CNBC: "Hawaiian’s stock nearly tripled on Monday to $14.22 a share, though still below the proposed purchase price. Alaska’s shares lost 14.2% to end the day at $34.08."
I'm still not planning to ever invest in any airline. That's a change from years ago, for me. For those so inclined, here's a major dip in ALK shares. Have at it. :)

@msf,
Need clarification on two sentences from the posts above:
"I just spoke with a Fidelity private client rep who said that this is a fee that Fidelity merely passes through to the brokerage."
Based on the context, I think you meant "fund' where it says "brokerage." I agree with you that Fidelity Rep is BSing. In fact Fidelity Reps also told me that the transaction fees on TF classes are also passed on to the fund companies. All fees collected from us by a fund needs to be disclosed in the prospectus. Does not matter if they are collecting directly from us (e.g., ER) or through an agent (e.g., brokerage). If it is not disclosed by the fund, the brokerage keeps the brokerage commission. I may have mentioned before that in the last couple of years I have found Reps at all brokerages I do business with have given me misinformation one time or the other, some even in writing. I think brokerages expect us to train their Reps! I usually ask them to point to a document or page on their (or a) website if I do not think their answer makes sense. More often than not the Reps insist their wrong answers are correct, even when the official answers clearly show the Reps are wrong. With the long telephone waits and the sub par customer service from Reps, I call the brokerages less and less and try to figure out answers without their assistance.
(In my last encounter with a TD Rep, I asked him to point me to a SEC webpage or document that states what he was espousing. He gave me an URL to a 400 page document. After confirming with him I have the correct document, I asked him to point to the page where he was getting his answer from. He said page 19 which had nothing to do with the topic of conversation. So, I put him on hold and looked at the document and figured out that it is a proposed (not final) SEC regulation document, with the first 300+ pages being preamble (SEC discussion) to the proposed regulation. I politely told the Rep what he is doing and asked him not to assume his clients are idiots. I asked him to transfer my call to his supervisor and he dropped the call. I have been with TD for over 20 years and they were one of the best for customer service but this was new.)
"I asked Fidelity to confirm that there was no fee for buying back shares shortly after selling."
Fidelity does not charge a fees for buying into an NTF fund class. If there is a frequent trading violation, one can be banned from buying back into the fund permanently or temporarily but fees to buy back? I do not have a recent experience with short term trading of NTF funds but you can ask some of the fund traders in this forum to confirm. May be I am not understanding the question you are exploring.

Or, more precisely, a sensible decision made by Morningstar 20 years ago.
Mark Hulbert's latest WSJ piece, "Momentum investing has struggled for two decades. Here's why." was published today. It reports on some new research that points that (some manifestations of) momentum investing essentially stopped working about two decades ago. Pre 2002, a strategy that loaded up on the preceding year's 10% of highest returning stocks and shorted the 10% of lowest returners, crushed the broad market average. In the year's since, the same strategy lost money annually in the face of rising markets.
The researchers blame Morningstar. Or, at the very least, attribute the collapse of momentum to a change they made. Prior to 2002, all stock funds were benchmarked against each other; you got to be a five-star SCV fund by outperforming large caps and midcaps and small caps. After 2002, funds were benchmarked against their style peers (you got to be a five star SCV fund by outperforming other SCV funds). The researchers note that money flows to five star funds, so pre-2002 money disproportionately flowed to whatever funds - in the entire universe - were hottest. That fed the momentum already shown by the stocks in those funds.
After 2002, the effect became greatly diluted since there were five-star funds scattered all over the investing universe with some of them qualifying as no more than "the best of a bad lot."
John Rekenthaler is, understandably, skeptical because ... you know, Rekenthaler. His argument is that fund flows represent just a fraction of all stock investment flows, so even if Morningstar influenced that subset of investors, a far larger set would have been unaffected. The researchers recognize that fact, but point to the undenied effect over ratings on new fund flows.
For what interest it holds. David

The intermediate term, 5-7 years, is the sweet spot. Those who bought long bonds when they were down double digits, they have since been rewarded handsomely. Ironically junk bonds are out-performing treasuries so far. If and when the economy turns downward, this trend will reverse quickly.
Another surprise is that the dollar-hedged BNDX and global bond funds are way ahead of BND this year.
Edits. I went back to read @davidsherman’ “No Fat Pitches” as a reality check. Thus I move slow and incrementally.

