@Crash : Do the Canadian banks have a foreign tax applied to their dividends ?

I was up there on one of my many trips, many years ago. I remember the conversation with the banker-person that day. it was at a BMO branch. She explained that if I were to open a brokerage account there, but I live in the States, they would withhold tax. But of course, depending upon what's on your own 1040, it may be refunded to you. You DO have a line-item on the 1040 where you can claim credit for "Foreign Tax Paid." ..... Living in the States and holding a brokerage account here, and buying canadian bank stocks via a stateside brokerage is a bit different thing. But I'd bet dollars to donuts you'd have some foreign tax withheld. Wish I could tell you for certain.

Fellas, fellas...the original point was how wacked out the market is due to many reasons, some of which are crazy monetary and fiscal policy...which helped to enable cray cray funds like ARKK and many of those who do not have pensions have to "invest" in this stock market dreck/risky casino to fund their retirement while those with gov't pensions do not.
Not to disparage those who have earned the pensions. A deal is a deal. No questions, I'm sure many have worked hard and served the public to earn them. But why is it they are guaranteed, many inflation indexed, no mattter what the markets do of which they are invested in and if the underlying investments underperform the taxpayer has to pony up, funding is cut for other public projects just to fund the pensions...is that the right thing to do?
My belief is that the pension returns should be indexed to say the past 3 years rolling returns. I do not think is right that the taxpayer has to be on the hook no matter what happens in the market. Or let ALL workers participate in a national pension, why just if you were say a politician for 25 years?
What really sticks in my craw is when those with the gov't pensions from a high tax state move right after they retire because "they don't want to pay the high taxes".
Baseball Fan

Following are excerpts from a current New York Times report, brutally edited for brevity:
Here's the NYT graphic, unfortunately without the text. The chart begins in 1985, peaks at ~14% in 1980, and the dot at the end of the axis shows +8.2% in September (which was +6.6% excluding food and energy).

Prices continued to climb at a brutally rapid pace in September, with a key inflation index increasing at the fastest pace in 40 years, bad news for the Federal Reserve as it struggles to wrestle the cost of living back under control.
Overall inflation climbed 8.2 percent in the year through September, according to the latest Consumer Price Index report. Even more worrisome, underlying inflation trends are headed in the wrong direction. After stripping out fuel and food — which are volatile and removed to get a better sense of the trajectory — prices climbed 6.6 percent in the year through September. That was the quickest rate since 1982.
Markets swung wildly after the report, with stocks falling sharply initially but then surging higher as investors struggled to digest what the data meant for the future. The S&P 500 index closed up 2.6 percent.
Economists have predicted that the economy will slow and inflation will moderate in the months ahead. But they have been expecting an imminent cool-down for the past 18 months, and the data have repeatedly proved them wrong. Worried that rapid inflation might last, Fed officials have been clear that they plan to raise interest rates to a point where they are constraining the economy and hold them at a high level until price increases are clearly moderating. Officials have estimated that they will lift borrowing costs to about 4.6 percent by the end of 2023.
After making three unusually large rate increases, officials had suggested they would debate slowing down in November. The fresh inflation data makes another big move more likely, and economists said it could make it difficult for the Fed to slow down by the end of the year, as policymakers had previously forecast.
It is too early to know how the Fed’s thinking will evolve by its final meeting of the year on Dec. 13 and 14. Even if inflation shows little sign of cracking by then, policymakers may want to give themselves time to see the cumulative effect of their rate increases, as well as fallout from monetary policy adjustments taking place around the world. But for now, just about every sign they are receiving from the inflation data is discouraging. Economists said there were signs in the inflation data itself that price increases might be growing more entrenched.
Fed policy takes time to work, and most economists would not expect this year’s adjustments to be pulling inflation drastically lower yet. But because rate moves work by slowing consumer demand, one might expect their effects to show up in everyday consumer goods and services categories first. That has yet to happen. From restaurant meals to cigarettes to stationery products, prices continue to climb briskly, suggesting consumers are still willing to pay up.

