Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • Hasenstab Loses $1.8bn In Single Day As Big Bet Blows Up: (FEMGX) - (TPINX)
    FYI: Fixed income star Michael Hasenstab lost $1.8 billion in a single day’s trading this month as a series of big bets on Argentine assets crashed following a primary election which shook political forecasts, according to the Financial Times.
    The Argentine peso dropped as much as 20% and bond yields rocketed as markets absorbed the consequences of an unexpectedly strong showing by in the presidential race by the populist Alberto Fernández who has selected former incumbent Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as his running mate.
    Hasenstab’s $11.3 billion Templeton Emerging Markets Bond fund tumbled 3.5% on Monday, equivalent to a $440 million loss, according to a FT analysis of Morningstar data.
    His $33.1 billion Templeton Global Bond fund shed 1.8%, or around $592 million. Three other mandates saw accumulative losses of $362 million. Approached by the FT, Franklin Templeton declined to comment.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://citywireamericas.com/news/hasenstab-loses-1-8bn-in-single-day-as-argentine-bet-blows-up/a1259676?ref=international-americas-latest-news-list
    Investment News.Com:
    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=uThUXbLPJZTJtQbez77AAQ&q=ranklin+Templeton+fund+biggest+loser+as+Argentine+assets+plummet+11:15+am&oq=ranklin+Templeton+fund+biggest+loser+as+Argentine+assets+plummet+11:15+am&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3509.3509..5283...0.0..0.109.155.1j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.meys7v5iBoM&ved=0ahUKEwjyj7n05YLkAhWUZM0KHd6nDxgQ4dUDCAc&uact=5
    M* Snapshot FEMGX:
    https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/femgx/quote
    M* Snapshot TPINX:
    https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/tpinx/quote
  • Chuck Jaffe: How Could $1,000 A Month Change Your Life?
    John:
    If you mean a time where the Treasury (and other sovereign Govts) are unable to service their debts, at least more than for a day or 5, well my crystal ball tells me something else will occur. (see next paragraph) --- Though if you are truly concerned, then the thing to buy is gold bullion. Not ETFs, not mining stocks, nothing with a 3rd party custodian. Just gold, which you self-custody somewhere in your personal residence. The "worst" you can expect from bullion, is that it will retain its purchasing power over time. The "best" is that it soars in value when conventional asset markets become dislocated for some indeterminate period of time.
    Look, the whole world is awash in debt, not just the USA. So there will be a global solution, involving most major currency sovereigns. The CBs already have a playbook to address it, once we approach the financial "cliff". I don't know what's in the playbook, but I suspect ONE of the plays will be for each sovereign Treasury to issue new private-placement debt (PPD) to their respective central bank. The terms of the PPD would be: a) no maturity (i.e. perpetual), and b) 0.0% coupon. So "free money". The proceeds received from the CB to the Treasury could be used to pay off existing public bondholders as those debts fall due. --- So definitionally, there would be no "default". Moving to PPD financing has enormous implications. But the key is, there need not be any "default".
    When will Us bankrupt or default on their bonds
    I worry about my nephews nieces children living in a poor economic system in 20+yrs
    I wonder what potus congress doing about fed deficits beside kicking can down road after 2020
    Think it will be very difficult to pass laws /convince US citizens /tax workers (voters small business owners) >40s% in taxations and rich folks ~ 70% to pay (for all free Healthcare and green deals and 1k monthly each millennials)
    I would vote for yang if he gives me one k monthly and a free Corvette
    As rono would say - time buy more (physical) gold?!? -
  • Two Steaming Piles Of 403B.S.
    FYI: (This is a follow-up article.)
    Teachers in Pennsylvania and Texas are waking up screaming from a midsummer night’s 403(b) nightmare.
    Traditionally, large insurers enjoy blasting teacher’s retirement accounts with high fees and unnecessary products. Two states are willing accomplices to mass financial exploitation.
    Pennsylvania and Texas passed some of the most blatant anti-consumer 403(b) legislation in modern history.
    Deciding it was a crime against humanity having a single low-cost vendor servicing teachers retirement accounts, Pennsylvania took action.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://tonyisola.com/2019/08/two-steaming-piles-of-403b-s/
  • Chuck Jaffe: How Could $1,000 A Month Change Your Life?
