@hank, next time, give ebay a shot.
Easier to read. Better user-protection. I don't work for ebay. And I have no idea if I own any of their stock. Just been shopping with them for years trouble-free.

@Derf. Earliest now would be 8 AM Saturday. CNN and others should carry it. Or find a site on the web. (Postponed from Friday.)
”Update for 3 pm ET: SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says the second Starship launch is postponed to no earlier than Saturday, Nov. 18 to replace a grid fin actuator on the launch stack, according to an update Musk posted on X, formerly Twitter. It's been nearly seven months since SpaceX's first Starship megarocket exploded in a brilliant fireball over South Texas in a failed launch test, but the company is ready to try again. If you're hoping to watch SpaceX's second Starship test flight, you'll need to know when to tune in, and for that, we've got you covered.
SpaceX's second Starship and Super Heavy booster test flight is currently scheduled to launch from the company's Starbase site near Boca Chica, Texas no earlier than Saturday, Nov. 18, at 8 a.m. EST (1300 GMT). It will be 7 a.m. local time at liftoff time. The launch was originally set for Nov. 17, but SpaceX delayed it by 24 hours to replace a grid fin actuator on the launch stack.”
https://www.space.com/spacex-second-starship-launch-what-time
@Derf - Apologies if I misunderstood your post. I thought you were seeking opinions on the fixed income matter and just tossed out what I’ve been taking in. Not surprised Schwab feels that way. It’s a pretty common theme now and the uptick in rates has been astounding the past 2 years, Thanks for clarifying that.

10-15 years ago that would have been heartening to hear. These days I try to stay as far away as I can from Amazon. But I digress. Somebody can start an OT thread if so inclined on the subject.
Thanks for the story. No problem. Most of us own Amazon through 1 fund or another.

@Observant1 mentioned this high CG distribution earlier - JPEAX, JPECX, JPDEX, JPELX (AUM $853 million)
How can things go so wrong in a "Tax Aware" fund? Of course, heavy redemptions and/or manager incompetence.
JPM is also mad and is just shutting down the fund, TwitterLINK
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217286/000119312523277672/d372772d497.htm
Edit/Add. Looking at fund data for JPDEX from Fido and M*, this Fund has been in redemption for years, and has distributed large CGs before. So, the question is, what took JPM so long to kill it?
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/view-all/4812A1654
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/jpdex/performance

The why (Y) question. I had plenty when I started my Plumbing apprenticeship many years ago. As for starting to shave in the same spot, I don't fit the question.
Why, Derf

I also own NEAGX/NEAIX for SCG coverage. ER is high, especially for retail shares. Otherwise, no reservations. SCV is a head-scratcher. CALF has a lot going for it and Pacer Funds, which include COWZ, are exemplary in explaining their free-cashflow methodology. DSMC has a similar approach but with a screen to weed out companies that carry too much debt, a concern for SCs when interest rates are high. DSMC does not have as long a track record as CALF, but I've overlooked that factor in my personal choice. AVUV holds too many positions for my money.

I like the funds following the cash these days. I'll add DSMC to my watch list, for as long as it might last at M*. But I generally like to see the thesis in action for at least five years in this up-and-down era.
People can checkout DSMC's overlaps here. It's not what I expected.
After years of bloated Vanguard indexes, I get what you're saying about too many holdings.

The Week in Charts (11/12/23)
The most important charts and themes in markets, including...
00:00 Intro
00:16 The Tremendous Two (Apple & Microsoft)
03:35 The Fantastic Four (Apple, Microsoft, Google & Amazon)
06:41 The Enormous Eight (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Tesla, Meta, & Nvidia)
12:16 2023: The Inverse of 2022
14:56 Rising Debt/Delinquencies (Credit Cards, Auto Loans)
19:07 Next Inflation Report: Likely to Decline
21:51 Higher Real Central Bank Rates (Today vs. 2 years ago)
25:37 Spending on Experiences (Concerts, Travel)
27:38 Is Housing Supply Starting to Normalize?
30:41 From $47 billion to $0 (WeWork)
32:40 Outpacing Inflation With I Bonds (updated rates)
Video
Blog

