know. They could go lower, could go to near zero and then close, or could stay the same for a decade. What you should know is that neither one of these funds directly tracks, nor always correlates with the value of precious metals or oil. These are not commodity funds, they are focused investments in companies that profit from those commodities. A huge difference. And the last time oil went way up, the energy funds did not all follow. Gold is up pretty darn high too, so why is PMX still suffering? Most of the decline of PMX is due to odd things like a major collapse in the Canadian Potash Industry. Not sure about you, but I don't want to have a heavy concentration in the potash industry.

The energy fund was down near 20 not too long ago. That means a potential further loss of 70%. A real risk.

Stocks and funds sometimes go way down then go way way up, and we kick ourselves for not buying a few thousand shares. But that is a confirmation bias (or some other bias that I can't remember right now). Because far more stocks go down and down and then go bust. And generally speaking, the best predictor of poor performance in the future is poor performance in the past.
Last edited by z3r0c00l on Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

livesoft
Posts: 69601
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by livesoft » Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:57 pm

Suppose they are at a nadir, so what? If they stay there while something else goes up 50%, I'd rather own that something else. I can also buy them just before they start to go up dramatically.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 17148
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by abuss368 » Tue Mar 17, 2015 10:09 pm

Sector funds are not needed. In fact, Jack Bogle has stated an investor could never own a sector fund and be just fine.
John C. Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio: Total Stock & Total Bond. "Simplicity is the master key to financial success."

Topic Author
boglecranium
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:28 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by boglecranium » Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:03 pm

Great comments
I appreciate the insight

Dandy
Posts: 6069
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Dandy » Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:19 am

It is probably better to jump in when sectors are down a lot than when they are up a lot. But, even the pro's that follow energy and metals don't really know where they are going and when. Who really saw this oil glut/price decline coming? All the trouble in the Middle East and US shale oil was a game changer? It could be years before things turn around or maybe next month.

So, if you planned to invest in these funds for awhile then maybe now is not a bad time. But, if you think you are swooping in to make a relatively fast buck - maybe that is the wrong reason. Try not to get a gambling high or ego boost with making investment decisions - that usually doesn't work out well over time. There are a lot of experts in those commodities that are trying to figure out what is the right price - and they don't know.

rkhusky
Posts: 7879
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by rkhusky » Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:24 am

abuss368 wrote:Sector funds are not needed. In fact, Jack Bogle has stated an investor could never own a sector fund and be just fine.
What's up with that? I just read in Money that if I invest in last year's worst performing S&P 500 sector, I could trounce the S&P 500 over time. :)

User avatar
Toons
Posts: 13427
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Hills of Tennessee

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Toons » Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:27 am

If you choose to buy a sector fund,plan on holding it minimum 10 years as they always fall in and out of favor(Reversion to the mean),,,healthcare,energy,banking,telecommunications,,etc.
I have been there and done that with Utilities,Latin America,Regional Banks,Telecommunications.but sold them all.The only one I still own is a healthcare fund. :happy
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee

User avatar
midareff
Posts: 6465
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by midareff » Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:30 am

I suspect any investment you buy with the idea of timing the market is a mistake.

Stonebr
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:19 am
Location: Maine

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Stonebr » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:20 am

One reminder about precious metals is that when the bear market in gold started in about 1981, it went on for a long time. It was, I think, about 25 years before gold broke over the previous all-time high of $800 an ounce.
"have more than thou showest, | speak less than thou knowest" -- The Fool in King Lear

red5
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by red5 » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:24 am

rkhusky wrote:
abuss368 wrote:Sector funds are not needed. In fact, Jack Bogle has stated an investor could never own a sector fund and be just fine.
What's up with that? I just read in Money that if I invest in last year's worst performing S&P 500 sector, I could trounce the S&P 500 over time. :)
Or the S&P 500 could trounce you over time :)

leod
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by leod » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:32 am

red5 wrote:
rkhusky wrote:
abuss368 wrote:Sector funds are not needed. In fact, Jack Bogle has stated an investor could never own a sector fund and be just fine.
What's up with that? I just read in Money that if I invest in last year's worst performing S&P 500 sector, I could trounce the S&P 500 over time. :)
Or the S&P 500 could trounce you over time :)
Bogle also mentioned that international is not needed and yet majority of BH holds intl.