    FYI: Americans are no more likely to collect the “Freedom Dividend” than they are to win the next Mega Millions lottery jackpot, but just as playing the lottery can fuel dreams and shape financial priorities, so can the unusual political promise of free money help consumers and savers re-evaluate their finances.
    The Freedom Dividend is the unconventional plan being floated by Andrew Yang, Democratic candidate for president; it would give all U.S. citizens over the age of 18 guaranteed payments of $1,000 per month.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.seattletimes.com/business/how-could-1000-a-month-change-your-life/
  • Mark Hulbert: The Single Best Investment For The Next Decade
    FYI: “For money you wouldn’t need for more than 10 years, which ONE of the following do you think would be the best way to invest it—stocks, bonds, real estate, cash, gold/metals, or bitcoin/cryptocurrency?”
    That question was recently asked of more than a thousand investors in a recent Bankrate survey, and the winner—by a large margin—was real estate. For every two respondents who answered stocks there were more than three who said real estate is the way to go.
    Are these investors onto something? Have financial planners been wrong all these years? For this column I mine the historical data for answers.
    On the face of it, the respondents to the survey need to go back to their history books, as pointed out in a recent column by my colleague Catey Hill. Since 1890, U.S. real estate has produced an annualized return above inflation of just 0.4%, as judged by the Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index and the consumer-price index. The S&P 500 SPX, +1.53% (or its predecessor indexes) did far better, outpacing inflation at a 6.3% annualized rate (when including dividends).
    Even long-term U.S. Treasury Bonds outperformed real estate, producing an annualized inflation-adjusted total return of 2.7%. Check out the chart below:
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-single-best-investment-for-the-next-decade-2019-08-08/print
  • Inflated Bond Ratings Helped Spur the Financial Crisis. They’re Back.
    Following are selected excerpts from a current lengthy and very detailed Wall Street Journal article. They have been significantly edited in the interest of brevity: a read of the entire WSJ article is suggested.
    Inflated bond ratings were one cause of the financial crisis. A decade later, there is evidence they persist. In the hottest parts of the booming bond market, S&P and its competitors are giving increasingly optimistic ratings as they fight for market share.
    All six main ratings firms have since 2012 changed some criteria for judging the riskiness of bonds in ways that were followed by jumps in market share, at least temporarily, a Wall Street Journal examination found. These firms compete with one another to rate the debt of borrowers, who pay for the ratings and have an incentive to pick rosier ones.
    There are signs some investors are skeptical. Some bonds in markets where ratings criteria have been eased don’t trade at the high bond prices their ratings suggest they should. Investors have also shown skepticism about ratings on some corporate and government bonds.
    “We don’t trust the ratings,” says Greg Michaud, director of real estate at Voya Investment Management, which holds $21 billion in commercial-real-estate debt.
    The problem is particularly acute in the fast-growing market for “structured” debt—securities using pools of loans such as commercial and residential mortgages, student loans and other borrowings. The deals are carved into different slices, or “tranches,” each with varying risks and returns, which means rating firms are crucial to their creation.
    The Journal analyzed about 30,000 ratings within a $3 trillion database of structured securities issued between 2008 and 2019. The Journal’s analysis suggests a key regulatory remedy to improve rating quality—promoting competition—has backfired. DBRS, Kroll and Morningstar were more likely to give higher grades than Moody’s, S&P and Fitch on the same bonds. Sometimes one firm called a security junk and another gave a triple-A rating deeming it supersafe.
    Two fast-growing structured-bond sectors are commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS, and collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs. CMBS fund deals for hotels, shopping malls and the like. CLOs are backed by corporate loans to risky borrowers, typically to fund buyouts.
    In a May speech, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell compared CLOs to precrisis mortgage-backed debt: “Once again, we see a category of debt that is growing faster than the income of the borrowers even as lenders loosen underwriting standards.”
    Behind the ratings inflation is a long-acknowledged flaw Washington didn’t fix: Entities that issue bonds—state and local governments, hotel and mall financiers, companies—also pay for their ratings. Issuers have incentive to hire the most lenient rating firm, because interest payments are lower on higher-rated bonds. Increased competition lets issuers more easily shop around for the best outcome.
    Rating analysts say their firms have lost deals because they wouldn’t provide the desired ratings.