@Investor Your last sentence, " In investing, perfection is the enemy of good enough returns. " What would you consider, good enough return, 5% , 10% & in what time space ? I'm sure age of investor would have something to be considered.
Thanks for your time, Derf

It is hard to pin a absolute value for the good returns. For different decades there has been different good returns. Sometimes 1% is a good return for a decade and 20% is a bad return for another.
If you look very long periods say rolling 15-20 years, good returns have been around 7-9% range which include multiple crashes and booms. If your time horizon is not that long or you cannot accept the volatility of such long periods, then good returns associated with reduced portfolio risk will also be less.

”Current account values are unavailable.”
Not affected directly. But most interesting. I assume the problem involves simply pulling up the correct prices or NAVs for whatever you invest in? Similar to what sometimes happens with portfolio trackers?
It it meant you were completely unable to view account holdings, that would be much more serious. Yikes - that could precipitate #@&#!
(That computer lingo looks a lot like what appeared on one of my devices after one of its apps was hacked couple years ago.)

What happens in 10 or 15 years?
I like smalls, and always hold some. I wish I had owned FMIMX all that time. But it always looked so boring. M* calls it a mid-cap, but it's currently 67% small. I own some now, and I expect to buy more in the future.
I own RWJ, and I am looking at CALF. Both are on the lower end of the debt/equity ratio, as is FMIMX for that matter.
Keep in mind that any etf based on the S&P 400 will tick the small cap box for M*. In that space I own XMHQ. It also has a low D/E ratio, as do most things on my shopping list. Seems to me that the current environment encourages an eye on debt exposure.
I am keeping an eye on GRPM to see how Invesco's GARP strategy works in that space. Until recently it was an equal-weight 400 fund. I have been pleased with SPGP, which has a longer track record, but in the 500.
Buy now, or wait? I might do some early shopping in the taxable, but mostly I think I'll wait till the budget mess is settled.

Thanks for making me aware of TCIFX! Giroux is equity and Shuggi is an equity quant and allocation guy...
[snip]

Jeff Ptak from M* asked David Giroux: "With the benefit of hindsight, what do you think you might have urged your younger self to do and conversely, warn the younger you to refrain from doing, given all that you’ve learned along the way?"
David Giroux's partial response:
"Second, I think I would tell myself to work more closely with the quantitative resources at T. Rowe earlier in my career. I really didn’t do anything on that front really until late ‘09. I joke with people internally. There was a BFS era, before Farris Shuggi, and AFS, after Farris Shuggi, period at CAF. I’ve worked very, very closely with Farris Shuggi and the rest of the quant team at T. Rowe on so many proprietary projects over the last 14 years that have really meaningfully, positively contributed to CAF’s performance. Honestly, it changed the way I managed CAF for the better over time."
https://www.morningstar.com/podcasts/the-long-view/2fc42364-3773-4020-94f4-02d6b1f4e551

10-15 year time frame? But thinking of making what amounts to a tactical decision? If you have a long range plan in place you shouldn’t have to make this type of decision. Rather, you’d be considering rebalancing and possibly adding to beaten-up small caps - or perhaps slightly overweighting those that you already own.
To quibble a bit, I consider 10-15 years intermediate term , but not long term (20-30 years). To wit - it’s largely a matter of semantics. There’s been some discussion of small caps on the board. I’ll try to link something. Truth is - it all depends on the economy and the direction of interest rates. If rates continue to decline small caps should benefit as they need easy access to the borrowing trough and tend to borrow at higher rates.
I’d have about 3-5% of my money tilted toward small caps myself. The thing is - When they jump … it’s often by a lot. So, if you feel like gambling, throw a little that way and let it ride. But check what you already own and make sure you’re not already exposed to the sector through some existing funds.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/61579/it-s-almost-time-to-buy-small-caps#latest

Is it too early for a long term (10-15 yrs) investor to reallocate to small caps? The SCG landscape has been beaten down and some of the most reputable MF/ETFs have fallen to the middle of the pack (performance-wise). I've owned BCSIX for over 10 years and looking back, glad I took profits when I rebalanced (several times). Also, own PRNHX and the recent 3 yrs has been tough due to the Fund's aggressive nature.
Any MF/ETF's that you are considering or own?