I have REIT sector since it should not be highly correlated to the S&P but that is not the case lately but still continue to hold for long term. not a fan of PMX and no plan on adding that but I am tempted on ENX.

acejacksingh
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:15 am

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by acejacksingh » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:57 am

livesoft wrote: I can also buy them just before they start to go up dramatically.
How do you know when they will go up "dramatically"?

User avatar
Dutch
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Dutch » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:32 am

I've started buying into both funds in 2015 with new money. Same for emerging markets.

To continue putting new money in US stocks or bonds, just goes against the grain at this point.

We will see if this turns out to be a smart move or not. I'm in it for the long haul

Sidney
Posts: 6736
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:06 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Sidney » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:35 am

Crude approaching $40 again. I suppose we could just as easily see $20 as $80. There seems to be nowhere to store the stuff anymore.
I always wanted to be a procrastinator.

User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Advisory Board
Posts: 28953
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

Vanguard's worst funds

Post by Taylor Larimore » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:54 am

boglecranium wrote:Serious question here but these two vanguard funds, one in energy/oil and one in metals/mining seem like theyre close to a nadir and maybe a very good buy? Im definitely no expert but just curious on other peoples thoughts.
The energy fund may even go lower if the predictions about oil going lower this summer are correct.

vgenx (energy)
vgpmx (metals/mining)
boglecranium:

In 1990 Vanguard's Gold fund had the WORST return of all Vanguard funds.
In 1991 Vanguard's Energy fund had the WORST return of all Vanguard funds.

Invest in total market index funds and you will never find yourself in under-performing funds.

Best wishes.
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle

User avatar
Runalong
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:22 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Runalong » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:57 am

Over a 10 year time frame VTI has trounced all four Vanguard sector funds.

But I believe there have been studies on entire sectors from both a value and momentum perspective.

It makes sense that if a sector is lower relative to other sectors than it has been historically, there should be some value there. Eventually one would expect it to revert to the mean at least somewhat. Just understand that "eventually" can be a long time with sectors.

And I believe I read somewhere that a strategy of buying last year's hot sector(s) and holding for one year would handily beat the S&P. Momentum, you know. But remember that when momentum ends, it often ends dramatically.

Sectors do fall in and out of favor with investors and are subject to herd mentality. But bear markets for sectors often seem to persist for a very long time (e.g. precious metals and mining the last 4-5 years) and hot sectors often fall sharply and quickly when the mood changes (e.g., energy last year).

If you aren't a Boglehead purist and you think you can come up with a winning strategy, look at Fidelity, they are the sector fund kings.

bkweathe
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:02 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by bkweathe » Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:45 pm

Runalong wrote:
It makes sense that if a sector is lower relative to other sectors than it has been historically, there should be some value there.
I wish I had been around to use that logic when slide-rule makers went out of favor a few decades ago. I'd have made a killing when they became popular again! :wink:

Brad

User avatar
SteelyEyed
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:34 am

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by SteelyEyed » Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:11 pm

rkhusky wrote:
abuss368 wrote:Sector funds are not needed. In fact, Jack Bogle has stated an investor could never own a sector fund and be just fine.
What's up with that? I just read in Money that if I invest in last year's worst performing S&P 500 sector, I could trounce the S&P 500 over time. :)
Did they call it the "Dogs of the S&P 500" strategy?

User avatar
Runalong
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:22 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Runalong » Wed Mar 18, 2015 3:37 pm

Brad,

I don't think you know what "sector" means!

"Energy" is a sector. "Health Care" is a sector. "Technology" is a sector. "Defense", "Financials", Et cetera.