    In the first half of 2015, S&P’s share of ratings in the $600 billion CLO market hit a five-year low. That fall S&P changed its methodology to make it easier for CLOs to get higher ratings. When S&P again proposed loosening its criteria this year, a group representing more than 100 professional bond investors wrote a letter to the company, reviewed by the Journal, saying the changes “will lead to a weakening of credit protection for investors at a time where we need it most.” S&P proceeded.
    Moody’s ratings on riskier slices of these multi-borrower deals often weren’t as favorable as those of its competitors. By 2015, issuers “essentially stopped soliciting our ratings” on those slices, according to a January commentary from the company. In October 2015, Moody’s eased its rating methodology for single-asset CMBS deals.
    In 2016 Fitch [gave] itself wider latitude to use easier rating assumptions.
    Investors say ratings inflation is most evident in commercial-mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS, of which investors hold about $1.2 trillion. When rating a security higher than their three big competitors, Morningstar, Kroll and DBRS were around two rungs more generous, on average. Some ratings were a dozen or more rungs higher, potentially the difference between junk bonds and triple-A.
    A group of professional investors in 2015 complained about inflated ratings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Adam Hayden, who manages a $13 billion securities portfolio at New York Life Insurance Co.’s real-estate-investment arm, was among the investors who met with the SEC. He said inflated ratings were a risk to market stability, according to a meeting memo obtained by the Journal.
    The SEC didn’t implement their recommendations.

    Note: All bold emphasis was added.
  • Widely Followed Risk-Return Measures For Stock Portfolios Debunked: Sharpe Ratio/Sortino Ratio
    FYI: Two financial ratios Wall Street uses to rate different portfolios’ risk-adjusted performances have come under sharp criticism, including from one of the ratio’s own inventors.
    The better-known of the two, the Sharpe ratio, was first published in 1964 by William (Bill) Sharpe. It ranks portfolios by their “excess” return above holding low-yielding but safe Treasury bills. The ratio is adjusted for the amount a portfolio’s value deviates from a constant growth rate. In 1990, along with other economists, Sharpe won the Nobel Prize in Economics for this and additional formulas.
    A competing measure, the Sortino ratio, was announced in 1980. Developed by Frank Sortino, then a finance professor at San Francisco State University, it was considered an improvement for several reasons.
    Most notably, the Sortino ratio only counts a portfolio’s downside deviation against it. A portfolio is not penalized for upside surprises, which the Sharpe ratio does.
    In a rather shocking turn of events, Sortino has turned against both the Sharpe ratio and the formula that bears his own name. He’s developed an entirely new risk-adjusted ranking system that shows promise.
    In his latest book, “The Sortino Framework for Constructing Portfolios” (Elsevier), the now-retired professor announced an improved ratio named Desired Target Rate-alpha (DTR-a).
    Sortino and his book’s collaborators ranked the risk-adjusted returns of scores of mutual funds using all three ratios. The results are eye-opening.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/widely-followed-risk-return-measure-for-stock-portfolios-is-debunked-after-55-years-2019-08-07/print
  • Another Hit As The Trade War With China Heats Up
    Treasury Department designates China a ‘currency manipulator,’ a major escalation of the trade war
    Following are selected excerpts from a current Washington Post news article. The article has been substantially edited for brevity.
    BREAKING: A Treasury Department statement said that China had manipulated the exchange rate between its currency and the U.S. dollar to gain an “unfair competitive advantage.”
    The move follows the biggest one-day stock market loss of 2019, and stoked fears that a commercial dispute with no end in sight would do significant damage to a slowing global economy. China answered President Trump’s latest tariffs on Monday by allowing its tightly-controlled currency to slide to an 11-year low against the dollar, a move that threatened to turn the U.S.-China trade conflict into a global economic contagion.
    Treasury’s view was potentially even more important on Monday, because Trump alleged China was manipulating its currency, a practice that is expressly in the department’s purview.
    The currency shift also will effectively counter the Federal Reserve’s recent interest rate cut by leading to tighter financial conditions in the United States, said Robin Brooks, chief economist of the Institute of International Finance.