From my OP - “This isn’t to rag on the fund and manager. But just to lend support to the idea that there certainly appears to have been a genuine “bubble” in this sector of the market.”
No disputing it was a bubble. That’s what my modest post meant to address. Is 70% off the price of a year ago still a bubble? Remains to be seen. We all try hard here to steer clear of partisan politics. There’s enough blame to go around when it comes to falling equity and bond prices. I don’t think either party owns those issues 100%.
Personal belief: I think we’ve all become too short term focused. Instant prices / up to date gains & losses / fund flows / interest rates / everything’s at our finger tips today, and trade on it we do. So what happens is that many markets “run to extremes” as the “smart money” latches on to the trend. ARKK’s meteoric rise is but one example. And it works in reverse too with short sellers owning the day now. Eventually over time prices sort themselves out to where there’s some rationality. I’m confident that in 5-7 years folks who bought ARKK at these prices will be glad they did. But it’s damn hard just to sit and not look. I think most equities will do better over 5-7 years. That’s the optimist in me. John Templeton was my very first fund manager.

ARTKX is run by former Oakmark alums and seems to have beaten OAKIX at its own game.

Glad you brought up ARTKX, LB. Haven't thought about it in years; it was once a kingpin in the portfolio. Samra is still there after 20 years, it's open after being closed for quite a while, and the shape of the portfolio (at least the geography of it) looks pretty similar to what it was when I owned it. Putting it on the watchlist ...

Value investing. I can't comment from experience as we've not taken that path over the years.
This David Einhorn 3 minute video interview may provide some new insight for those inclined toward value investments. He's been involved in this world of investments for many years, and is well versed. This short interview is from 1 day ago.
Remain curious,
Catch

I owned OAKIX for years. I'm not sure you should pay any attention to my experience or opinion but since you asked . . . . That fund is exceptionally volatile. Periods of outperformance were always followed by periods of underperformance. Talk about reversion to the mean. Over the past 15 years it has delivered 2% annual returns. (Of course it's in an asset class that has similarly anemic short, medium, and long term returns.) It's awfully expensive for that level of performance. I've sort of assumed that the gold star it gets from M* has something to do with hometown bias. Having sold it all I have no regrets. I went index. That hasn't exactly boomed but at least I'm paying over 90% less in annual operating expenses.

That’s a nice post from @carew388.
Stocks do generally “recover”, although the amount of time to recoup losses and get back to par value can range from days to many years. Depends a lot on how fairly priced they were when purchased. So, stocks bought at a very hefty price will take longer to recover.
Bonds are a very diverse asset class. If you buy an investment grade bond with a predetermined interest rate and term (number of years) you will in nearly all cases receive your coupon (interest payment) along with the price paid for the bond if held to maturity. It’s rare, but exceptions can occur even with investment grade credit.
If you buy sub-investment grade bonds, you have a greater “reward” characteristic (higher interest payments) but also a higher chance the bond will default, leaving you high and dry.
Bond funds, however, do not behave in the same manner as individual bonds. The difference is most stark at the investment grade level. Say your bond fund bought a bunch of 10 year bonds paying 2.5% a year ago when 2.5% seemed like a good return. But now, investors can earn 4% on a similar 10 year bond. So in the open market folks begin selling those 2.5% bonds well before their maturity date. They sell for a loss just to get out of the position and to be able to reinvest their $$ in newer bonds paying a higher rate. So the bonds your bond fund holds fall in value. The fund’s lower NAV reflects the falling value of the bonds it holds. In addition, fund holders may “bail out” as the NAV starts falling, making it hard for the manager to buy those new higher yielding bonds for the fund.
What if you hang tight and don’t sell your bond fund? What will happen? Probably 1 of 2 things: (1) If interest rates fall over the ensuing years the bonds the fund owns should increase in value, They might even come to be worth considerably more than you (through your fund) paid for them initially. So, the fund’s NAV rises. However, (2) if interest rates continue rising, than your bond fund will continue to lose value and a lower NAV should result. Of course, as owner of said fund you should continue to receive interest payments, regardless of the value of the underlying securities. So even in a falling bond market (like now) there is a source of income to soften the hit.
@Anna - Your initial remarks are correct. Except, you seem to be assuming interest rates will continue rising (and bonds therefore “crash”). There is no absolute way to know that. Obviously, conventional wisdom at the moment does suggest your assumption is well grounded. Conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong. Just saying …