I don't think any of these sectors will be going extinct in my lifetime. I do think that they will ebb and flow in popularity and that buying during low tides makes more sense than buying high. If one is going to buy. Since we don't have tide tables for stocks, it's still a risky business, but the closest thing we have to a sure bet in stocks is "reversion to the mean".

(And, granted also, some sector funds subdivided ridiculously, not to single products as you suggest, but enough that your analogy might not be far off in some of the more finely diced sector funds.)

Trader Joe
Posts: 1441
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:38 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Trader Joe » Wed Mar 18, 2015 4:02 pm

boglecranium wrote:Serious question here but these two vanguard funds, one in energy/oil and one in metals/mining seem like theyre close to a nadir and maybe a very good buy? Im definitely no expert but just curious on other peoples thoughts.
The energy fund may even go lower if the predictions about oil going lower this summer are correct.

vgenx (energy)
vgpmx (metals/mining)
I am always interesting in making a purchase when I see a good price. VGENX is still to pricey for my taste. VGPMX looks good right now.

bkweathe
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:02 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by bkweathe » Wed Mar 18, 2015 4:12 pm

Runalong,
enough that your analogy might not be far off in some of the more finely diced sector funds.
Yes, my point was that a sector, however you define it, might have gone down in value due to the normal ebb & flow that you describe, or it might have gone down because of some permanent issue (whether it is going extinct or not). Investing in sectors requires figuring which of those has happened. Investing in a total stock market fund does not require timing the right sectors at a particular moment.

Brad

rkhusky
Posts: 7879
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by rkhusky » Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:52 am

Runalong wrote: Since we don't have tide tables for stocks, it's still a risky business, but the closest thing we have to a sure bet in stocks is "reversion to the mean".
Unfortunately, it can be difficult to determine what the future mean will be.

User avatar
SpringMan
Posts: 5412
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by SpringMan » Thu Mar 19, 2015 7:20 am

I bailed out of VDE yesterday, 3/18, during the FOMC meeting induced rally. Lately VDE has gone up when oil prices have dropped. I made some money and am not unhappy. I still believe energy stocks will rise in the future. I no longer hold any sector funds, not even REITs. I still have some regrets selling VGHAX, Vanguard Health Care fund, when I did a few years ago. As I have heard said, "Don't follow me, I am just going to the restroom." :happy
Best Wishes, SpringMan

Tamales
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:47 am

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Tamales » Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:47 pm

Toons wrote:If you choose to buy a sector fund,plan on holding it minimum 10 years as they always fall in and out of favor(Reversion to the mean),,,healthcare,energy,banking,telecommunications,,etc.
I have been there and done that with Utilities,Latin America,Regional Banks,Telecommunications.but sold them all.The only one I still own is a healthcare fund. :happy
Toons: I've been meaning to ask, what's the story behind your use of double and triple consecutive commas? Where on earth did you learn that from?
While I've seen some Excel formulas where double consecutive commas signify that you're using default arguments, I've never seen anyone use them as "standard punctuation" in text passages.

kolea
Posts: 1322
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:30 pm
Location: Maui and Columbia River Gorge

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by kolea » Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:46 pm

Runalong wrote:Over a 10 year time frame VTI has trounced all four Vanguard sector funds.
VTSMX (the mutual fund version of VTI) 10 year annualized return = 7.99%. VGCHX (health care) annualized 10-year return = 12.69%

Just an FYI.
Kolea (pron. ko-lay-uh). Golden plover.

slbnoob
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:31 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by slbnoob » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:41 pm

Well, the nadir seems to have been breached for both :)

User avatar
Yesterdaysnews
Posts: 432
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 1:25 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Yesterdaysnews » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:47 pm

Still feels a little early to bet on oil recovery.

sergio
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:52 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by sergio » Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:35 pm

slbnoob wrote:Well, the nadir seems to have been breached for both :)
Haven't people have calling the 'nadir' of VGPMX for 4+ years now? :wink:

z3r0c00l
Posts: 1538
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by z3r0c00l » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:33 pm

Down another 15% from the time this thread started, and down 25% off a recent high of $10. Wouldn't be shocked to see it hit $5 soon. Or it could go to $40 in a year. Steer clear big tuna, head for open index waters.