    As of midafternoon, all three major U.S. stock indexes were having their worst day of 2019, falling more than 3 percent — fresh off having their worst week of the year. The Dow Jones industrial average was down more than 800 points, or more than 3 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 was off by nearly 93 points, or 3.1 percent, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq was down nearly 303 points, or nearly 3.8 percent. — a six-day losing streak. Trade bellwethers Caterpillar and Boeing were down 2 percent.
    The yuan’s move will likely make it difficult for developing countries that need to cut interest rates to spur growth, such as India. Instead, they will pressure to raise interest rates to attract investment, a move that would further curb growth.
    China’s central bank said it was confident it could keep the currency at a “reasonable and balanced level.” Beijing is expected to try to prevent an unrestrained plunge by the yuan, fearing it would encourage Chinese citizens to take their wealth out of the country, economists said.
    The yuan has actually held up better against the surging dollar than most U.S. trading partners. Its year-to-date decline against the dollar of 2.4 percent is much less than the currencies of two U.S. allies, the Taiwan dollar at 3.4 percent and the South Korean won at 8.6 percent.
    Beijing appeared to mount other forms of retaliation on Monday. The government has asked state-owned firms to stop their U.S. agricultural purchases, according to a Bloomberg report Monday that was widely cited by Chinese media. The crop purchases, which came from states that comprise Trump’s political base, were supposed to be a sign of Chinese goodwill as trade talks progressed.
  • An "All-American" 9.7% Dividend Trading At A 16% Discount: (GAM)

    GAM's CAGR (ave annual return) since Jan 2010 is 9.89%. Vanguard's S&P fund returned a CAGR of 12.97%. So "Mikey" at Forbes has provided an "income" idea by sacrificed almost 25% of the total return by owning GAM. GAM may be a "stockpicker's" vehicle, but the stockpicker is generating negative alpha...
    Per CEFconnect, GAM distributed $2.25 during 2018. -- Or about 6.2% of GAMs price on 8/2/19. All of it paid on a single calendar day in December. Now 6.2% is a pretty good "yield", but most income-oriented investors prefer to be paid monthly, or at least quarterly. And, of that $2.25 distribution, the overwhelming amount was from L/T cap gains. L/T cap gains are not reliably predictable. And moreover, if an income investor spends those cap gains, he is "eating his seed corn". An investor in SPY could just harvest a few shares and distribute the proceeds to himself, and do better than GAM. The actual income disty was a puny $0.30. Embarrassing.
    Mikey also cites GAM as having "lower volatility". Portfoliovisualizer indicates GAM has experienced 117% of the volatility of the S&P. The same source indicates GAM had a bigger drawdown AND a worse "worst year" than the S&P.
    It appears that every material assertion which Mikey makes about GAM is factually wrong. The advice Mikey is tossing out their for public consumption is Kr@p. Forbes should be sued for financial malpractice.
  • Vanguard Market Neutral Fund & Vanguard Alternative Strategies Fund lowers initial minimums
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1409957/000093247119007247/supplementmarketneutral.htm
    497 1 supplementmarketneutral.htm MARKET NEUTRAL FUND INVESTOR SHARES SUPPLEMENT
    Vanguard Market Neutral Fund
    Supplement Dated August 1, 2019, to the Prospectus Dated
    April 26, 2019
    The minimum investment amount required to open and maintain a Fund account for
    Investor Shares will be reduced from $250,000 to $50,000. The account minimum
    change is expected to become effective on or about November 4, 2019.
    The Fund's investment objective, strategies, and policies will remain unchanged.
    Prospectus Text Changes
    The following replaces similar text under the heading “Purchase and Sale of Fund
    Shares” in the Fund Summary section:
    You may purchase or redeem shares online through our website (vanguard.com), by
    mail (The Vanguard Group, P.O. Box 1110, Valley Forge, PA 19482-1110), or by
    telephone (800-662-2739). The minimum investment amount required to open and
    maintain a Fund account for Investor Shares is $50,000. The minimum investment
    amount required to add to an existing Fund account is generally $1. Financial
    intermediaries and institutional clients should contact Vanguard for information on
    special eligibility rules that may apply to them regarding Investor Shares. If you are
    investing through an intermediary, please contact that firm directly for more
    information regarding your eligibility. If you are investing through an employer-
    sponsored retirement or savings plan, your plan administrator or your benefits office
    can provide you with detailed information on how you can invest through your plan.