I can't wait to get rid of it.
It was originally focused on companies that have a good work place. At that time it was the Endeavor fund. It morphed into a value fund as Dodson plotted his departure.
PRBLX has also experienced some serious style drift in my opinion.
Parnassus funds do have the virtue of being among the least expensive in the ESG space. But take a close look at what they are up to now, instead of what they were doing a few years ago. If the shoe fits . . .

We are enjoying the best cash flow of our lives due to the rates on MM funds and the house being paid for. Thus we can leave the IRA's alone for a few years. My wife is picking up grant-based consulting work. That reduces the need to spend from the MM's. So we can DCA a bit into equities for the long term.
We're on the right side of what Wilkins McCawber would describe as the key to a happy life.

I started a huge position several months ago in CBYYX and emailed someone on this thread. Finder did an excellent job presenting this data already. I found https://www.artemis.bm/ as well and used it as my guide. On that site, you can find an explanation of most of the holdings. Example: Stabilitas is CBYYX biggest holding see this=https://www.artemis.bm/deal-directory/stabilitas-re-ltd-series-2023-1/
There were 2 other great funds I found and I have played with 2 out of 3.
There is no fun in posting about bonds, trades, and what I see anymore because of several posters as I have done for years. For more see (link).
Example from 2020 (https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/55299/bond-mutual-funds-analysis-act-2/p2). You can see when I sold and bought.
Never in my life, have I bought CDs or treasuries because trading bond funds is a lot better and this year it was great too.
BTW, trading HY munis funds since 2022 made me a lot of money. I also explained how I did it (hint: a simple T/A is one of my major signals).
As usual, a trader always sits by the exit because market conditions keep changing.

Eclipse mints, winterfrost, are my go-tos, fwiw saying. An ex turned me onto them years ago and they've been a staple in the office and in the car for nearly 2 decades .. plus it's a handy tin. :)
(Sorbitol, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Magnesium Stearate, Acesulfame K, Sucralose, Lactic Acid, Calcium Lactate, Blue 2 Lake.)

Yes, November has been a good month for everything including bonds. I mentioned about reinvestment risk earlier this year as we extended bond duration to intermediate term bonds. Additionally, we took more risk in investment grade and some junk bonds. These bonds went up in November ~3-4% total return. Some are in double digits gain for the year. As @junkster mentioned bonds are having one of the very solid gain in many years.
Also other interest rate sensitive sectors such as financial and REITs are moving up nicely. It is encouraging to see the market starts to broaden out beyond the large tech stocks.

At what moment? He never said that there would be an imminent collapse, which is what I wrote would have IMHO a hack prediction. Even then, just a hack prediction, not necessarily the writing of a hack. What he demonstrated was that admissions of error are difficult to make; that's not bias.
Hacks often start with preconceived notions, cherry pick data, and disregard what that data represents or even the data itself. There's a difference between a well reasoned position piece and a hack writing.

House are about 30% more expensive (https://www.atlantafed.org/center-for-housing-and-policy/data-and-tools/home-ownership-affordability-monitor)