SkierScott
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:41 am

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by SkierScott » Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:25 am

Just bumpin this up as I noticed VGPMX is currently at $6.90. I believe the all time low is $6.21.

Those calling "nadir" aren't too far off now.

GoldenFinch
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:34 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by GoldenFinch » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:24 pm

midareff wrote:I suspect any investment you buy with the idea of timing the market is a mistake.
How true! I was thinking VGENX was looking good at 64.00. That wasn't very long ago. What is it now? 40.00? It might be a good price, but it might soon be 20.00, making 40.00 a lousy price.

Remember the Boglehead mantra because it is good to remember - NOBODY KNOWS.

z3r0c00l
Posts: 1538
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by z3r0c00l » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:38 pm

You know if VGPMX goes to $3 I would consider buying the minimum 1,000 shares. That's about it though.

EyeDee
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:15 am

VGPMX Low

Post by EyeDee » Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:41 pm

.
Actually, Vanguard's Price History Search for Precious Metals and Mining fund (VGPMX) lists its low as
$5.05 on 08/31/1998 (and its high as $40.02 on 05/19/2008).
SkierScott wrote:Just bumpin this up as I noticed VGPMX is currently at $6.90. I believe the all time low is $6.21.

Those calling "nadir" aren't too far off now.
Randy

SkierScott
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:41 am

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by SkierScott » Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:37 am

Thanks Randy. I'd just taken a peak at Google Finance, which only went back to 2000

rkhusky
Posts: 7879
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: VGPMX Low

Post by rkhusky » Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:24 am

EyeDee wrote:.
Actually, Vanguard's Price History Search for Precious Metals and Mining fund (VGPMX) lists its low as
$5.05 on 08/31/1998 (and its high as $40.02 on 05/19/2008).
SkierScott wrote:Just bumpin this up as I noticed VGPMX is currently at $6.90. I believe the all time low is $6.21.

Those calling "nadir" aren't too far off now.
Is that with dividends taken into account? If not, the low/high price (NAV) is meaningless. Yahoo Finance adjusts the "price" to include dividends.

Castanea_d.
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:14 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Castanea_d. » Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:51 am

Randy, thanks for the $5.05 number for the VGPMX all-time low. I see that it does show up on the Yahoo Finance long-term chart, which at that scale gives only monthly closes.

May 1, 1996 - $14.45
…..
April 1, 1998 - $8.43
…..
July 1 - $6.27
Aug. 1, 1998 - $5.05
Sept. 1 - $7.04

Must have been quite a ride.

The last time the price was down in the $6 to $7 range was March 1, 2001 - $6.64. By Sept. 1, 2001 it was $8.32, and it had not dropped below $8 again until last month (I suppose that the subsequent runup in 2001/02 was due in part to fears after 9/11/01). The bottom in Feb. 2009 (monthly close, again) was $10.27. When the price was in that neighborhood more recently, I very much thought it would be the bottom. Shows how much I (don't) know.

btenny
Posts: 5218
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:47 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by btenny » Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:15 pm

Well guys I suggest that both of these sector funds are not really "representative of the real sectors". Both these funds leave out huge parts of their respective industries. Look at them.

VGENX is supposed to represent the Energy Sector. Well it really only holds big oil company stocks from what I can see. Where are the nuclear stocks and the solar stocks and the coal stocks, etc. And where are "cold fusion companies". So if you want to invest in VGENX I guess that is fine but know that it is not a energy fund.

VGPMX is likewise supposed to be a "mining index". Well it really only holds gold and silver mining stocks. Plus it places bets on gold bullion. Where are the precious rare earth mining stocks and where are the coal mining stocks and copper mining stocks and so forth. So not really a good mining stock index at all. And not a gold commodity index either for those that want that as it has mining stocks. So just a real mess IMO.