    The following replaces similar text under the heading “Account Minimums for
    Investor Shares” in the Investing With Vanguard section:
    To open and maintain an account. $50,000. Financial intermediaries and institutional
    clients should contact Vanguard for information on special eligibility rules that may
    apply to them regarding Investor Shares. If you are investing through an intermediary,
    please contact that firm directly for more information regarding your eligibility.
    To add to an existing account. Generally $1.
    © 2019 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor. PS 634 082019
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/313850/000093247119007246/alternativestrategies497.htm
    497 1 alternativestrategies497.htm ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES 497
    Vanguard Alternative Strategies Fund
    Supplement Dated August 1, 2019, to the Prospectus Dated
    February 27, 2019
    Important Changes to the Fund
    The Fund's Board of Trustees has approved changes to the investment
    objective and benchmark of the Fund. The Fund's investment objective will
    change to: “The Fund seeks to generate returns that have low correlation with
    the returns of the stock and bond markets and seeks capital appreciation.” The
    Fund's performance benchmark will change from the FTSE 3-month US T-Bill
    Index +4% to the FTSE 3-month US T-Bill Index.
    The Fund will also adopt a risk methodology that targets a fixed volatility range
    of 5-7% measured at the portfolio level. However, the Fund's volatility from time
    to time may move outside this targeted range.
    The account minimum required to open and maintain an account will be reduced
    from $250,000 to $50,000.
    The investment objective and benchmark changes for the Fund, together with
    the risk methodology adoption, are expected to become effective on or about
    November 1, 2019. The Fund's registration statement will be updated at that
    time to reflect these changes. The account minimum change is expected to
    become effective on or about November 4, 2019.
    Prospectus Text Changes
    The following replaces similar text under the heading “Investment Objective” in
    the Fund Summary section:
    The Fund seeks to generate returns that have low correlation with the returns of
    the stock and bond markets and seeks capital appreciation.
    The following paragraph is added after the third paragraph under the heading
    “Principal Investment Strategies” in the Fund Summary section:
    The Fund has adopted a risk methodology that targets a fixed volatility range of
    5-7% measured at the portfolio level. However, the Fund's volatility from time to
    time may move outside this targeted range.
    The following replaces similar text under the heading “Annual Total Returns”:
    The following bar chart and table are intended to help you understand the risks of
    investing in the Fund. The bar chart shows how the performance of the Fund has
    varied from one calendar year to another over the periods shown. The table
    shows how the average annual total returns of the Fund compare with those of a
    relevant market index, which has investment characteristics similar to those of the
    Fund. Effective November 1, 2019, the FTSE 3-month US T-Bill Index +4% was
    replaced with the FTSE 3-month US T-Bill Index in order to align with the Fund's
    investment objective and risk methodology. The Spliced Alternative Strategies
    Index reflects the performance of the FTSE 3-month US T-Bill Index +4% through
    October 31, 2019, and the FTSE 3-month US T-Bill Index thereafter. Keep in mind
    that the Fund's past performance (before and after taxes) does not indicate how
    the Fund will perform in the future. Updated performance information is available
    on our website at vanguard.com/performance or by calling Vanguard toll-free at
    800-662-7447....
  • ICI: Record Highs In U.S. Stock Market Not Enough To Attract Fund Investors
    @Edmond- Yes, this is fascinating to watch, this time around. I've never seen anything quite like this one, and there are so many new wild cards in the deck (central bank activities, trade fireworks, financial sanctions, Brexit, etc.) that I'm pretty sure that no one can accurately predict what will break, how, or when.
  • DLEUX as a replacement for VXUS?
    The table's correlation results of .87, .87, .89 and .92, along with the overlaid closely tracking graphs, would make most go with their lying (nice) eyes, for example financial advisers. It's a wonder everyone in investments uses graphs as they do if r-squared is the way to go, but even those values show correlation (that is, >>70%) except of course for the Developed Asia outlier.
