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.

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....

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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

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.

@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.

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

"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.

FYI: Money gets a bad rap. In the current environment, amid levels of inequality not seen since the 1920s, too many people find it too easy to disparage wealth and the quest for material goods. There is no doubt that lifestyle creep and the hedonic treadmill are not the paths to true happiness. But what we see today is a backlash caused, in part, by the hangover from the 2007-09 financial crisis.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-22/money-doesn-t-deserve-the-bad-rap-it-s-getting

FYI: Warren Buffett isn’t close to beating the market this year, and a giant pension fund has cut its investment in Berkshire Hathaway , the investment juggernaut that Buffett helms.
Class B shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock (ticker: BRKb ) have only managed a 0.9% gain so far in 2019 through Friday’s close, in sharp contrast to the S&P 500’s 18.7% rise.
We’ve noted that Buffett suffered “a reputational and financial black eye” earlier this year as Berkshire took a $1 billion paper loss when Kraft Heinz stock (KHZ)—one of its larger investments—tumbled. Years ago, Buffett backed the combination of H.J. Heinz and Kraft Foods Group that created the company.
Oregon’s Public Employees’ Retirement Fund slashed two-fifths of its Berkshire stock investment by selling 141,822 Class B shares in the second quarter. OPERF, as the pension is known, made the disclosure in a form it filed this week with the Securities and Exchange Commission. OPERF, which recently was counted as the 42nd largest public pension in the world by assets, now owns 222,763 Class B Berkshire shares.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/berkshire-hathaway-stock-is-lagging-and-a-giant-pension-just-slashed-its-stake-51563707754

FYI: Actively managed funds have had outflows for the past four years straight, while index funds have gained
A decade after some of the nation’s largest U.S. banks helped to bring the financial system to its knees, a new kind of “too big to fail” risk may be emerging in a very different corner of the market: index funds.
Three index fund managers currently dominate ownership of shares of publicly traded companies in the U.S., and their control is likely to tighten in coming years, according to a June research report.
Concentrated ownership — what the authors refer to as the “Giant Three scenario” — means investors and policy makers need to keep a careful eye on the role of fund managers in upholding corporate governance, argue authors Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard Law School and Scott Hirst of Boston University in a working paper titled The Specter of the Giant Three.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/three-fund-managers-may-one-day-control-nearly-half-of-all-company-voting-shares-researchers-warn-2019-07-17/print

Updated: N-14 filing:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040612/000104061219000072/broadviewmadisonformn-14pe.htm
Incidentally, investors with Broadview Opportunity Fund, once converted can:
Comparison of Purchase and Redemption Procedures. The Acquired Fund has a minimum initial investment of $1,000 for all accounts and subsequent investments may be made with a minimum investment amount of $100 ($50 if purchases through the Automatic Investment Plan). The Class Y shares of the Acquiring Fund have a minimum initial investment of $25,000 for shares purchased directly from the Acquiring Fund. Class Y shares are also available for purchase by the following investors at a reduced minimum initial investment amount of $1,000 for non-retirement accounts and $500 for retirement accounts:
•Dealers and financial intermediates that have entered into arrangements with the Acquiring Fund’s distributor to accept orders on behalf of their clients.
•The fund-of-funds and managed account programs managed by Madison.
•Investment advisory clients of Madison and its affiliates.
•Members of the Board of Trustees of Madison Funds and any other board of trustees affiliated with Madison.
•Individuals and their immediate family members who are employees, directors or officers of the adviser, any subadviser, or any service provider of Madison Funds.
•Any investor, including their immediate family members, who owned Class Y shares of any Madison Mosaic Fund as of April 19, 2013.
•Any investor, including their immediate family members, who owned shares of the Acquired Fund as of the Effective Date.
The minimum subsequent investment for the Class Y shares of the Acquiring Fund is $50 for all purchases.

From a slightly different perspective: You can’t determine how much to set aside until you figure out where you’re heading after retiring. I agree in playing with different simulators as an educational experience. I sure did in the last 2 or 3 years before jumping ship and retiring, and also for 2 or 3 years after retiring as things were still falling into place. I did a lot of experiments with compound interest calculators and with the numerous suggested allocation models that existed online back than. Most fund companies had one of their own or had access to one. American Century’s proved especially helpful to me. Surprisingly, back than suggested allocations for those in or near retirement differed quite markedly from model to model. So in the end, a lot was left to the individual to work out. One suggestion for those facing retirement in the near future is to “look under the hood” at some of the “funds of funds” (like at T. Rowe) and observe how their managers allocate various assets for different life scenarios (generally expressed in a range of options from conservative investor to aggressive investor).
The simulators mentioned by both the article and @MJG and others all sound very useful in this regard. After you’ve been retired for several years you should have a good handle on how you’re faring, so I think simulators become somewhat unimportant. Rule #1 - Don’t quit a good paying and relatively secure job to transition into retirement unless you’ve run some simulations and are confident you have “all your ducks lined up”. Generally it’s better to err on the side of working longer and spending less in retirement than the other way around.
There’s much you cannot simulate ahead of time: Will you still be healthily enough or feel like working part time during retirement? What will taxes be? Will you or your spouse encounter unexpected health expenses? What will the inflation rate be? What type of returns will bonds and equities be yielding during retirement? What will your equity stake in your home be worth? How high will interest rates be if planning to use some of your home equity? What standard of living will you be comfortable with? And the “granddaddy” of all - How long will you live? Still, the unknowns persist. Few could have foreseen the financial collapse of ‘07-‘09 and the long term consequences for financial markets and investors. And how many models work with both the Traditional IRA and the Roth IRA (as well as a combination of both) during retirement to anticipate your outcomes? There’s a big difference between the two in how your standard of living eventually evolves.
I think a lot of simulators are “bottom up” in approach. They look at what your needs will be and than attempt to arrive at an investment strategy during retirement. I tend to focus more on a “top down” approach. With that approach one pays close attention to shaping an all-weather portfolio and financial plan that has a good chance of keeping pace with or outrunning inflation. That means that if inflation is running at only 1-2% during certain retirement years, you’ll be earning less on your investments. However, should it run at 7, 8 or even 10% your investments will by and large keep pace and protect you as much as possible. Caveat: Don’t trust the greatly understated government inflation numbers. It’s your inflation (as actually experienced) that counts. Not theirs.
@MJG - you were once known for rather verbose submissions. I assure you I’ve greatly outdistanced anything you ever achieved in that regard with this rambling (possibly nonsensical) one. :)

