White collar crimes tend to get away with light sentences. Each convicted count carries a maximum of 20 years sentence, and she was convicted on four out of 12 counts. She is going to appeal for lighter sentences than the 11 years she received. Her asset is nearly gone so she may have to pay very little.
Not only she stole from investors. The worst was the wrongly blood test results from the Edison machine when in fact these patients are free of diseases. Is that amounts to malpractice?

any idiot who walks into a state of the art Clinical Lab and looks at the enormous size of machines that run even simple lab tests ( ie blood count) would know that they could not be miniaturized
Thanks for the link. I hate to pay $ to Amazon, but watching this will be such a guilty pleasure.
Both Andy Fastow and his wife both did time for Enron, but only 6 and 1 years respectively. He at least fully cooperated with the DOJ ( of course after this schemes were exposed). I think the judge let them serve the sentences one after another so the kids would not be left alone.
They had to pay back at least $25 million but I think they put a huge pot into their house in Houston to protect it, but nothing restored the life savings of all of the Enron employees
I have heard Holmes's judge still has to decide if she will be required to pay back the $500 to $800 million lost in Theranos scheme.
She is not only a crook, but a mean and vindictive woman. She tried to destroy George Shultz's grandson's life and reputation with private detective surveillance and threats after he blew the whistle on her. Read the victim testimony from his father at the trial.
She deserves more than 11 years, new mother or not.

There is dirty like going into Target and stealing Laundry Detergent and there is another level of dirty like messing with little kids, stealing from old folks, putting things in peoples food and now this, messing with folks blood tests when she clearly new what was going on.
Why only 11 years I ask?
How do these screwballs (her, the FTX slob) get into these positions? Who in their right mind funds them? Due diligence? My rear end...greed, pure greed I guess...
Baseball Fan

FDIC and SIPC coverages are quite different.
Federal FDIC related to banks and nonprofit SIPC relates to brokerages.
Confusion arises for brokerage cash, money-market funds, brokered CDs.
To begin with, consider brokerage firm A and financial product B (cash, market fund, CD). Then, the SIPC coverage is at the brokerage firm level (for fraud, failure; total $500K including $250K for brokerage cash) while the FDIC coverage is at product-CD level ($250K).
Case 1 - Firm A is fine, but product-CD fails. The FDIC coverage kicks in (if the issuing bank is covered by FDIC). The SIPC is not involved.
Case 2 - Firm A is fine, but product-money-market fund fails. The SIPC coverage doesn't kick in; the FDIC has no business in this. There has been only one major money-market fund failure - Reserve Primary Fund. Much of the money was recovered after being frozen for several years. That situation was not covered by the SIPC or FDIC. More realistic risks of money-market funds today are not failures, but gates and/or redemption fees (least likely for government money-market funds) but those situations are also not covered by the SIPC or FDIC.
Case 3 - Firm A fails, CD is fine. The FDIC isn't involved. The SIPC coverage kicks in for securities and brokerage cash. The SIPC coverage of $500K would be for the total account value (net equity for margin account) including $250K for brokerage cash.
Case 4 - Firm fails, CD fails, money-market fund fails. A total disaster, may be an economic collapse. In that unlikely and absurd case, the SIPC will cover $500K and the FDIC $250K, for a combined total of $750K, more if the brokerage firm has excess insurance coverage beyond SIPC (most major brokerages do).
Securities are stocks, bonds, money-market funds, Treasuries, CDs, options; excluded are futures, warrants. While we may think of money-market funds as cash equivalents, for the SIPC, they are classified as securities. It goes without saying that there is no FDIC or SIPC coverage for the money-market fund itself, and the SIPC coverage will kick in for the total brokerage account only if the brokerage firm fails.
Brokerage cash is the cash held from securities sales or that waiting only to be deployed for purchases of securities (and for no other purpose). When in 2018, Robinhood foolishly launched an interest-bearing checking account with SIPC coverage, the SIPC rejected that notion immediately and publicly - because that Robinhood money wasn't really waiting to be deployed for security purchases only. Robinhood mistakenly thought that it could stretch the definition of brokerage cash into an interest bearing product (i.e. a banking product without really saying so). The SIPC wasn't amused, nor was the FDIC. An embarrassed Robinhood withdrew that product, and a couple of years later, relaunched a cash management product in partnership with banks with FDIC coverages.
In conclusion, Vanguard Cash Plus savings is a FDIC insured banking product that allows ACH withdrawals (for money transfers to brokerages/banks or bill pay) but there won't be any credit/debit card associated with it at this time. If your brokerage account is linked to an online savings account now, then VG Cash Plus can be a better alternative.