  • Art Cashin: "Politics Starting To Seep Into Market"
    It really is incredible to me how most of the financial services community believes that how money is allocated in an economy via financial markets is apolitical or should be apolitical in their warped version of an ideal world. In sum, they believe somehow if you let companies squeeze as much profits as possible out of labor and consumers and the tax base for the nation everybody benefits when in reality just a handful of executives and shareholders--and sometimes not even the shareholders just the executives benefit. How that money is made, who makes it and who gets to keep it means jobs and livelihoods, roads, bridges, safe or unsafe products, a government that is well or poorly financed. It is immensely political. And just "letting the markets do their thing" really is a political statement. It's saying you support the idea of extracting as much wealth as possible from the many to go into the hands of the few and assume somehow that will benefit society as a whole.
  • Jason Zweig: What You Gain—And Lose—When You Lock Money Up For The Long Run
    The amount of conflicting financial advice out there never ceases to amaze me. Even Meb's podcast guests are on opposite sides of the spectrum from month to month, if not week to week. I think our own David Snowball offer's one way of dealing with it. Basically, nobody wants their fund (or the advice they follow) to suck. Other than that, perhaps it's all good enough over the long run.
  • Jonathan Clement's: Thinking Out Loud
    FYI: IDEAS ARE TOOLS that can help us see the world with greater clarity. Indeed, I find myself returning to certain financial notions again and again, because they’re so fundamental to understanding the world of finance and how we can make our lives better.
    What are the most important ideas? I decided to create a new chapter for HumbleDollar’s online money guide, which covers the 15 notions I consider most crucial:
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://humbledollar.com/2019/07/thinking-out-loud/
  • Barron's Cover Story: Pacific Gas & Electric Stock Could Be A Buy—Despite All the Risks
    FYI: (I agree, and would suggest you also look at their preferred stocks. Their dividend has been suspended however most of the share class are cumulative and are selling below par of $25 per share.. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. First Preferred Stock, Cumulative, par value $25 per share, redeemable without mandatory redemption provisions and redeemable anytime at the company's option at the specified redemption price plus accrued and unpaid dividends. Dividends paid by this preferred security are eligible for the preferential income tax rate of 15% to a maximum of 20% depending on the holder's tax bracket (and under IRS specified holding restrictions) and are also eligible for the dividends received deduction for corporate holders. A few years ago I made ten-bagger with EIX preferred's when Edison's main holding, Southern California Edison faced bankruptcy after a state senate bill regarding financial assistance came up short)
    California’s wildfire season has already arrived, bringing high temperatures, strong winds, and dry conditions.
    Earlier this month, lawmakers in Sacramento scrambled to pass a bill that seeks to halt a cycle of devastating losses from fires and ballooning power-company liabilities. Much is at stake: The wildfire seasons in 2017 and 2018 were unusually severe as the two most destructive fires on record burned more than 190,000 acres, destroyed more than 20,000 structures, and killed more than 100 people.
    The billions of dollars in potential legal claims against Pacific Gas & Electric prompted the Northern California utility’s parent company PG&E (ticker: PCG) to file for bankruptcy protection in January.
    Getting through bankruptcy will require a balancing act among many players: company officials, politicians, consumer advocates, and investors. At the same time, it offers an opportunity for savvy individual investors with a strong stomach. If developments work in shareholders’ favor, they could see an upside of 20% or more in the company’s stock price. But they are up against—or betting along with—hedge funds and investment firms making wagers on the outcome.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.barrons.com/articles/even-in-bankruptcy-and-with-risks-pacific-gas-electrics-stock-looks-attractive-51564187315?mod=past_editions
    PCG Preferred's:
    http://www.quantumonline.com/ParentCoSearch.cfm?tickersymbol=PCG
  • Charles Schwab Corporation To Acquire Assets of USAA’s Investment Management Company
    Look like USAA is getting out of the business of financial services. I understand they also have sizable insurance business, presumably more profitable.
    I am not a USAA investor but I would expect to have improved services from Schwab if I wish to stay with Schwab.
  • Jeff Gundlach: Fed Will Be In "Panic Mode" When A Recession Hits
    @johnN
    You need to view msf's (above) link for a clear data picture related to your pronouncements. Also, what does your comment have to do with Mr. Obama? Whomever was president at the time was figure head only. The actions/power lay elsewhere at the time, for financial markets stability.
    So, you may choose a self test before reviewing the link(s) as to when was Mr. Obama elected and inaugurated; relative to the 2008 market melt. You then will be well prepared to discuss this area of recent financial history with co-workers, friends and family; who may not be well informed.