I recall that, in the early 2000s, I began to annoy people with passionate conversation about "just in time (j-i-t)" models of manufacturing, a major theme of my required course work with the federal government. I had a broad view of how the government, especially with respect to increasing use of contractors, was implementing a form of the model.
In the 80s when I worked in CA, I talked a bit to engineers who worked for contractors. I asked what happens when a contract mission moves from company A to B. They said that some would be simply hired by company B to continue the project. A few would move with the missions if their expertise was not general enough or their interests aligned with the work. In the 2000s after my required continuous training and after encountering many classes that seemed to treat people as inventories, I realized that the future might very well be one where everyone was either a member of a small group of similar contractors or self-contractors. The advantage for all of business is the ease of exchange of personnel for whatever reason (salary, shifting requirements, etc.). Also, it off loaded the need to offer benefits or to manage paperwork like salary deduction for payroll tax. In short, the bidder on a job would be no different from the larger contractors. And, similar to the large contractors, when a project was over no one was left to anyone but themselves to find something else to do or to retrain for competitiveness.
You can think of many other examples of things for which business would find attractive to drop/shift the burden, but one really stands out - no dead wood or any reason to feel guilty about performance. Contract lost if not meeting time, cost and performance goals. In later years I believed I was seeing another element when, as in the early 2000s, people were being told to embrace self-employment via Internet entrepreneurships. The picture the hype brought was a million Americans running their own small eBay.
I am going on and on, but I am seeing that the younger people don't experience the sense of panic or insecurity that I thought such a shift would produce. The world is changing, and, in the early part of this century, it might be things like j-i-t hiring and running your own income producing shop, but it might grow into something I haven't considered or, rather, imagined.
With some of this, whoever bids for work or self-employed workers will need to build a competitive amount of taxes, benefits and other expenses into their bid or prices. The government will probably find they need to make a legal framework for the growing relationship to avoid a society with a great number of people, including professionals, that are left without enough to cover what is currently covered by payroll jobs (or should be). In today's world many work medial jobs without paying taxes, etc. A house painter wanted work but refused a contract. I would not agree to such an arrangement. Everyone told me I was mean. Government oversite could very well grow with the host of disparate needs that might result.

Interesting.
Remember 2012? That is when Vanguard dumped MSCI as indexer for almost a couple of dozen Vanguard funds because MSCI got too greedy (after its spinoff from MS in 2007) and forgot how Vanguard had nurtured it when it was developing within MS. In 2012, Vanguard switched to then unknown CRSP (origins at U Chicago) for most of these funds and to FTSE for some. I think that Vanguard kept only 1-2 MSCI indexes after 2012.
Now it looks like that MSCI is out of Vanguard's doghouse. Took only 10 years!

Hi Old_Joe
Thanks for sharing the write. I watched her speak several times on Bloomberg and thought that she didn't seem to have a practical thought in her head. She didn't seem to have any connection with the first plans that had been laid regarding taxes and other; and surely didn't connection that to anything as to an impact into the British financial system. But, such is the case for a full blown Libertarian. Not unlike Rand Paul from Kentucky. He decries all the evil programs of the Federal government, but won't say no for aid into his state over the past two years for tornado and flood relief funds .
'Course, this was a lot like the one way false push into Brexit, and IMHO; how the British votes were mislead.

Yes, right now Britain is in the midst of a real mess, thanks in large part to the libertarian-influenced changes introduced by Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss.
Her interest in and links to various right-wing libertarian groups has been known for years, but has not really received much attention currently.
However, a recent perspective from the New York Times takes a look at her background. Here are some excerpts, heavily edited for brevity:

LONDON — For the past decade or more, Tufton Street has been the primary command center for libertarian lobbying groups, a free-market ideological workshop cloistered quietly in the heart of power. In September, it stepped out of the shadows. The “mini-budget” presented on Sept. 23 by Kwasi Kwarteng, Britain’s finance minister and key ally of Prime Minister Liz Truss, clearly owed a debt to Tufton Street.
The plan spooked the financial markets, sent the pound crashing and forced the Bank of England to intervene to halt a run on Britain’s pension funds. It was, in economic and political terms, a disaster — something made plain on Monday when the government, in an attempt to mitigate the damage, scrapped a planned tax cut for high earners. But the package was more than folly. It was the consummation of plans designed on Tufton Street, and of an alliance with Ms. Truss stretching back years. Under her watch, Britain has become a libertarian laboratory.
In Ms. Truss, they found a friend. After a youthful dalliance with the Liberal Democrats, the new prime minister’s belief in small-state libertarian politics has been a mainstay of her political career.
Appointed head of international trade, Ms. Truss seized the chance to staff her operation with libertarians. In October 2020, just a couple of months before the start of Britain’s new life outside the European Union, Ms. Truss appointed several pro-Brexit, free-market figures to advisory bodies in her department.
This battalion of free-market thinkers has now been welcomed into 10 Downing Street. Five of the new prime minister’s closest advisers are Tufton Street alumni, including Ms. Truss’s chief economic adviser and her political secretary, and at least nine Tufton Street alumni are scattered across other major government departments.
Under Ms. Truss, once nicknamed the “human hand grenade” for her ideological obduracy, the libertarian right has detonated the British economy. The cost, for all but the richest, could be incalculable.