There are a number of key elements to produce nanoscale complex chipsets that China does not have today. They are trying to the entire factories from Germany and England lately but they were blocked for national security reasons. China has come a long way to build up this part of semiconductor infrastructure but they are years behind. Eventually they will catch up. Industrial espionage have been on going with them in stealing someone else intellectual properties and know-hows.
Same applies to biotechnology such as mRNA-based vaccines. Their version of mRNA vaccines is barely passing the 50% effectiveness requirement against COVID while Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are 90%+ effective. China wants to buy Moderna vaccine but Moderna must disclosed all the secrets within their patents. Moderna refused and there are lots of customers around the world.

As 'Roseanne Roseannadanna' (portrayed by the late, great Gilda Radner) was known for saying in the 1970's SNL news: "...it just goes to show you, it's always something — if it ain't one thing, it's another."
Staying with thoughts and reactions of bond markets since the melt of 2008, and the continuing aspect of 'this time is different'; which I believe still applies, those with the big strings to pull, will continue to attempt to fix the problems. Not that this hasn't happened in past decades; but those decades are now for reference and study; and for me, are not so meaningful for trying to preserve and improve one's capital position, here and now.
Nov. 15 PPI down .2%, a baby trend. And missiles strike Poland
, killing 2. Not Russian missiles? Thursday...some folks talk about a peak/terminal rate of 7%??? Is the FED gonna break the back of the economy, with what ever it takes?
The FED board are a chatty bunch, eh? Although, I don't have a degree in psychology; one may observe over the years, that often when folks become excessively chatty about something they're connected to; in part, it may be from being nervous, twitchy. So do they have their fingers crossed behind their backs, that their plan will actually work and they won't look like fools at a future date? Some inflation is taken care of by the consumer not willing to pay a price. Other inflation sectors in the current environment, are not readily able to be controlled by the FED or the consumer. As there are no real rules to all phases of the game, perhaps I'll keep my fingers crossed, too; and hope to spot a trend here or there.
What is Terminal fund rate?
The terminal rate is the level at which the Fed is expected to stop raising interest rates.
I'm imaging the FED using CPI or an index gauge they choose and increasing interest rates until the two numbers are near the same value; and then take a look around at the results, to determine the next move. I.E. : CPI at 5.5%, stop the terminal rate at 5.5%.
Numerous recent posts have discussed the yield curve and other factors that may be affecting current and future yields. I can't improve on those commentary; and I've rambled enough.
NOTE: I've kept the prior dated reports in the beginning of this thread; and have added YTD to this data.
A few positives remain for this week.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, November 14- November 18, 2022
--- AGG = +.51% / -13.4% (I-Shares Core bond etf) widely used bond benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.12% / -1.7% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = -.21% / -4.4% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = - .07% / -9.9% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +.2% / -15.2% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = -1.02% / -13% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- STPZ = -.8% / -5.2% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = -1.2% / -32.8% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +1.8% / -31.5% (I shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +2.7% / -39.6% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +3.1% / -41.5% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -3.5% / +96% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +5.1% / -72% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 3x version of EDV etf)
--- BAGIX = +.63% / -14.3% (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
*** Other, for reference:
--- HYG = -.3% / -11.1% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- LQD = +1.2% / -18.2% (corp. bonds, various quality)
--- FZDXX = 3.79% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MMKT fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022 Yes, short term yields have changed rapidly.
BONUS MATERIAL. For many of the younger, well; you had to be there and then.
Remain curious,
Catch

"the stock with no comparable competitors for semiconductor manufacturing"
Yes, thanks to a non-financial article several years ago in The Economist.
So I said to myself... cutting edge technology, world is going to need this stuff for quite a while, company safely located in Netherlands, restrictions on selling to China, wide competitive moat... hey, why not?

