What a load of b.s.  These funds are not taking advantage of the low dividend tax rate by paying out 10% in dividends.  How is that better than paying tax on 2% dividends and 0% on capital gains?

Also nonsense that the fund can't find a good benchmark because of its high yield strategy.  A one-second look at the total return chart shows that it is highly correlated with the general market.  Indeed, it has an R-squared of 89% to the MSCI World Index.
 

I'm curious.  Most of us posting here are focused on dividend yields, either from individual stocks, CEFs, or OEFs.  As you read Jill's ADVDX portfolio management strategy, how does what she and Kevin do differ from what each of us do with our own personal portfolios?

ElLobo:

As you read Jill's ADVDX portfolio management strategy, how does what she and Kevin do differ from what each of us do with our own personal portfolios?

I don't hold any other fund for its cash flow generating (dividend producing) ability.  Just ADVDX.  And the only reason for me to hold it - and probably the only significant way what they do differs from what I try to do - is the dividend capture strategy.  That, for me as an individual, is beyond what I want to contemplate doing.

The rest of their approach, as evidenced by the following snippets, is something I buy in to and try to implement myself to one degree or another.

" . . . our goal is to provide both a high level of qualified dividend income plus a positive total return'

"We look to invest in great companies that are returning cash to shareholders."

"We focus another part of our research toward identifying financially strong companies . . "

" . . . identify companies undergoing a business turnaround."

"We look for stocks where there might be high dividend yields because the earnings and stock prices are depressed for some reason and we expect a turnaround . . "

"We always prefer to invest in stable and sound businesses."

"The first screen we do is by yield . . . "

"When we find companies where our top down view of the world or the industry matches with the bottom-up valuation work, we put them in the portfolio."

"We don't fall in love with names [stocks] and if the story changes, we just sell and move on . . ."

". . . one of the sectors that we like is bulk shipping . . . We like the sector and we own a few of the names in that sector."

Much more in common than differences.  But I suppose one other fundamental difference between ADVDX and my strategy is that they are required to mark to market every day to keep score.  I don't have to do that and can take a different point of view.  But that's another story. 

Regards.

Cliff 

It is not that I don't respect  your positions, but I can not connect the dots on dividend capture.      
ADVDX is a true Bizarro fund using an exact opposite investment strategy used by most dividend investors who invest for stable income and with capital preservation (I know you are not concerned about capital preservation, but I am).
Regardless of whether you are a fund manager or an individual investor, most dividend investors try to find dividend stocks that are undervalued and enjoy the dividend until the market realizes its value.  While this strategy sometimes requires the investor to hold the stock for longer periods of time, the investor has much better control of the investment because his investment is not subject to the emotional short term whims of the market.  Just like with any other investment, income is dependent on the quality of the investment.
Dividend capture does exactly what most dividend investors try to avoid.  When your chasing dividends, regardless of the quality of the dividend, you subject (risk) your capital to the short term whims of the market when you buy the stock before the dividend is declared, and when sell your stock once the dividend has been captured.  You can stick your head in the sand and deny this, but with only one third of its portfolio creating the vast majority of its 200 percent annual turnover your capital investment is most certainly subjected to the volatility of the market.  
Because your capital is subjected to the ability of the manager to find new companies to purchase without getting caught in a short term dividend trap  this really makes dividend capture nothing more than a momentum scheme with a dividend twist.
If dividend capture were not a high risk momentum strategy, then why doesn't Alpine just use dividend capture for a 100% of the fund?  Without the dividend capture component ADVDX would be just an average fund at best. With dividend capture ADVDX has underperformed its peers since its inception.
"We like to be multi-cap when we look for opportunities plus we invest globally."
Before ADVDX, dividend capture was considered a gimmick mainly hawked by the likes of Wade Cook. So far in its short history ADVDX has not been able to show that dividend capture provides income, preserves capital, and has failed its original mandate because it is less tax efficient than its peers.
If your only justification for ADVDX's under-performance is that by re-investing part of the dividend you can increase share numbers, your not creating more value or providing a stable income, your just rationalizing inflation.

helmut

Here are some figures:
from 10/6/2003 to 4/22/2008
initial investment of $10,000
with 100% of dividends taken in cash: 
present value:
ADVDX-$10,577 
total dividend payout:
$6,341

t

TaylorZR:

Here are some figures:
from 10/6/2003 to 4/22/2008
initial investment of $10,000
with 100% of dividends taken in cash: 
present value:
ADVDX-$10,577 
total dividend payout:
$6,341

t

Your point?

helmut 

Another point:

With 100% of dividends taken in cash:(same time frame) 
present value:
ADVDX-$10,577
EADIX-$12,835
total dividend payout:
ADVDX-$6,341
EADIX-$2,718

===========================

t

TaylorZR:

Another point:

With 100% of dividends taken in cash:(same time frame) 
present value:
ADVDX-$10,577
EADIX-$12,835
total dividend payout:
ADVDX-$6,341
EADIX-$2,718

===========================

t

Again what is your point?

helmut 

StarHBre:

So far in its short history ADVDX has not been able to show that dividend capture provides income, preserves capital, and has failed its original mandate because it is less tax efficient than its peers.

Helmut, the question asked was what does ADVDX do that my (or your) strategy does not.  My answer was the only thing that I can discern is appreciably different is the dividend capture strategy for some part of the ADVDX investing vs. my own investing.  I don't do dividend capture and wouldn't contemplate doing it on an individual basis.  I do, however, grant that it can be done without the disastrous consequences some have guessed at if one's objective is cash flow from dividends.

Sometimes a cylindrical object wrapped in a tobacco leaf is just a cigar.  ADVDX is what it is.  Your conclusions above don't apply to me.  In the case of ADVDX, for me,

1) substantial income has been provided,

2) my capital has been more than preserved, and

3) I have suffered no negative tax consequences (and I realize we all have different situations).

If any of those things changed appreciably, I'd probably do what Jill would do - sell and move on.  In the meantime, ADVDX has done, for me, what it was supposed to.  A cash on cash return.

Regards.

Cliff 

StarHBre:

TaylorZR:

Here are some figures:
from 10/6/2003 to 4/22/2008
initial investment of $10,000
with 100% of dividends taken in cash: 
present value:
ADVDX-$10,577 
total dividend payout:
$6,341

t

Your point?

helmut 

Helmut, I certainly won't presume to answer for T but could the point(s) be:

1) substantial income has been provided - an average of $1,400 per year for about 4.5 years on a $10,000 investment, and,

2) capital appears to have been preserved.

And if one's objective for a part of one's portfolio is substantial income and preservation of capital, well . . . . .

Regards.

Cliff 

Helmut, my point is :

Your statement ("So far in its short history ADVDX has not been able to show that dividend capture provides income, preserves capital, and has failed its original mandate because it is less tax efficient than its peers") is 100% wrong.......

You've dug your hole. Stop fighting, and just fall into it.

You didn't do the real research, and didn't bother getting the real figures as you are more interested in making some sort of 'statement' than acknowledging what  you don't understand..

The reason I sold my own advdx is not because the idea is bad or wrong, or because the fund experienced a correction, but because I felt too many investors in advdx (my investing partners) did not understand what they owned or why they owned it, and were not investors in the fund for Cliff's (and my ) reasons, the right reasons, the real reasons.  I saw this as a real life negative. Advdx is simply too easy to buy and sell, by too many people, with too little understanding........

=============================