There's an old saying that a house is not a home. The Fed presents data on its Home Ownership Affordability Monitor. It includes "all single-family attached and detached properties combined" (quote is from the Fed site). Nowhere does the Fed use the word "house".
No time frame appears in the quote above for the 30% figure. But since a second source (Bloomberg) is offered, and that source uses time frames including Jan 2020 - Oct 2023 and Q1 2020 - Q3 2023, we can work with that.
The Fed site actually says that median existing home repeat sale prices rose from $264.00K in Jan 2020 to $374.167K in Sept 2023 (a 41.7% increase). This isn't close to 30%. The point here is not whether the actual number is greater or less than 30%. Rather it is that giving "supporting" sources that actually conflict with one's asserted numbers is something hacks do.
---------
It was suggested that the ones hurt by this 30% increase in prices (presumably since Jan 2020) are largely first-time house (sigh) buyers. Instead of relying on shock value (another hack ploy) and disregarding counterbalancing income increases, let's compare the increases in costs and income.
"The typical age of a first-time homebuyer is 33 years old"
https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/first-time-homebuyer-statistics/
Average wages rise (inflation, productivity, etc.). We've already seen that the increase in wages over this period is around 20%. So a typical individual worker aged 33 received a nominal wage 20% higher in 2023 than a typical individual worker aged 33 back in 2020. (We can use age-specific percentage increases instead if you have them.)
Now, independent of market wage increases (the 20%), individual workers' wages increase as they age - due to promotions, due to more experienced workers receiving higher wages generally. (Though above age 60, wages often decline with age.)
Let's take this step by step, starting with a typical wage earner, age 30 in 2020. That worker earned about $40,540. We know this because when we increase by 20% (the national average increase in wages since 2020), we get a typical wage of $48,650. That happens to be the typical wage earned by a 30 year old in 2023.
https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-income-by-age-percentiles/
Since 2020 this typical worker has aged three years and is now receiving the wages of a typical 33 year old: $52,650. So in nominal terms this worker's wages have increased about 29.9%, the same as housing costs have increased.
IOW, despite the increase in existing housing costs, this typical worker is no worse off than he was three years ago with respect to housing.
The age factor is something often missed in analyses. It's true that a 33 year old today is less likely to afford a home than a 33 year old three years ago. Hence statistics like the Home Opportunity Affordability Monitor show a declining rate of affordability.
But at the level of the individual, the situation is better. As people age, they are supposed to be able to afford more. Right now, they can't afford more housing than they could three years ago, but neither are they stuck affording less.
As a nation, housing costs have risen bigly. That takes some of the bloom off "the American dream". But at the individual level, people are better off with respect to some purchases and not worse off with respect to first time home buying.
Old age is a different story. To the extent that people rely on savings (as opposed to inflation-adjusted Social Security), rising housing costs (including rent, property taxes, maintenance, etc.) are not a pretty sight. And not just recently. It's a mistake to assume that people who own their homes are in good shape.

As the largest expenditure in most older households’ budgets, housing costs figure heavily into financial security in older age. Incomes decline in older age, and not just at the point of retirement: while the 2017 median income of pre-retirement households ages 50 to 64 was $71,400, it was $46,500 for households ages 65 to 79 and just $29,000 for households ages 80 and older, according to analysis of data from the American Community Survey; and author tabulations. While these numbers show a pattern across all older households, individual households frequently see declines in incomes as they age [the opposite of what happens with first-time buyers]. As a result, affordability concerns can emerge as a new problem even for those in their 80s and older.

https://generations.asaging.org/older-adults-aging-place-affordable-safe

Great write up finder. You have really immersed yourself on these co insurance funds. One thing I am not sure we talked about in the past offline is Stone Ridge Asset Management. They are the go to fund company for reinsurance funds of several varieties. Their flagship fund I believe is SHRIX which has been around for many years. Note like the two funds you mentioned how this fund has enjoyed a steady ride up in 2023 with a 20% return YTD. But also note its returns prior to this year. Nothing to write home about and make me wonder if 2023 is simply an anomaly and never again to be repeated.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/shrix/quote

https://apple.news/AYf7Zw7qKRZ-4t7kE8--gIw
Above link from the respected Randall Forsyth at Barron’s. Feels much of the allure of bonds has dissipated with the recent rally. Mortgage backed securities bond funds still offer value as do closed end bond funds which are still trading at some of their cheapest value in years. Noticed today PIMIX outperformed munis and junk primarily because of its outsized exposure to MBS bonds.

FD1000
For a guy who claims to keep up, you really don't keep up, do you?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/paul-krugman-trump-economy

This is a 2020 article where "Krugman acknowledged that he had "reacted badly" and retracted his prediction three days after the election."
That was in 2016, four years prior. Not exactly keeping up either.
As to the "retraction", it was more of a declaration that he was right, just a bit early. Not exactly a full-throated retraction.