Thank you YBB...I'm just the other side of 59.5..so that is that.
But still, say you have a SPIA, 5 year term. After 5 years, you can pull the money out and put it into a money market somewhere else if you wish, you are not tied to that company forever so to speak, correct? Apologies if this is a non-informed question.
Interesting reading your comments...I do remember my wife inheriting an annuity after her Mom passed. Oh my gosh it was a taffy pull getting the money from the insurance company...long drawn out process. I'm wondering if it was just the specific company (I probably shouldn't mention which one, but most would recognize the name) or if it would be like that with all/most of them.
I do know the Schwab's, Fidelity's of the world, they DO NOT like to lose qualififed, 401k rollover etc monies either...."sticky money" to your point.
Best,
Baseball Fan

That was the terminal rate that we have been discussing here. Holding on CDs or treasuries with yields near that rates would be good for next several years. Don’ want to hold bond funds until the Fed starts to cut interest rates. My guess would be the latter half of 2023 unless the recession gets really bad and inflation reaches a level the Fed is comfortable with. The 2% target is not realistic today.

"My experience with overseas investing has been mixed depending on the time period."
Same here. Did very well years ago, but because of our age have no exposure to market at this time (other than ASML, which is quite enough excitement for me).

Gents - I was dabbling in CCOR a while back and then sold...interday it was all over the place...it was somewhat unpredicatable as to how the fund would perform vs markets any day.
What made me (overly cautious, nervouse nelly investor) give pause, it appears to me that many of the Bitcoin Bros/Gals are trading options like crazee. How do you explain ARKK going up by like 15% over two day last week. Heard on a podcast, maybe it was Wealthion guest that a lot of very short term options are being put on...folks trying to get rich quick with options rather than holding the JNJ, MRK, WMT, Rattheon's. etc.
Also I am starting to get real nervous re the futures/combo funds out there....the BLNDX, MAFIX, still waiting for the hard trendreversals to take place when the interest rates go down or dollar goes down...could be a whammo moment.
Have taken my CCOR monies and put them in FORKX, Abraham Fortress Fund...run by Salem Abraham...yes, some futures/hedgey part of portfolio, but only a 25-30%. Il like his experience investing over many different market cycles and his no nonsense Texan background. We'll see how it goes.
Also started small entry position in TWEIX and added to smaller position in TSUMX recently.
Still way way heavy into rolling T bills, laddering CDs up to 5 years.
Good Luck to All,
Baseball Fan

Good Morning - any thoughts why you would (assuming you still could, they don't seem to be available any longer)...but comparing brokered 5 yr CD vs a SPIA annuity fixed term 5 year from A++ rated NY Life...4.9%APY
brokered CD is FDIC insured, can't touch the monies without taking a ding until 5 years are up
Annuity, you can do partial withdrawls, something like up to 10% of funds ea year if you desire or need to.
The Annuity seems to be a better yield...if you go with an A(+), Nationwide etc, you can get 5.15% APY
I see you can get with 7 year SPIA, A+ rated co, 5.25%...
I've been very conservative past several years, always thought markets were kind of "artificial" due to money printing CBs etc, those rates above are kind of appealing...I've never had any annuities before so kind of cold feet. Also thinking that maybe, just maybe going forward, PMEFX and maybe PVCMX will outperform those SPIAs, dunno?
Baseball Fan

2. My specific question is > some for the distributions show as at loss - others are at a gain . I can identify and cherry pick and sell off a few of the distributions that are currently at a loss . This would then raise the gain of the remaining position