Nov 10 Episode

James Grant, Founder and Editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, joins us to discuss the history of bond market cycles and why the dramatic rise in interest rates that began in March of last year might have ushered in a prolonged bear market in bonds.
Grant argues that bond yields have trended in generation-length periods, with each cycle lasting at least 20 years. He believes that the bull market in bonds that began in the early 1980s has now come to an end, and that we are now embarking on a long-term period of rising interest rates.

Audio Version:
https://on.soundcloud.com/3cNTh

There are more generous INHERITED IRA rules for a spouse 10 years, or even younger, than the deceased.
You may be confusing the RMD rules for a regular (as opposed to inherited) IRA. Here are the rules for spousal inherited IRAs as described by Chuck. The only place "10 years younger" appears is for IRAs inherited by someone who is not a spouse.
https://www.schwab.com/ira/inherited-and-custodial-ira/inherited-ira-withdrawal-rules
If while you and your young spouse are alive you are subject to RMDs, you use Table II to compute your RMDs. This table is based on both your age and that of your spouse and results in smaller RMDs based in part on the longer life expectancy of your spouse.
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p590b#en_US_2022_publink100090077

@MikeM. @yogibearbull.
On second thought, Mike is correct. It might make sense to gift my son some money. We have a joint account back in California, but he has his own individual account, too. Might I send it THERE? I understand that there will need to be taxes paid on T-IRA withdrawals. Except for the fact that our taxable income never meets the threshold. We never pay federal income tax. As long as I don't pull out too much each January from that IRA....
Also, unrelated: Month by month, in baby steps, I'm growing the joint taxable brokerage account. And some of the January annual withdrawal ends up in there, too. There are more generous INHERITED IRA rules for a spouse 10 years, or even younger, than the deceased. But what I try to teach her about all of this goes in one ear and out the other. She can get at the taxable account without worrying about ANY IRA rules, and that's what she prefers. And she has one totally crazy schedule that she keeps. I don't complain.
Thank you both.

Since this post has been bumped . . .
Prof. Snowball's thesis in his column:

in every measure of returns, more equity is better. In every measure of risk and of risk-adjusted returns, less equity is better. Several earlier MFO essays on the discreet charm of stock-lite portfolios found the same relationship is true for periods dating back 100 years. Lightening up equity exposure reduces your volatility by a lot more than it reduces your returns, so it always seems like the best move for risk-conscious investors.

And he chose four "Great Owls", which included FAGIX and FPACX as well as OSTIX and RSIVX, as great alternatives to only equities. All four buy more, or less, junk. I chose to run PV against FAGIX because I am not comfortable buying most bond funds whether they're buying junk, or agencies.
If David Giroux wants to buy junk, well, that's why I bought his fund. Let him worry about it. I don't need to pay above average fees to FPA.I can load up on cash myself. YMMV.
In this PV I'm looking at GLFOX versus FAGIX and FPACX. I think of GLOFX as a global version of Electric Company, Waterworks, and the railroads. So, Widows & Orphans take a ride on The Reading . . .
For those that don't follow links, GLOFX has the better standard deviation, Sharpe, and Sortino numbers, a better compound growth rate, lost less money in the worst year of holding, has less correlation to the market, and the lowest beta and highest alpha.