So you guys that are looking at some "nadir" of these funds does it really matter? Buy some penny mining stocks if you want to gamble instead of VGPMX. Or buy some XOM or similar oil stocks in lieu of VGENX but know that you are timing the oil market which may or may not work.

Just saying what I see.

User avatar
Vegomatic
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:16 pm

RE: WDVGPMXD? [What Does VGPMX Do?]

Post by Vegomatic » Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:32 pm

VGPMX [from fact sheet]
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... undId=0053
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/ ... IntExt=INT
The fund invests at least 80% of its assets in the stocks of foreign and U.S. companies principally
engaged in the exploration, mining, development, fabrication, processing, marketing, or distribution
of (or other activities related to) metals or minerals.

The majority of these companies will be principally engaged in activities related to gold,
silver, platinum, diamonds, or other precious and rare metals or minerals.

The remaining companies will be principally engaged in activities related to
nickel, copper, zinc, or other base and common metals or minerals. Up to 100% of the
fund's assets may be invested in foreign securities. The fund may also invest up to 20% of
its assets directly in gold, silver, or other precious metal bullion and coins.
From Most Recent Annual Report, Portfolio

Subindustry--------------------Fund----------S&P Custom Metals + Mining Index

Aluminum ---------------------0.0%---------4.5%
Diversified Metals & Mining-20.9---------39.8
Fertilizers & Agric Chem------2.6----------0.0
Gold----------------------------52.8---------43.5
Precious Metals & Minerals--13.7----------7.6
Silver----------------------------5.6----------4.6
Specialty Chemicals-----------4.4-----------0.0

slbnoob
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:31 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by slbnoob » Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:38 pm

Considering TLH'ing VGPMX today and buying XME (SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF). Any suggestions? This will be my first TLH.

btenny
Posts: 5218
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:47 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by btenny » Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:40 pm

I agree, selling VGPMX is a good idea. But are you sure you want to own XME? XME is a mostly a US based mining stock fund. It leaves out many of the world's biggest mining companies apparently because they are foreign concerns (I have not read the prospectus). Look at the holdings of PICK and XME. Note the vast differences. Plus many of the foreign companies own tons of big US mines so they really should be represented in any mining fund IMO. Also from what I see visually XME tracks very closely with PICK which does have tons of foreign stocks and a much higher dividend. See here.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=PICK ... king":true}

The issue I have is owning a mining stock fund in general at this time. I would recommend not buying much of any mining stock fund at this time. Commodities are all sinking and China and much of the world is going into bad times. Nobody knows if these prices are near the bottom or even high priced going forward. I would wait to make any buy and then only buy a very small position versus my stock allocation.

Good Luck.

slbnoob
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:31 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by slbnoob » Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:09 pm

I didn't know about PICK. Thanks for that.
Basically, I'm looking for a TLH partner for VGPMX. PICK does seem to be correlate with XME (hence loosely with VGPMX).
I'm not making any strategic move at this time. Just looking to maintain my allocation to something similar to VGPMX. I plan to move back into VGPMX 31 days after this trade.

User avatar
Dutch
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Dutch » Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:25 pm

Dutch wrote:I've started buying into both funds in 2015 with new money. Same for emerging markets.

To continue putting new money in US stocks or bonds, just goes against the grain at this point.

We will see if this turns out to be a smart move or not. I'm in it for the long haul
I will just give an update to myself

I'm still sticking with the plan and buying shares of EM, energy and precious metals every month. But it hasn't been easy. The only "positive" so far: It has given me lots of opportunity to tax loss harvest :P

Buying low appeals to the brain, but not to the stomach.