When specific shares ("cherry pick") and average cost ("raise the gain ... of the remaining position") appear in the same sentence, it suggests that some clarification might be helpful.
It is true that if one sells the most expensive shares in a position, the average cost of the remaining shares is reduced, thus increasing the average gain of those remaining shares. But so what?
---
Consider a position with two shares, one purchased at $2/share, one purchased at $6/share (perhaps via div reinvestment). The average cost is $4/share. If the current price is $5, then what one has is:
- Share A, cost $2, worth $5, unrealized gain of $3.
- Share B, cost $6, worth $6, unrealized gain (loss) of -$1.
Total unrealized gain = $3 - $1 = $2.
Average unrealized gain = $2/2 = $1. As shown below, this average gain doesn't matter.
---
Suppose you sell one share now, and the other share later after the price rises from $5 to $8.
Sell Share B first, recognize a $1 loss.
Sell Share A @$8, recognize a gain of $8 - $2 = $6.
Total gain on portfolio = -$1 + $6 = $5.
Sell Share A first, recognize a $3 gain.
Sell Share B @$8, recognize a gain of $8 - $6= $2.
Total gain on portfolio = $3 + $2 = $5.
No difference in total gain. The difference is in the timing. Sell B first and you get to use a $1 loss now (offsetting other gains). You don't have to pay taxes now out of pocket. So you get the use of that tax money until you sell Share A.
Sell A first, and you have to pay taxes on $3 of gain now. You don't have the use of that tax money any more. This is why one generally sells more costly shares first.
---
Don't get confused by average cost. With mutual fund shares, one is permitted to use the average cost of shares when computing realized gains. But then there's no cherry picking, no selling of most expensive shares first. And total gain still comes out the same.
With average cost:
Average cost = ($2 + $6)/2 = $4.
Sell oldest share first (required) @$5: recognize gain of $5 - $4 (av cost) = $1.
Sell newest share @$8: recognize gain of $8 - $4 (av cost) = $4.
Total gain on portfolio = $1 + $4 = $5.
Notice that the average cost used doesn't change for the second share, even though there's only one share left in the portfolio after the first sale.
And the total portfolio gain of $5 is the same as before. The difference, once again, is in the timing. You pay taxes on $1 gain now. That's more than you'd have to pay up front if you used the shares' actual costs and sold the most expensive share (Share B) first.
---
Finally, to get back to the idea of using $3K in losses to offset ordinary income. This is the most valuable use of losses. It's more valuable than using a loss in one share to offset the gain of another share. So if there is a way to generate a cap loss one year, that's usually optimal. To do this, you usually sell your most expensive shares in one year and your shares with gain in other years.
Again, the total gain remains the same regardless of the order of selling. What differs is when you have to pay your taxes (generally the later the better) and whether you get to use some losses to offset ordinary income (better).

Thanks y'all.
My understanding is > 1. Capital losses that exceed capital gains in a year may be used to offset ordinary taxable income up to $3,000 in any one tax year. Net capital losses in excess of $3,000 can be carried forward indefinitely until the amount is exhausted.
2. My specific question is > some for the distributions show as at loss - others are at a gain . I can identify and cherry pick and sell off a few of the distributions that are currently at a loss . This would then raise the gain of the remaining position . Is that still an advisable thing to do ?
The only way to avoid the cap gains on liquidation would be a gift or DAF - this fund throws off huge year end Cap gains distributions and as I have owned for about 25 years - it has huge embedded gains .

There are lots of numbers in the tax code that aren't indexed to inflation. ISTM that automatic (as opposed to manual) inflation adjustments are a fairly new concept, given that the modern tax era (16th Amendment, first 1040) started in 1913. Why, for example, is the IRA catch-up amount fixed at $1,000? The proposed SECURE 2.0 Act (H.R. 2954) would index this figure for inflation, as well as raise the RMD starting age above 72 and a slew of other changes.
Here are some other aspects of this $3000 tax benefit that one might question:
- Why allow a capital loss to offset ordinary income, as opposed to treating the loss as a negative cap gain (i.e. get back 15% in taxes on the $3K instead of, say, 22% in taxes)?
- Why allow individual taxpayers to carry over cap losses indefinitely? (Until 2011, mutual funds could only carry forward cap losses eight years.)
- Why did H.R. 1619, sponsored by Zoe Lofgren in 2001-2002 fail to reach a vote? It would have amended "the Internal Revenue Code to increase, from $3,000 to $8,250, the annual capital loss limit applicable to individuals [and provided] for an annual inflation adjustment."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/1619
- Why should one have to hold a security for a full year before treating the gain or loss as long term? Through 1976, the holding period was 6 months, then 9 months in 1977. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 changed not only the holding periods, but the amount of loss carry forward permitted, from $1K in 1976 to $2K in 1977, to its present $3K in 1978.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-473.html
These are not rhetorical questions. Virtually every piece of legislation involves horse trading and compromise. One needs to delve into the legislative process to find out what happened. Likely there will be another opportunity in the next couple of months to watch the process in real time, as SECURE Act 2.0 is raised in the lame duck session. Or not.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/landmark-retirement-bills-see-opportunity-in-lame-duck-congress

@rforno- Since you had steak for dinner it would seem to suggest that you didn't have a lot of money "invested" in this silliness.