    The below CNN time line is fairly well done for a brief overview of the market melt of 2008.

    A snippet time line
    , by date; of the market melt beginning Sept. 2008. Click "next" to move to the next date page.
  • The Breakfast Briefing: Global Stocks Rise Ahead Of ECB Policy Decision
    FYI: U.S. stock index futures were mixed on Thursday morning as investors gear up for a busy day of earnings.
    Around 5 a.m. ET, Dow futures pointed to a gain of 26 points at the open, while the S&P 500 was seen fractionally higher and the Nasdaq looked set to slide.
    European stocks followed Asian indexes higher ahead of the European Central Bank meeting later today, where hints of fresh stimulus to boost the eurozone economy are widely expected.
    The Stoxx Europe 600 was up by 0.4%, led by gains in the health care and food and beverage sectors. Asian stocks were broadly up, with South Korea’s Kospi the exception with a decline of 0.4%.
    The yield on 10-year German bunds was at minus 0.436%, near its all-time low after weaker-than-expected European manufacturing data.
    In the U.S., the yield on 10-year Treasurys fell to 2.030%, from 2.052% Wednesday. Yields fall when bond prices rise. The WSJ Dollar Index, which measures the currency against a basket of peers, was flat.
    On the earnings front, financial firms Lazard , Invesco and KKR will report Thursday, as will tech giants Alphabet Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.
    A series of better-than-expected earnings reports have recently supported markets. Facebook Inc. on Wednesday brushed off a record-setting privacy fine to post strong earnings and revenue growth. Shares gained 0.9% in after-hours trading.
    U.S. durable goods data for June are due later Thursday, which will give an indication of the health of American manufacturing.
    In commodities, the global oil benchmark Brent crude was up by 0.5% to $63.47 a barrel, as European powers struggled to cooperate on a plan to secure the Persian Gulf. Gold edged up 0.2%.
    Regards,
    Ted
    WSJ:
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-rise-ahead-of-ecb-policy-decision-11564041309
    Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-24/asian-stocks-set-for-muted-open-treasuries-gain-markets-wrap
    IBD:
    https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-facebook-stock-volatile-tesla-stock-servicenow-xilinx-ford-fall/
    CNBC:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/us-stock-futures-tech-regulation-nasdaq.html
    Reuters:
    https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/u-s-housing-manufacturing-sectors-mired-in-weakness-idUKKCN1UJ1UZ
    U.K.
    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/astrazeneca-guides-ftse-100-higher-buyout-powers-cobham-idUKKCN1UK0RO
    Europe:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/lvmh-inbev-lift-european-shares-to-one-year-highs-ahead-of-ecb-meeting-idUSKCN1UK0SO
    Asia:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-little-changed-as-investors-await-central-bank-decisions-2019-07-24/print
    Bonds:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/treasury-yields-fall-key-central-bank-meetings.html
    Currencies:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/forex-markets-euro-european-central-bank-in-focus.html
    Oil:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/oil-markets-global-demand-in-focus.html
    Gold:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/gold-markets-dollar-ecb-in-focus.html
    Cuirrent Futures:
    https://finviz.com/futures.ashx
  • Jonathan Clement's Blog: Righting Wrongs: 000-00-0000
    "Headlines frequently state the program is going bankrupt. It isn’t. Today’s level of benefits may not be sustainable, given current funding sources, but Social Security payroll taxes are sufficient to maintain the bulk of benefits currently paid. "
    Emphasis added. To be clear, "bankruptcy" is a legal state - when someone seeks protection from creditors in court, or creditors sue to force a debtor into the state of bankruptcy. The financial term is "insolvent".
    A debtor is insolvent if it is unable to fully pay its creditors as bills become due. That is precisely what is projected to happen to Social Security in 203x. It is projected to be able to meet about 3/4 of its obligations going forward.
    I respectfully suggest that anyone using the term "bankruptcy" is by the choice of words appealing to people's vague understandings and fears. Social Security is not going "broke" (whatever that might mean), but neither will it be able to pay all of what it owes.
    Neither stoking fears, nor poo-pooing them, is particularly productive. Social Security does need to be fixed, the sooner the better. In the worst case, "Social Security" will not be "there". But something paying 3/4 of its obligations, and still called Social Security, will be.