User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Advisory Board
Posts: 28953
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

Own ALL sectors with one fund

Post by Taylor Larimore » Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:35 pm

boglecranium wrote:Serious question here but these two vanguard funds, one in energy/oil and one in metals/mining seem like theyre close to a nadir and maybe a very good buy? Im definitely no expert but just curious on other peoples thoughts.
The energy fund may even go lower if the predictions about oil going lower this summer are correct.

vgenx (energy)
vgpmx (metals/mining)
boglecranium:

May I suggest you simply invest in Vanguard's Total Market Index fund and you will instantly own the market weight in all U.S. sector funds. Believing that you know more than the market is not the best way to be a successful investor.

Best wishes.
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle

beammeupscotty
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by beammeupscotty » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:40 pm

They're a much better buy now, so yes, too good to be true.

Image

Investment101
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 5:09 am

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by Investment101 » Sat Mar 05, 2016 2:07 pm

z3r0c00l wrote:There is simply no way to know. They could go lower, could go to near zero and then close, or could stay the same for a decade. What you should know is that neither one of these funds directly tracks, nor always correlates with the value of precious metals or oil. These are not commodity funds, they are focused investments in companies that profit from those commodities. A huge difference. And the last time oil went way up, the energy funds did not all follow. Gold is up pretty darn high too, so why is PMX still suffering? Most of the decline of PMX is due to odd things like a major collapse in the Canadian Potash Industry. Not sure about you, but I don't want to have a heavy concentration in the potash industry.

The energy fund was down near 20 not too long ago. That means a potential further loss of 70%. A real risk.

Stocks and funds sometimes go way down then go way way up, and we kick ourselves for not buying a few thousand shares. But that is a confirmation bias (or some other bias that I can't remember right now). Because far more stocks go down and down and then go bust. And generally speaking, the best predictor of poor performance in the future is poor performance in the past.
vgenx doesn't alway correlates with oil huh? good to know.

does USO tracks and correlates with oil? can you list some that does thanks.

User avatar
GreatOdinsRaven
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:47 pm

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by GreatOdinsRaven » Sat Mar 05, 2016 2:19 pm

boglecranium wrote:Serious question here but these two vanguard funds, one in energy/oil and one in metals/mining seem like theyre close to a nadir and maybe a very good buy? Im definitely no expert but just curious on other peoples thoughts.
The energy fund may even go lower if the predictions about oil going lower this summer are correct.

vgenx (energy)
vgpmx (metals/mining)

boglecranium,

I don't know because my crystal ball is cloudy. What I can say is that when I was younger and not yet a full boglehead I lost a lot of money in vgenx (unrealized), held on, kept investing in it, had paper gains after many years (unrealized), held on too long (didn't rebalance) and then lost all my gains and then some (realized loss). I do agree with Jack on this one, the average investor probably doesn't need to be in sector funds. You could make a TON of money on it if you buy low and sell high, but trust me, you can lose a lot. For me I consider it more speculation than investing. Not that speculating a small percentage is necessarily bad.

Again, I'm not trying to be paternalistic- I'm just saying that I regret my decision to go down the sector fund route. YMMV and I hope it does!
"The greatest enemies of the equity investor are expenses and emotions." -John C. Bogle, Little Book of Common Sense Investing. | | "Winter is coming." Lord Eddard Stark.

User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Advisory Board
Posts: 28953
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx?

Post by Taylor Larimore » Sat Mar 05, 2016 2:52 pm

boglecranium wrote:Serious question here but these two vanguard funds, one in energy/oil and one in metals/mining seem like they're close to a nadir and maybe a very good buy? I'm definitely no expert but just curious on other peoples thoughts.
boglecranium:

My "thought" is that market-timing is usually a mistake. Instead of over-weighting sector funds like oil and metals/mining, simply invest in total market index funds (which hold the market weight in oil and metal/mining stocks) and stay the course.

Best wishes.
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle

z3r0c00l
Posts: 1538
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Too good to be true? vgenx or vgpmx

Post by z3r0c00l » Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:05 pm

Investment101 wrote: does USO tracks and correlates with oil? can you list some that does thanks.
Image

Have you seen the chart for USO?

Post Reply