In 2021 I setup an account w/Gemini in NYC due to how heavily regulated it was and low-key. They didn't sponsor NBA teams, run TV ads, or get stadium naming rights. I dabbled in some active-trading of BTC for a bit to see how it compared to futures trading back in the day, and then I parked $50K in their Earn product to get 8.05% interest. In early May of this year, when its interest rate dropped to 6.5% as rumors started swirling about 3AC, I started getting weird vibes in my Spidey-Sense and withdrew everything into (insured) cash in the account. Finally, I pulled 99% of it out to help pay for 2 bathroom renovations that just wrapped up -- but I am keeping the account open for possible future use....I think Gemini will be one of the few folks that survive this stuff given their fairly conservative approach to crypto investing, regulation, and stability. But for now, apart from a tiny slice of BTC that wsa part of my sign-up bonus with them, I hold no crypto assets.
Bottom line, I took away a modest amount in profits/intrerest for that initial forray into crypto, but the money was far better spent on home improvements -- plus that 'fun' fund (money i could 'afford' to lose speculating, not my life's savings) and some extra $$ coming in from work meant I didn't need to dip into other investments to pay for it, so double-win. It's the same approach I used years ago when I closed my active futures trading account and used the proceeds to pay cash for a new German car. :)
As to getting in/out of crypto lending: the lessons of the GFC about doing deep due diligence about counterparty risk controls, transparency, and listening to my risk-aware gut feelings paid off for me in several ways. I knew it was risky[1] going in ..... but a lot of people drank the kool-aid, bought into the hype, threw caution to the wind, had TONS of money in these types of products across many often less-risk-oriented ompanies (3AC, Voyager, Celsius, and now FTX), only saw profits but never considered the risks, both obvious and quite possible --- and in the end either lost it all, only retrieved some of it, or are waiting for the outcome of investigations/litigation to be made semi-whole again if even possible.
[1] I viewed crypto-lending's risk profile akin to junk bonds -- it was an either/or outcome about getting my money back on that speculatative position in my portfolio.

OK, I understand the suggestions implied by the historical yield cure inversions. But were any of those historical inversions preceded by four or five years of extremely low interest rates (approaching zero) during a period of pretty decent growth?
Isn't it possible that the present inversion could simply be predicting a return to that low interest rate environment rather than a full-fledged recession?
Please understand that I have absolutely no background or pretensions to take a side in all of this. My question is an honest one, hoping to prompt am expanded discussion by those of you who are qualified to do that.

Sven, why preferably long term? I know typical capital gains are long term but I think the IRS lets us use remaining short terms capital losses to offset long term capital gains on schedule D once the short term losses have offset short term capital gains. I am not certain about this and that is why I am hesitating to harvest a capital loss in a fund I have held for less than a year. There will not be much short term gain for me this year and I know I can use "left-over" losses in subsequent years to offset gains but I'd rather use them *this* year.

I am selling those with negative cost basis (preferably all long term cap gain) but we don’t have many despite a poor year. Quickly we buy the equivalent ETFs to avoid future headache.
Donation is always good at this time.

I used to be exclusively at M*, and for years, resisted posting elsewhere. But various M* platform changes, and loss of contents with each move, forced me to change my web/social-media approach.
Now, I am at several platforms. Each has its unique flavor and circle of people. Some stuff is duplicated but not much.
Covid downtime in 2020 also gave me time to reconstruct lot of my lost content at M* that I put on the YBB Site (a refence site, NOT a discussion site) and now just refer to it rather than posting same/similar stuff repeatedly in response to Qs.
BTW, some at Twitter are pointing out that Twitter may have saved us from WWIII, an overstatement that has some validity. Early mainstream media reports on the Russian missile strike in Poland and possible use of NATO Article 5 (when many world leaders were at G20 in Bali, Indonesia) were not based on facts. I saw at Twitter that several posters from Ukraine, Poland and elsewhere (including the US) posted conflicting info. My earliest posting on a related MFO thread was based on those reports (but there was no single link for them). Musk has tweeted (with obvious self interest) that the coverage of the recent missile event and FTX-Alameda collapse in the crypto universe have been more timely and better than in the mainstream media.