And here is the original W&O versus FPACX. Since July 1993 FPACX is the winnerin returns, while W&O beat FAGIX.
Here are some runs against what MFO Premium calls The Great Normalization (TGN), which they date from January 2022

First: W&O versus FPACX and FAGIX. My take away is that the fund with the best SD, Sharpe, and Sortino numbers also had the worst CAGR, worst yearly loss, and highest market correlation. YMMV
And here is W&O Ride the Rails. And it looks to me like the fund with the worst Sharpe and Sortino numbers has lost the least amount of your money. But I don't always spot things correctly. Let me know if you see something different.
Why did I run these numbers? It's the kind of thing I like to do when people say things like every. I like to dig a little deeper.

Getting back to my prior posts here about playing in the Seconday Issues sandbox in case anyone is interested...
FWIW, I will rolling over some CDs starting in the next two weeks as some rungs mature. There are still a coupla New Issues left in the Fido inventory (after last week's shake out) that meet my respective hurdles for their maturities. But there are also a coupla Secondary Issues that I just might BUY instead. I will be massaging those numbers in detail and will provide a summary of my decisions.
@Jan: There are NO commissions (fees) charged to the BUYer of a Fido or VG New Issue CD. They both charge the same % fee on Secondary Issues BUYs. As noted previously, for example, on the BUY of a $50K Secondary Issue CD, the fee at both is $50. That fee of course needs to be accounted for in determining which BUY is better, New or Secondary Issue. FWIW, I have never and would never pay a fee for a New Issue CD. I have however many times over the past 15 years happily paid the (IMO) nominal fee on Secondary Issues in order to increase my effective yields over those then offered by New Issues.

I think that list includes acquirers as well as acquired and bankrupt banks.
I had an a/c at NetBank when it failed. Its buyout by EverBank had fallen through. As part of the FDIC rescue, it was acquired by ING Direct (anyone remember that?), and that was acquired by Capital One when Dutch rescue of ING required its withdrawal from most foreign operations. That is how I got a Capital One a/c.
EverBank itself was acquired by TIAA a few years ago and was renamed TIAA Bank. TIAA had 2nd thoughts and has now spun off EverBank, so it exists again.

Gee, this sounds strangely - and disturbingly- familiar.....as the coda to 'The Big Short' notes, even as the dust was settling from the GFC, banks already were exploring the sale of CDOs under different names like "bespoke debt tranche instruments." History may not repeat, but it sure does rhyme, which also suggests the WSJ is being somewhat disingenuous in calling this a 'new' thing.
Big Banks Cook Up New Way to Unload Risk
Banks are selling risk to hedge funds, private-equity firms through so-called synthetic risk transfers
U.S. banks have found a new way to unload risk as they scramble to adapt to tighter regulations and rising interest rates.
U.S. Bank and others are selling complex debt instruments to private-fund managers as a way to reduce regulatory capital charges on the loans they make, people familiar with the transactions said.
These so-called synthetic risk transfers are expensive for banks but less costly than taking the full capital charges on the underlying assets. They are lucrative for the investors, who can typically get returns of around 15% or more, according to the people familiar with the transactions.
< - >
The deals function somewhat like an insurance policy, with the banks paying interest instead of premiums. By lowering potential loss exposure, the transfers reduce the amount of capital banks are required to hold against their loans
< - >
Banks started using synthetic risk transfers about 20 years ago, but they were rarely used in the U.S. after the 2008-09 financial crisis. Complex credit transactions became harder to get past U.S. bank regulators, in part because similar instruments called credit-default swaps amplified contagion when Lehman Brothers failed.
Regulators in Europe and Canada set clear guidelines for the use of synthetic risk transfers after the crisis. They also set higher capital charges in rules known as Basel III, prompting European and Canadian banks to start using synthetic risk transfers regularly.
U.S. regulations have been more conservative. Around 2020, the Federal Reserve declined requests for capital relief from U.S. banks that wanted to use a type of synthetic risk transfer commonly used in Europe. The Fed determined they didn’t meet the letter of its rules.
< - >
https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/bank-synthetic-risk-transfers-basel-endgame-62410f6c