PRPFX is one of my oldest holdings. About 15 years. Does tend to track gold a little, so having an off year along with gold. I’m encouraged by today’s market downdraft. The NASDAQ is now almost 33% off YTD. A rough guess is we’ve now reached the half-way point on the way to market bottom. Whew. Quite a ride.

@MikeW, the stable value fund I use is a private fund offers through my 401(k), not assessable for the public. For alternatives, I invest in PRPFX after I replaced TMSRX and IAU last year. Also I invest in GPANX (multi-strategies) and PQTAX (managed futures). So far they are holding up much better than those from PRPFX and TMSRX. My goal to have closer to 10% alternatives since their asset correlation to S&P500 are less than 0.5 for the last 2.5 years.
One has to pay attention to the underlying components invested in the alternatives. For example, PQTAX has a healthy % in commodity, metals, agricultural grains, and currencies in addition to the derivatives that Pimco often deploys. Lynn Bolin calls it the “ black box fund”. Commodity futures have done well while tracking WTI prices and natural gas. USD is rising over other currencies. The others are flat. GPANX is a relative new addition, but it is has stay afloat despite the drawdown lately.
To migrate risk of the unknown, I like to build the position to the target % over say 3 months while watching how it responds to S&P500, for example. Consistency over various market cycles is something we are all seeking. Lynn’s article also pointed out recent severe drawdown day and YTD data that provided insights of how these alternatives behaved under those circumstances. The other is the asset correlation to S&P500 and to different types of alternatives.

I liked Lynn’s article on this topic… concerning thing to me Is that a number of these didn’t do well the prior few years.

Thank for sharing your alternatives. I too invest in PRPFX after I replaced TMSRX and IAU last year. Also I invest in GPANX (multi-strategies) and PQTAX (managed futures). So far they are holding up much better than those from PRPFX and TMSRX. My goal to have closer to 10% alternatives since their asset correlation are less than 0.5 to that of S&P500 for the last 2.5 years.
BTW, AQR have a number of alternatives with good returns, but they require $1M even as investor shares.

@catch22
>> I presume you're referencing, in part; a non-spousal inheritance of your Roths, that Secure Act provisions require non-spousal inheritance amounts be withdrawn within a 10 year period, but will not be taxed upon withdrawal. As long as the Roth has been in place for 5 years. Yes?
Sorry I missed your query, but no, or sort of, meaning only that 20y or more ago our trust attorney said 'I don't think I have ever had a client where 2/3 of their total nut had been converted to Roths.'

Sources please. The cut and paste section came from:
https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/michigan-inheritance-laws

Its inheritance and estate taxes were created in 1899, but the state repealed them in 2019.
Its estate tax technically remains on the books

I know my post above wasn't my best writing, but I don't think I wrote anything inconsistent, like saying that a law was both repealed (in 2019) and still on the books.
It appears the law remains on the books, but that because of the way it is linked to federal estate taxation, the maximum amount of the estate tax is $0. Something like the ACA mandate still being on the books, but the amount of the penalty being set to $0.
Quoting from a late (Oct) 2019 bill that would have repealed the Michigan state tax but died in the legislature:

Repeal the law authorizing a Michigan estate tax. For a number of years this tax has not been collected because language in the law links it to a discontinued state estate tax credit in federal law. Should this federal law change the Michigan estate tax could go back into effect.

https://www.michiganvotes.org/2019-HB-4922
That's why it matters whether the estate tax was repealed (no longer off the books) or merely dormant. (Think of another old law in Michigan, this one from 1931, that was nearly resurrected when Federal law changed this summer.)
The more interesting piece IMHO concerns the Lady Bird deed. This piece came from the Rochester Law Center, and as such the errors and omissions on that page are somewhat disappointing.
https://rochesterlawcenter.com/services/michigan-lady-bird-deed/
A Lady Bird deed is not a type of quitclam deed (though depending on how it is written, it could be used as one). The salient feature of quitclaim deeds is that they enable the person transferring property to do so while disclaiming any title. That is, "I give all my interest in BlackAcre to A, whatever that interest is, which may be nothing at all. Lots of luck."