There’s a temptation to predict immediate economic or foreign-policy collapse; I gave in to that temptation Tuesday night, but quickly realized that I was making the same mistake as the opponents of Brexit (which I got right). So I am retracting that call, right now. It’s at least possible that bigger budget deficits will, if anything, strengthen the economy briefly. More detail in Monday’s column, I suspect.
On other fronts, too, don’t expect immediate vindication. America has a vast stock of reputational capital, built up over generations; even Trump will take some time to squander it.
The true awfulness of Trump will become apparent over time.

Krugman, The Long Haul, NYTimes Nov 11, 2016
https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/the-long-haul/
Did he actually predict immediate economic or foreign policy collapse? Here are the last two paragraphs of his column that he cited:

Now comes the mother of all adverse effects — and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. Effective fiscal support for the Fed? Not a chance. In fact, you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence, and be bullied by cranks.
So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened.

Krugman, What Happened On Election Day
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout
Not exactly the prospect of an immediate collapse which is what he said he was retracting. More like the difference between climate and weather. The world is hot and getting hotter. That's climate. The temperatures for the next week will be 10 degrees below normal for this time of year. That's weather. That's immediate.
Was his prediction wrong? Yes. Did he acknowledge it? Yes, eventually (thus the 2020 piece). Did he predict an immediate collapse? No. Had he predicted an immediate collapse, he would have been a hack - economies don't turn on a dime (or a buck, after inflation). He knows that.
OJ is right; Krugman provides citations. So you can read what he actually wrote to compare with what he says he wrote.

I recall fondly this excellent thread (from May 17) containing many diverse opinions. What stood out to me was the voracity with which the proponents of cash (rather than bonds) voiced their opinions. Not to imply they were wrong. Just that it’s been really rewarding for bond / bond fund investors the past couple weeks watching the turn around. Some memorable comments from this spring.

Well, you seem to be (read, "are") picking on me with those quotes, so here's my reply.
Great. Maybe LT bond holders will continue to see massive upswings to continue to recoup their heavy losses over the past years. (Maybe not?) To wit, the vast majority of taxable bonds do NOT have 5-yr TRs equaling 5% yet.
And we'll see how long the bond party lasts, eh? Talk to me in 5 years after our CP CD ladder made us 5+% annually for that period, risk and worry free, allowing me to spend my investment time on stocks, where real money is made. To wit, with all of our stock funds UP 20%-65% this year, except one only UP ~9%, I really don't give a rat's arse what bond funds are doing. I don't want to and I don't have to! My FI money is instead parked in the 5+% CP rate lot where I don't have to waste otherwise quality investment time on it for years to come.

I recall fondly this excellent thread (from May 17) containing many diverse opinions. What stood out to me was the voracity with which the proponents of cash (rather than bonds) voiced their opinions. Not to imply they were wrong. Just that it’s been really rewarding for bond / bond fund investors the past couple weeks watching the turn around. Some memorable comments from this spring.
- ”I sold all of my bond funds in March of 2022. I have not bought any new bond funds since then, preferring Brokerage noncallable CDs and MMs. I have no plans on buying any new bond funds in the near future.”
- “+100”
- ”I’m with you.”
- ”So while bond fund investors over the next 5 years will be putting in time and effort trying to get their 4%-5% TRs, I'll be putting on a slew of golf courses, knowing that we have a 5+-yr CD ladder in place of those bond funds that is paying in excess of 5%.”
- “I look at MMs paying around 5%, CDs paying around 5.3%, and there is little to no risk there. As a retired person, I am fine with collecting 5+% for now.”
- ”As a retired person I am right with you! I am sleeping very well with little to no risk and I have NO FOMO”
- “Just bought two 12-months CDs from two large national banks with a quite satisfactory yield of 5.30%. I am not concerned about eking out a few extra basis points here or there in the future.”