I wish something like a “10% Rule” was common knowledge when I started working in the 1970s. Nobody talked about saving for retirement then, and the stock market was considered a risky gamble. You could earn 12% interest from a money market account and my friends were more concerned about buying a car or house before prices went up again.
I didn’t start saving for retirement until my mid-30s when my employer started a 401k Plan. I contributed the amount that my employer would match, probably about 3% of my salary. I invested it all in cash and bonds because— again— stocks seemed like gambling. My employer provided no guidance or education about investment options, diversification, etc. Fortunately bonds did well during that period and even money markets paid 5-6%.
I finally got educated about investing when I left that job and rolled over my 401k and pension to an IRA. I was about 40 by then and immersed myself in financial literature. I invested the bulk of my savings in a diversified collection of stock funds, with a few bonds for safety, and never looked back. I increased my savings to about 10% of my salary including the employer match, and it all turned out OK in the end. For the last 20 years of my career, my employer had a pension but I kept contributing to a 401k, so my savings were closer to 15-20% of my salary— through my own ignorance because I didn’t realize that the pension was equivalent to saving about 10%.
Bottom line, for young workers or older ones who aren’t saving yet for retirement, the 10% Rule is a pretty good guideline for getting someone started in investing.

The article isn't too bad, as far as facts and figures. Perhaps it will cause a few readers who stumble across such a write to be more involved with their financial future.
So, before folks run to a "SIMULATOR" to determine the yet unknown they first must have a "STIMULATOR". Without a stimulator to help with motivation to save, there will be no need for the simulators.
So, let us count the ways. I've been pushing folks for 40 years to invest some of their wages; including the current campaign of setting up minor ROTH IRAs.
The "stimulator" has been in place with simple facts and figures.
The results have always been disappointing.
Boomers always seemed to want other stuff for "today's wants". Their children were not much different. In both of these groups, at least most were married and dual income households. But, the remaining free monies for investments (401k, 403b, simple IRA and then Roth IRA) were few.
The overwhelming response was the "markets" were too complex and they were not willing to use small pieces of their time to learn.
More recently, being since the market melt; finds remaining damage to household finances and problems finding jobs that pay a decent wage. This current period also contains those who do not trust market investments.
So, there are those households who have the monetary ability to invest; but still do not take any actions.
Ten percent of base pay seems are reasonable and easy path with which to begin; but I still don't see enough takers among educated and well paid 50 year old folk today.
Pretty sad and frustrating to and for me.
Good evening,
Catch

The other link to this story seems to have been deleted now. Myself, Ol Skeet, msf (and perhaps others) had commented on it. As I mentioned on that thread, interest rates have pretty much been trending downward since the early 80s when Fed chair Paul Volker jacked up short term rates to stop runaway inflation. The 10 year treasury topped out north of 15% around than. As we know, declining rates increase the value of longer dated bonds, while rising rates work against bond values. So we’ve had nearly 40 years of favorable rate trends for bond investors (more than half the lifetimes of many of us).
Paul Volker didn’t do this alone. There was the financial crisis and global market meltdown of ‘07-‘09 which compelled central banks to push rates lower by assorted means. Inflation has been subdued thanks to retail giants like Amazon, less powerful labor unions and relatively cheap energy - due to fracking and other advances. Low inflation generally translates into lower interest rates (and improving bond values). Additionally, upward pressure on rates from the baby boomers buying first homes in the 70s and 80s has abated - helping drive rates lower as well. All good if you invest in longer dated high grade bonds.
The lower-quality bond market (ie: junk) has been helped by a record 10+ year U.S. economic expansion and bull stock market which finds itself 3 or 4 times higher than it was only a decade ago. Since lower rated bonds react (favorably or unfavorably) to overall economic conditions (and secondly to long term rates) junk and corporates have tended to follow the stock market higher.
The article is correct that the past 6 months have been “spectacular” for just about any type of bond / bond fund. Missing in the headline, but critical to the article, is that many prognosticators predicted rising interest rates for this year - while in fact rates have trended lower with the 10 year getting below 1.95% recently before closing above 2% at week’s end. I have no major criticisms of the article. However, unless you butter your bread on both sides by trading in and out of bonds - particularly the lower rated ones (as @Junkster does very well) - you probably shouldn’t be too focused on your 6 month bond return. Anything other than cash and ultra-short IMHO is best suited for terms longer than a year or two.
I’m glad Ol Skeet liked the article and kicked it over to the discussions + part of the board.