It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Make that the last five years.BIAWX and POAGX although the last 2 years of performance are giving me pause.
https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/2019-study-cd-early-withdrawal-penalties-changed.htmlSome banks and credit unions have language in their CD disclosures that allows them to refuse an early withdrawal request. Although CD early withdrawal refusal by a bank or credit union is rare, it is possible. Review the CD disclosure for this type of wording.
I have to ask since this tropic comes up often. Why does a Schwab or Fidelity person, which I think a majority of us are, care about M*? There are pretty good tools in each brokerage. And for fund analysis, MFO is "really" good. Maybe the best if you have Premium. I haven't used M* directly in years. Am I missing something?
You get what you pay for.
I'm using Premium, but not paying. Morningstar today leaves a lot to be desired. But give them an extra day or two, and their numbers most often catch-up to reality. At this point, I continue to use Morningstar because of the convenience of knowing my way around the website. I can quickly navigate to the particular item I want to look at. There ARE some factoids which M* includes, which I never see elsewhere--- like the rank among peers in terms of the performance of Fund X, whatever fund it is that you're looking at. ...Ah, but there are often mismatches: Morningstar slides Fund A or B or C in together with other funds where it doesn't truly belong.I have to ask since this tropic comes up often. Why does a Schwab or Fidelity person, which I think a majority of us are, care about M*? There are pretty good tools in each brokerage. And for fund analysis, MFO is "really" good. Maybe the best if you have Premium. I haven't used M* directly in years. Am I missing something?
You get what you pay for.
The above was excerpted from a current Associated Press article, and has been edited for brevity.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve extended its year-long fight against high inflation Wednesday by raising its key interest rate by a quarter-point despite concerns that higher borrowing rates could worsen the turmoil that has gripped the banking system.
“The U.S. banking system is sound and resilient,” the Fed said in a statement after its latest policy meeting ended. At the same time, the Fed warned that the financial upheaval stemming from the collapse of two major banks is “likely to result in tighter credit conditions” and “weigh on economic activity, hiring and inflation.”
The central bank also signaled that it’s likely nearing the end of its aggressive streak of rate hikes. In its statement, it removed language that had previously said it would keep raising rates at upcoming meetings. The statement now says “some additional policy firming may be appropriate” — a weaker commitment to future hikes.
The Fed included some language that indicated its inflation fight remains far from complete. It noted that hiring is “running at a robust pace” and “inflation remains elevated.” It removed a phrase, “inflation has eased somewhat,” that it had included in its statement in February.
Speaking at a news conference Wednesday, Chair Jerome Powell said, “The process of getting inflation back down to 2% has a long way to go and is likely to be bumpy.”
The latest rate hike suggests that Powell is confident that the Fed can manage a dual challenge: Cool still-high inflation through higher loan rates while defusing turmoil in the banking sector through emergency lending programs and the Biden administration’s decision to cover uninsured deposits at the two failed banks.
The central bank’s benchmark short-term rate has now reached its highest level in 16 years. The new level will likely lead to higher costs for many loans, from mortgages and auto purchases to credit cards and corporate borrowing. The succession of Fed rate hikes have also heightened the risk of a recession.
The troubles that suddenly erupted in the banking sector two weeks ago likely led to the Fed’s decision to raise its benchmark rate by a quarter-point rather than a half-point. Some economists have cautioned that even a modest quarter-point rise in the Fed’s key rate, on top of its previous hikes, could imperil weaker banks whose nervous customers may decide to withdraw significant deposits.
https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-21/vanguard-plans-to-shutter-business-in-china-exit-ant-jv?srnd=premium-europe&leadSource=uverify%20wallA complete retreat would follow Vanguard’s surprise move two years ago to scrap plans for a mutual-fund management license in China to focus on the BangNiTou tie-up with Ant that was launched in 2020.
Fidelity and Neuberger Berman Group have recently joined BlackRock in launching onshore funds through new wholly-owned units, while Manulife Financial Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley have gained approvals to buy out local partners to gain full control of existing ventures.
The race for fund advisory is heating up with more players coming in, hurting profitability. Vanguard’s venture, which has been offering only products from competitors, booked a loss in 2021 that was much higher than an internal forecast made after it was set up in 2019, Bloomberg reported last year. Vanguard owns 49% of it.
The above are edited excerpts from Matt Levine's Money Stuff column of March 17, 2023. Text emphasis has been added.Banking is a confidence trick. You put money in the bank today because you are confident you can take it out tomorrow; to you, a dollar that you have deposited in the bank is just as good — just as much money — as a dollar bill in your wallet. If you show up at the ATM at any time of day or night, you expect it to give you your dollars.
But the bank doesn’t just put your dollars in a box and wait for you to take them out; the bank uses its depositors’ money to make loans or buy bonds, and just keeps a little bit around for people who need cash. If everyone asked for their money back tomorrow, the bank wouldn’t have it.
But everyone is confident that, if they ask for their money back tomorrow, the bank will have it. So they mostly don’t ask for it, so when they do, the bank does have it. The widespread belief that banks have the money is what makes it true.
This is obvious stuff. Also obvious, and famous, is that it is an unstable equilibrium. If people stop believing it, it stops being true. If everyone stops believing in a bank, they will all rush to get their money out, and the bank won’t have it, and their lack of belief will be retrospectively justified. Whereas if they had kept believing, their belief would also have been justified.
Isn’t this ridiculous? But there is a deep social purpose to the confidence trick. Banking is a way for people collectively to make long-term, risky bets without noticing them, a way to pool risks so that everyone is safer and better-off.
You and I put our money in the bank because it is “money in the bank,” it is very safe, and we can use it tomorrow to pay rent or buy a sandwich. And then the bank goes around making 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loans: Homeowners could never borrow money from me for 30 years, because I might need the money for a sandwich tomorrow, but they can borrow from us collectively because the bank has diversified that liquidity risk among lots of depositors.
Or the bank makes small-business loans to businesses that might go bankrupt: Those businesses could never borrow from me, because I need the money and don’t want to take the risk of losing it, but they can borrow from us collectively because the bank has diversified that credit risk among lots of depositors and also lots of borrowers.
But the basic problem remains: the confidence trick, where trust in banks makes them trustworthy and distrust in banks makes them fail.
Bankers and bank regulators tend not to talk in these terms... because talking about it ruins the magic. But they know it in their bones; at a deep level they understand that preserving that confidence is their most important job.
More specifically they know that if there is a run on a bank, and that bank goes bust and doesn’t pay depositors, then there will be a run on other banks. And they know that the run can start with a bank that is bad, that is undercapitalized and made poor decisions and in some sense deserves to fail, but that it can spread to other banks that are good.
And they know that “good” and “bad” are not really the things that matter: What makes a bank good is not just its capital ratios and liquidity position but also confidence, and however good the ratios it is hard for a bank to survive a loss of confidence. They know that they are all interconnected, that they are players in an essentially social game, and that the goal of the game is not to win but to keep playing.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla