Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • Asking for a friend....
    “Anyone care to comment that Hussy, HSGFX is in fact AHEAD of PRWCX for the past 3 years now? What's that, oh go back more years, ok I get it, I hear you, fair point, but let's see what happens going forward when the CBs globally are not pumping in trillions of dollars and the fund managers need to navigate the markets and invest.”
    Sure. I’ll comment. HSGFX is a bear market fund. It should surprise no one that the fund has soared in a year in which the S&P has fallen 25% in a mere 6 months and the NASDAQ more than 32% during the same period. If your point is that HSGFX is a better fund than PRWCX over multi-year periods, than you should buy it. However, past performance doesn’t support that.
    It is certainly possible we’re entering another Great Depression era during which markets will continue falling for multiple years and than not recover / return to “break-even” for 2 decades - as in the 30s and 40s. If that’s your call, than invest your $$ in bear funds, Personally, I refuse to believe that’s where the U.S. and global economies are heading for the next 20 years. But that’s just my largely uninformed optimistic outlook - perhaps the unfortunate consequence of having watched far too many Louis Rukeyser programs during the 70s, 80s & 90s. Your money. Your call.
  • 2022 YTD Damage
    PRSIX (“T. Rowe Price Conservative Allocation Fund”) is down 17.14% YTD after today. A good bell-weather to watch. I’ve followed it for years and have always admired the firm’s demonstrated management prowess. It’s highly unlikely the folks at TRP have started taking “stupid pills”. So, other thoughts might be entertained as to why that fund suddenly fell out of bed in the course of a short 9 months. Might be some lessons there …
    Rough year for sure. Perhaps one silver lining is for Roth conversion at the market low.
    Yup. It’s called “making lemonade out of lemons”. :)
  • Laddering Short-Term Treasury Purchases
    Thanks, @msf.
    "There are some elections - basically how accretion is calculated (there are multiple methods) and whether one chooses to declare income annually or upon sale."
    If the above applies to OID as well, I would be interested if you have a citation on top of your head to be able to defer income inclusion annually, allowing an investor to include in income the entire OID amount when the bond matures or when sold. This is particularly useful to a cash basis taxpayer (like us) who does not receive the OID interest until maturity. This can also be very useful if one is buying OID bonds issued by foreign entities / governments. There can be a lot of change in exchange rates after issue date. If the dollar appreciates, one may actually end up losing money on the investment, notwithstanding high OID. It would be worse, if one is required to pay tax on accrued interest each year just to get a big loss at the end when one's tax rate could be lower. (I remember once when I invested in a CD with early withdrawal penalties, the bank issued me a 1099-OID every year even though I did not get the interest until the CD matured.)
    Edit: From an earlier post from you - § 1278(b) Election To Include Market Discount Currently. (Without this election, it appears market discount is included in income only upon sale or maturity of the bond.)
    You had also included this useful link related to that election - https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/customer-service/fixed-income-reporting-instructions.pdf
    Most of the bonds I am currently buying have massive market discounts. If I do not make the section 1278(b) election, it seems Fidelity will include the market discounts at the time of maturity. Not making the election will defer the tax liability to a later year. This election needs to be made by December 31. I may make this election if the brokerage is going to report (without the election) the market discount as capital gain on Form 1099, notwithstanding what they are supposed to do - I spoke with three different Reps and got three different answers.
    The statutory text of the deminimis rule you mentioned -
    "I.R.C. § 1278(a)(2)(C) De Minimis Rule — If the market discount is less than 1/4 of 1 percent of the stated redemption price of the bond at maturity multiplied by the number of complete years to maturity (after the taxpayer acquired the bond), then the market discount shall be considered to be zero."
    I added the above Edit info so it may be useful to others.
  • Asking for a friend....
    The question on AKREX is a good one. A great fund for it's 1st 10 years with Aker managing. Hasn't been great since Chuck gave up the lead. Maybe this fact is coincidental but it certainly is something to point to. I have owned it for a while, but I am considering a dollar for dollar switch to something else.
  • Asking for a friend....
    "Anyone care to comment on AKREX (-29% YTD) or TMSRX (-5.5% YTD) ? Seems to me they were 'fan favorites', kind of crickets lately, anyone still holding? Talk amongst yourselves."
    "Anyone care to comment that Hussy, HSGFX is in fact AHEAD of PRWCX for the past 3 years now? What's that, oh go back more years, ok I get it, I hear you, fair point, but let's see what happens going forward when the CBs globally are not pumping in trillions of dollars and the fund managers need to navigate the markets and invest without the QE."
    I don't personally own any of the mentioned funds.
    When an investor owns actively-managed funds, they should expect periods of underperfomance.
    It usually comes with the territory.
    If an investor can't tolerate bouts of underperformace, perhaps they should utilize broad-based index funds instead to capture market returns?
    Mr. Hussman anticipated market crashes associated with the dot-com bubble and the Global Financial Crisis.
    He's been a perma-bear since the GFC and his funds' long-term performance
    was terrible last time I checked (it's been a while).
  • Asking for a friend....
    I for one would be sorely tempted by guaranteed 5% returns. I once new someone who told me that during the Volcker era she bought very long term fixed income securities of some kind (CDs? Treasurys?) that paid a double-digit rate of interest and enjoyed that for many years, when all other returns were paltry.
    I'm thinking to invest in longer-term CDs over the next quarter or two, but keep some cash aside (20%?) in Money Market Funds in case the Stock market really tanks. Or maybe go 100% CDs and take the early withdrawal penalty if need be.
    Saw some Morgan Stanley 4.8% 10 year CDs at Fido today, though they are callable. Over 5% is soon to come.
  • Asking for a friend....
    I for one would be sorely tempted by guaranteed 5% returns. I once new someone who told me that during the Volcker era she bought very long term fixed income securities of some kind (CDs? Treasurys?) that paid a double-digit rate of interest and enjoyed that for many years, when all other returns were paltry.
  • 2022 year-end capital gains distribution estimates (Vanguard's Final estimated year-end posted)
    Agree with @yogibb. This is a good time to review your mutual funds even though many have not announced their CG estimates.
    After the 2008's aftermath, I switched to index funds to minimize the unexpected large CG even in poor years.
  • 2022 YTD Damage
    My jesting a few days ago (in response to @Derf’s question) about heaving the ship’s deck furniture and than lifeboats into the boiler to keep the ship sailing had a practical intent - possibly overlooked. The point was - as an investor’s ready cash on hand to add to riskier assets dwindles, the eventual last resort is to cannibalize other assets which are down less, selling them to buy riskier assets. Might be bond funds, allocation funds, long-short funds, an energy stock - anything thar’s still above water or has fallen less. Should the downturn last for many years, one might end up 100% weighted all in the growthiest stocks. This is not advice. It may not even make sense to most. A similar path worked for me in the ‘07-‘09 period. That was, however, by historical standards a somewhat short bear market. And, personally speaking, my time horizon was considerably longer then than it is today.
  • Laddering Short-Term Treasury Purchases
    This is just conceptual and largely off the top of my head, so take it for what it's worth. Also, I'm discussing taxable bonds with (original) maturities of more than one year that are not zeros. So this excludes T-bills and STRIPS. In addition, T-bills are non-covered, so unlike other bounds purchased since 2014, their purchase price may not be reported to the IRS.
    OID accretes (it is gradually added to the "natural" price of a bond). This portion of "appreciation" is treated as interest. (Think of a zero; all of the interest is reflected in the increase in price of the bond over time). Since this OID interest comes from the original issuer, here the Treasury, it is taxed the same way as if that interest had been part of the coupon. IOW, state tax exempt, federally taxable.
    Market premium or discount is relative to the OID-adjusted price. You will likely sell at a higher or lower discount (or premium) than you got at time of purchase. For example, you might buy bonds with a total discount of $50, but sell them with no discount. This "gain" of $50 is treated differently depending on the YTW at which you bought the bond.
    If you bought that bond with the expectation (i.e. YTW) that you would get $30 more at sale (instead of the $50 you got), then $30 is treated as ordinary (not Treasury) interest. After all, you purchased the bond for that yield. Now you lucked out, rates dropped, and you got some extra (market) appreciation. That extra appreciation is taxed (fed and state) as a cap gain.
    There's a de minimis rule: if the amount of market gain (i.e. excluding OID adjustments) is less than 0.25% x number of years you hold the bond, then the entire accretion (gain) is treated as a cap gain.
    What if you bought a bond at a premium and sell it for less, or what if you even bought it at a discount but sold it at a bigger discount? That loss is used to reduce the amount of interest you receive. If you purchased a bond with a 3% coupon, but with a 2% premium, then you're effectively netting 1% in interest. This is reflected in how the bond is taxed.
    I'm almost positive I've gotten something not exactly right here. Just trying to sketch the broad outlines.
    There are some elections - basically how accretion is calculated (there are multiple methods) and whether one chooses to declare income annually or upon sale.
    See Pub 550 generally. And look for explanatory pieces. The IRS is good at mechanics, not so good on explaining the concepts. I'm sure you can find better stuff than what I jotted down here. I haven't looked at this in depth in several years.
  • Asking for a friend....
    FARIX, Fulcrum Diversified Absolute Fund...mentioned on the boards in the recent past...did Schwab send out several statements to shareholders of the fund with restated values of the fund on each statement? What if anything should one read into it? I have no idea what that is about but I was a shareholder of IQDAX when I received about a dozen similar statements with restated values from various backwards looking months and a few months later the fund closed and the manager was charged with some kind of malfeasance. NOT saying this is the case here meaning FAIRX, but do wonder what the reason for this is. Any explanations, why would they have to do this? Where is the governance?
    Anyone care to comment on AKREX (-29% YTD) or TMSRX (-5.5% YTD) ? Seems to me they were "fan favorites", kind of crickets lately, anyone still holding? Talk amongst yourselves.
    Anyone care to comment that Hussy, HSGFX is in fact AHEAD of PRWCX for the past 3 years now? What's that, oh go back more years, ok I get it, I hear you, fair point, but let's see what happens going forward when the CBs globally are not pumping in trillions of dollars and the fund managers need to navigate the markets and invest without the QE.
    Got to like the 4.3 2YR CD Schwab, 4.4 3YR, 4.5 5YR...do I hear 5% 5 year? when that happens, I can hear a whooshing sound of folks over 60 bailing on the stonk market and locking in. Thoughts?
    CDX IG spread is bigly....what does it mean? lotsa stress in credit markets, can't be good, or do we blast off in big tech names soon with squeeze or does it all go down the sheeeter soon?
    Good Health and Good Luck to ALL
    Baseball Fan
  • Laddering Short-Term Treasury Purchases
    I haven't investigated the tax ramifications of selling Treasuries in the secondary market.
    Except for I Bonds which I've been purchasing for years, I've started buying Treasuries
    (13-week / 26-week T-Bills) only recently in May. I buy at auction and will hold to maturity.
  • TLT 20 year Treasury ETF up big today
    "I always admired the old guys of those days who nailed the peak and had a nice cash flow for many years."
    Yes, We did very well during that period. I hope that you are able to do the same.
  • TLT 20 year Treasury ETF up big today
    I was around during the inflation/ very high rate pandemic of the early 80’s. I rode out two years on my boat in the Sea of Cortez,,,, living on money market interest and a favorable exchange rate. BUT I didn’t load up on long bonds and other fixed income investments near peak rates. I always admired the old guys of those days who nailed the peak and had a nice cash flow for many years. Now I am an old guy and it’s possible such a day may be coming.for me. doubt the peak rates will be as high as the eighties but rates will fall and I want to be ready for the peak. Possible? Maybe.
  • 2022 YTD Damage
    Chart from ETF.com shows even short term treasury ETFs have lost money, as their short term bills have declined in price as interest rates go up.
    https://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/best-bang-your-buck-isnt-short-t-bills
    Floating treasury funds USFR and TFLO are up YTD.
    Unfortunately, most "balanced funds" and even 30% equity funds ( like VWINX) have pretty long duration bond leaves. M* says effective duration is 7 years.
    For every 1% rise in interest rates, that means a 7% drop in NAV
    As the bond market was at 40 year highs before all this started, this was somewhat predictable. I don't understand why fund managers stay locked into positions like this, especially for "conservative" funds.
  • 2022 YTD Damage
    @hank : to go along with my above comment, checkout Salt & Pepper or vice a verse a @ WSJ 9/27
    @Derf, You might be interested in this one from the WSJ 9/26:
    “Buying the Stock-Market Dip Is Backfiring. Investors Keep Piling In Anyway.”
    - By Gunjan Banerji | 1208 words
    Main point of article - Big money has been selling stocks this year while smaller retail investors have been adding to holdings or staying put (broadly speaking).
    Excerpt:
    “Some of the momentum-driven trades that flourished over the past two years have caused big losses for investors. Attempting to buy the dip in Cathie Wood’s ARK Innovation ETF, for example, has been particularly painful. … On Wednesday, shares of the fund jumped as much as 3.2% as traders piled in, hoping to ride a rebound after a continued selloff that has now dragged it down 60% this year. Instead, the fund ended the day down by roughly the same amount after the Fed’s interest-rate decision led many traders to rapidly change their forecasts for how aggressive the central bank would be in raising rates through next year. The rate increase stoked a sharp selloff across the market. The ARK ETF drew $197 million of inflows Wednesday, the most for a single day since July, according to FactSet. The fund resumed its slide Thursday, falling 4.3% and heading toward a double-digit decline for the week.”
    Quoted from The Wall Street Journal, September 26, 2022
    Personally, I’ve had both good and bad luck toying with ARKK during the year. Sold a chunk for a nice gain 2 or 3 months ago. Currently hold a very small position which is down single-digit since buying. Remain optimistic.
    PS - Just noticed the NASDAQ down -30.78% YTD. A dipper’s paradise it would seem. :)
  • Why 2022 Has Been Such a Terrible Year for Bond Funds
    Folks (not just @hank), when you quote something, or even just state a figure, please give the source. The quote above seems to have come from here:
    https://lplresearch.com/2022/05/24/how-do-bonds-perform-during-and-after-equity-bear-markets/
    I gave figures for 10 year Treasuries. One can't get higher grade than that. Though both longer and shorter term Treasuries are included as well in aggregate figures.
    Below is the data table in the quoted piece. For many reasons (enumerated below) I discount it. The conclusion given may or may not be correct, but it is not well stated and the arithmetic is suspect.
    image
    Issues:
    1. "Falling" market, as hank described it, is different from "equity bear markets", which is in the text. However, the data itself covers "Bear (And Near Bear) Markets". This fuzzy definition doubles the number of data points (increasing the number of rows from 6 to 11).
    For bear markets and corrections, see p. 4 here:
    https://www.yardeni.com/pub/sp500corrbeartables.pdf
    2. It uses a fairly short time frame (Yogi and I provided data over twice as many years).
    3. The "average" values in the chart are unweighted. A "bear-ish" market of one month 2/19/20 to 3/23/20 counts as much as a "bear-ish" market of 2½ years 3/24/2000 to 10/9/2002. Arguably weighting is incorporated by using cumulative returns (i.e. total return over each bear-ish market), but that just fixes (weights) the numerator without adjusting the denominator for the mean.
    4. The medians are dubious. With 11 rows, the (unweighted) median should be the 6th highest (or 6th lowest) figure in each column. That's what is presented for the first column (1.8). But in the other columns, the median isn't a value in the column, let alone the middle one.
  • Why 2022 Has Been Such a Terrible Year for Bond Funds
    Generally, falling equities are good news for bonds.
    Out of 94 years (1928-2021 inclusive), bonds rose over 80% of the time: 76 years (80.8%). Stocks fell in 25 of those years. Random chance would suggest that bonds would rise in 20 of those years. The actual number was 21.
    Falling equities are good news for bonds merely because bonds have good news 4/5 of the time, regardless of what happens in equities.
    Data source: https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html
    A more interesting question IMHO is whether bonds outperform (their arithmetic average) in years when stocks underperform (their arithmetic average).
    Over the same span of years, stocks had 8 more above average years (51) than below average years (43). Bonds had 28 more below average years (61) than above average years (33).
    It turns out that in 54 years (57%), stocks and bonds had opposite fortunes - one asset class outperforming its mean, the other underperforming its mean. This may still not be all that significant.
    Bonds help stabilize a portfolio in much the same way cash does - adding deadweight and almost always (80% of the time or more) kicking in a little extra.
  • What is a “Blood in the Streets” Moment?
    Following up on the prospect that Europe is in serious difficulty and the possibility that "this time it may be different", here's an overview on the world economy from this morning's Wall Street Journal.
    Russia’s War in Ukraine to Cost Global Economy $2.8 Trillion, OECD Says—
    Research body says loss of output could be larger if Europe faces energy shortages during a severe winter
    Following are excerpts from the WSJ article, severely edited for brevity:
    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will cost the global economy $2.8 trillion in lost output by the end of next year—and even more if a severe winter leads to energy rationing in Europe—the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said Monday.
    The estimate by the Paris-based club of advanced economies lays bare the magnitude of the economic fallout from the biggest military conflict on the continent since World War II. Russia’s attack has sparked a surge in energy prices that has weakened household spending and undermined business confidence, particularly in Europe.
    Western governments fear that Russia’s order of a partial mobilization and its preparations to annex swaths of Ukraine could prolong the conflict for many months, perhaps years, further fueling the uncertainty now weighing on the global economy.
    The OECD expects the eurozone economy to grow by just 0.3% in 2023, with Germany’s economy set to contract by 0.7%. When it last released forecasts in June, the research body expected to see growth of 1.6% in the eurozone and 1.7% in Germany.
    The OECD warned that Europe’s economy could suffer an even sharper downturn if energy prices were to rise again. Should natural-gas prices rise by 50% over the remainder of the year, European economic growth could be 1.3 percentage points lower in 2023, while the global economy would grow by just 1.7%.
    Such a surge in prices could arise if Europe faces energy shortages over the coming winter, driven by particularly low temperatures. To reduce that risk, the OECD estimates that energy consumption will need to fall by between 10% and 15% compared with recent years.
    The cost of supporting households and businesses is pushing government debts higher, and that has led to an increase in borrowing costs that may further weaken growth. To avoid further big rises in debt, the OECD said that help should be targeted at the most vulnerable households.
    It estimates that the 35 governments whose policies it tracks have committed to spending roughly $150 billion on broad-based measures to keep prices down through December of this year, compared with around $15 billion on more targeted price measures.
    The OECD lowered its forecast for U.S. economic growth in 2023 to 0.5% from 1.2% previously, but said a steeper slowdown is possible if inflation doesn’t fall as rapidly as the Federal Reserve hopes.
    The organization expects China’s economy to rebound modestly in 2023 from sluggish growth in 2022 that reflects lockdowns to contain the Covid-19 pandemic. In June, the OECD forecast growth of 4.4% in 2022, but now expects to see an expansion of just 3.2%. For 2023, it projects growth of 4.7%.
    “The forecast for this year is for the lowest growth since the 1970s, with the exception of the pandemic,” said the OECD. “Next year, we expect growth that is still significantly lower than has been registered in China for a long time.”
  • 2022 YTD Damage
    I'm wondering if the employment/unemployment picture is becoming fragmented. There are many reports of large layoffs in businesses and financial operations which are large-scale operations. But, as Crash mentions, not so much in smaller local businesses, largely retail, restaurant, and other "service" type jobs.
    I'm guessing that the overall employment picture may be more complex than is generally being reported. It may be that the reporting mechanisms were not designed to accurately reflect the situation that we have right now, and therefore don't give us sufficient granularity.
    That's a repeat of something that I speculated on a few days ago. In this morning's Wall Street Journal there's a report that suggests that that's actually the case:
    Here's excerpts from that report, severely edited for brevity:
    The economy is weakening, big companies from Ford to Facebook’s parent are cutting jobs or freezing hiring and inflation is eating into household budgets. Yet for many small-business owners, finding workers is as difficult as ever.
    More than one-third of small businesses said hiring challenges had worsened in the three months ended Sept. 1, according to a Goldman Sachs survey of nearly 1,500 small-business owners. Forty-seven percent of them said finding and retaining qualified employees was the most significant problem small businesses faced, up from 43% in the survey released in June.
    Nearly 60% of small companies report that worker shortages are affecting their ability to operate at full capacity, according to a September survey of more than 725 small-business owners.
    Nearly 80% of small-business owners said they have increased wages and compensation in response to hiring challenges, according to the survey, and another 11% plan to do so. In addition, 60% of small businesses have refined their recruiting strategies, while 46% have boosted employee benefits.
    Some small-business owners say they see the job market easing at the margins. William Duff Jr., founder and managing principal of William Duff Architects Inc. in San Francisco, said the firm is getting more applications for junior-level jobs that require six to seven years of experience or less. Senior architects are harder to find, he said. The 30-person firm, which struggled most of the year to fill job openings, handed out raises at the start of the year and again in the summer.
    Boudreau Pipeline Corp., based in Corona, Calif., says it has turned down more than $13 million in work this year, roughly 22% of the amount it has been awarded, because it doesn’t have enough staff. The roughly 350-person company installs underground utilities, water, sewer and storm drains.
    “It’s frustrating,” said the company’s president, Alan Boudreau, who figures he could easily employ 50 more people. The company has boosted wages by 22% over the past two years and added three in-house recruiters. It offers hiring bonuses of as much as $2,500 and retention bonuses of up to $5,000, provided workers stay at least one year. In early 2021, the company boosted referral bonuses to as much as $1,500, up from $150 four years ago. Referrals are the best source of new hires, Mr. Boudreau said.
    In August, Vladimir Gendelman eliminated college-degree requirements from all job positions at his Company Folders Inc., a Pontiac, Mich., maker of custom presentation folders, binders and envelopes. He came up with the idea after promoting his executive-assistant to a job as print project manager, though she didn’t have any skills or training in printing, prepress or graphic design.
    “We realized we don’t need an education,” he said. “We need somebody who is learning on their own, somebody who can figure things out.”