Quitclaim deeds offer no warranties of title, and title companies may offer very limited coverage or none at all if asked to issue a title policy based on one. A ladybird deed may transfer title with warranties in the deed whereby the grantor warrants that he has full ownership of the property at the time of the conveyance

https://legalbeagle.com/8083490-comparing-deeds-lady-bird-deeds.html
Most of the advantages stated for the Lady Bird deed (i.e. the ones apart from being able to change beneficiaries) are the same as for the simpler (once and done) non-enhanced life estate deed. IOW, had the Law Center said, rather than a Lady Bird Deed being a type of quitclaim deed that it was a type of life estate deed, it would have been essentially correct. But see below (notable Medicaid difference).
All life estate deeds, enhanced or not, keep the property out of probate. In this respect, there's nothing extra special about the enhanced (Lady Bird) deed in avoiding Medicaid recovery.
What differentiates an Enhanced Life Estate Deed from a (nonenhanced) Life Estate Deed is that the grantor retains control over naming beneficiaries in the former. That is sufficient to make the gift (deeding the property to the life tenant and the remainderman) "incomplete".
Rochester Law Center writes: "a Lady Bird Deed allows for you to qualify for Medicaid benefits while preventing the government from going after your home. " That's misleading. In looking at assets to determine Medicaid eligibility, Michigan doesn't count your home if your equity interest in it is under $636K.
https://www.medicaidplanningassistance.org/medicaid-eligibility-michigan
However, and this is where the Lady Bird deed can come into play, any asset that is transferred, including a home, within five years of applying for Medicaid, does count.
https://www.michiganlawcenter.com/blog/2020/august/transferring-assets-to-qualify-for-medicaid/
But since the Lady Bird deed is an "incomplete" gift, even though the home is transferred it isn't counted as an asset for Medicaid eligibility purposes.
Finally, though this has focused on Michigan, it's worth noting that Michigan is one of only five states that allow Lady Bird deeds. There are 30 states (Michigan isn't one of them) that allow TOD deeds.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lady-bird-deeds.html
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/avoid-probate-book/chapter5-1.html

Let's all detail out the steps that we have taken and suggest other steps that should be taken.
Maybe if we raise enough stink to the SEC or the State of NY or the NYPD or the FTC or the FBI maybe something will happen.
Here are the steps and results I have taken so far:
Contacted several attorneys and recovery agencies....I am still vetting them, but I have gotten good information from one attorney. He is a former USMC and spent 14 years with NYPD in Brooklyn. 10 years with a unit: Street Crime Suppression. He suggested I call NYPD since it looks like these criminals operated in NYC. He said
"call NYPD Midtown North Precinct 212 767 8400. Tell them what has happened, the FBI has been notified and ask if they can check and see if there is anyone from that company still at that address. It is an apartment building per picture on Google."
I called NYPD but they were not very helpful. The detective I spoke with just kept saying to call my local police (I am local to Dallas TX).
But I finally pressured him for a name and he gave me the name of Detective Criollo. Corillo is in charge of cyber crime and fraud for that division. So I will call him on Monday.
I have filled out the form at IC3 and also with the FTC. No response from either yet. I need to contact the SEC on Monday.
I have contacted the 2 banks that I used to wire and send the checks out (so pissed) and they have started their steps. They are trying to recall the wires (obviously the money is gone but that is their process) and they are also filing complaints with the receiving banks for the wires and the checks. I also asked my banks for all original documentation for the wires and checks. Just so I have all the paperwork.
It looks like my wires went to 2 different banks. Fifth Third Bank and Wells Fargo Bank. I will try to contact both of them and raise a stink.
If I think of more I will post. Sorry again to all who have been victimized. We could all come together and hire a lawyer or a Private Investigator? Just thinking outloud......

I've been with firstrade for many years, never had an issue and they provide access to institutional shares of many mutual funds at low minimums and transaction cost free.