Anytime we talk about CD rates we should always be sure to reference if they are CP or Not CP. BIG difference in the rates and Available Quantities, as well as the strategies/consequences of holding either.
FWIW, I rarely if ever post about Not CP CDs as I have ZERO interest in ever owning one in concert with my overall strategy on FI. All comments that follow are therefore related to brokered, CP CDs.
Brokered, CP rates for 3-yr to 5-yr CP CDs peaked at about 5.20% to 5.10% (based on my tracking, but they coulda inched a wee bit higher) respectively at two different times in 2023, several months ago and a coupla weeks ago.
They are now GONE and we are unlikely to see them again in this interest rate cycle. That said, the topic after all is interest rates, so the direction and magnitude of moves is always a roll of the dice.
Currently, the best brokered, CP rates (and Available Quantities) on Fido for these maturities are
3-yr: 4.65% (6,000)
4-yr: 4.60% (2,200)
5-yr: (None)
I suggested to investors here many months ago to try to NOT be short-sighted (and star struck) with the relatively higher rates on 3-months to 18-month CDs IF they were planning on creating a longer term CD ladder and/or wanted to take advantage of CD opportunities not seen for many prior years.
I suggested those 5+% CP longer term rates would disappear quickly and once they were gone, they would likely be gone for many years...again. Luckily, we all had two swipes at them as noted above. Some acted. Some did not. I acted and built our CD ladder out 5 years.
Those who didn't act are left with the types of questions posted by some of the most recent posters: What to do now?
Yeah, the drop in the 10-yr and CD rates SHOULD improve bond fund TRs BUT that's the rub: Do you want FDIC'd, CP, guaranteed rates of a CD ladder in the 5+% range, or do you want to roll the dice on bond funds, and IMO, basically the hope that you'll match the CD ladder TR? Plenty of worthy arguments on both sides but I will always choose the former based on my minimum FI hurdle and risk/reward considerations. Others had at least two opportunities this year to do the same but it appears they no longer will. So TMMV, and likely will.

The price of food and gas is not the big problem because housings and total expense on vehicles is a much bigger portion of someone expenses. Buying a house in many cases it at least 50% more than 3-4 years ago because prices are 30% up + mortgage rates are more than doubled. That isn't a political view.
Krugman is a political hack. This is what he said
In 2016 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/krugman-trump-global-recession-2016-231055

The data and employment trends support the argument. However, people will judge economy based on what they spend most visibly (prices of food and gas). So, there is the disconnect.
However, for a middle-class family the percentage of these items is relatively small (food about 10% and gas about 6%). Plus, while prices have these items have increased some due to supply chain issues after pandemic and some simply because economy is good, people have jobs and are actually travelling and in effect creating more demand. Without demand the prices cannot easily go up. Fed is basically trying to curb the demand by increasing interest rates.
Also, if you have travelled around the world, you would see US food prices (especially meat) is relatively on the lower end of the scale. In Europe you pay a lot more for your groceries and gas if we compare US with most other developed countries. Inflation while considered high vs 40 years, it is still a very low number again compared to many other countries (well maybe Japan which often goes through deflationary cycles) I will take a bit of inflation with plenty of jobs available vs, no or negative inflation with jobs getting lost. I have lived in a hyperinflation country and the inflation worries here is just more noise than substantial.
Perceptions are also colored by political propaganda of both parties. So, where do I stand? I take the positive view with a nuance. It is neighter as bad as it is perceived, nor it is as good as it could be.

msf
In case you consider my arithmetic suspect, the same BLS table gives figures in constant (inflation adjusted) dollars:
4th Quarter, 2019 - $362
3rd Quarter, 2023 - $365
===============
FD: good catch, I would start from Q1/2020 to Q3/2023 beginning at 367, ending at 365
Just for reference: what happened in the 4 years prior, from Q1/2016 to Q4/2019: Start at 346, end at 362...just "a bit" better.
BTW, I have discussed the above with many younger people and they have told me that they are way behind in what they can purchase now vs early 2020. Housing+vehicles are the leading factors and both are a high % of their spending.