For those not familiar, and those who will soon wish they were not.
That was NOT a serious question. Rather...
FD1000 is a constant troll of mine who is Living in the Past (Thanks, Jethro!) , desperately trying to discredit me wherever he goes, with whatever vague, twisted memory he might still retain from years of our joint posting activity on several forums.
He appears to have no life other than his inherently flawed and underperforming Yugo Racing Scheme, while trying to sell his wares on whatever forum allows his continued participation. Sadly he somehow still however finds the time for daily trolling of my posts. If he would have just done what he daily tells "Average Joe Investor" to do, buy and hold an S&P index fund, he'd likely have twice the net worth he currently has. A tall glass of FOMO juice would have served him well. It's truly sad.
FWIW, I currently have a smallish 5-yr CD ladder yanking down 3.35% APY. All proceeds from maturing CDs over the past several years have been rolled into stocks. The ladder was started after early retirement at age 56 to bridge the Red Zone divide. It's done its job exactly as meticulously planned and has been being liquidated for several years.
For 30+ years I was 99% stocks. That dropped to ~60/40 in the coupla years prior to retirement. Since retirement I have always maintained an acceptable % in stocks but increased that to a significant % since the 2020 crash. I've posted all that several times on several forums, but somehow selective memory and ill intent can get in the way of some posters.

The Fed released its 6-month risk assessment yesterday. Here’s a short excerpt from the story in today’s (11/9) Wall Street Journal. The note on some types of money market mutual funds / cash management vehicles / bond and bank loan mutual funds is interesting. I’m wondering if that’s primarily in the institutional variety or whether there’s concern at the retail level?
Article - “Fed Says U.S. Public Health Among Biggest Near -Term Risks to Financial System”
“Asset prices may be vulnerable to significant declines should risk appetite fall, progress on containing the virus disappoint, or the recovery stall,” the central bank said in its semiannual Financial Stability Report. Still, other parts of the financial system appear resilient. Banks remain well capitalized, the central bank said, and key measures of vulnerability from business and household debt have largely returned to pre-pandemic levels. “Little evidence exists of widespread erosion in mortgage underwriting standards or speculative practices,” the report said. “However, with valuations at high levels, house prices could be particularly sensitive to shocks.” he Fed also warned that structural vulnerabilities persist in some types of money-market mutual funds and other cash-management vehicles, as well as in bond and bank loan mutual funds. The vulnerabilities could amplify shocks to the financial system in times of stress, as they have in prior crises, the central bank said. Fed officials monitor asset prices to gauge risks that a sudden, sharp decline might pose to the broader financial system.
Personal note: I recall that decades back some government bond funds experienced serious stress after making bets on interest rates that didn’t materialize, Recently (according to another WSJ article) some hedge funds have experienced big losses after betting that long term rates would rise when in fact those longer rates (out to 30 years) have been falling (here and abroad) in recent weeks.

@stillers - thanks for the response. I DID buy MSSMX at the high this year but have no issue holding on to it and it's volatility. It's delivered over the LT. I was just looking for more color as to why MFO rated it so low for 1 year when the returns were so high etc.
Really like the performance of DMCRX but its closed to investors and I prefer my two over ARTSX and BUFSX. So, I'm certainly inclined to let them ride for a while. But always curious and open to learn about alternate opinions on funds.
Edit Add: WAMVX looks like an interesting one to look closer at. High ER but remarkable returns over the years. Wish I could view my WAMCX in Fidelity Research but not anymore as its N/A to retail. Never saw a notice on it.

Agreed, a distinct TIN (EIN/SSN) would seem to be sufficient.
No need to go through the process of creating an LLC. An EIN can be assigned to any business. I have an EIN as a sole proprietor - it's required to have an individual 401(k).
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-does-sole-proprietor-need-ein.html
That said, my sole proprietorship is legitimate - in random years I collect a bit of income (1099-MISC) doing consulting work. There are issues in declaring oneself a business without attempting to make a profit - see hobby vs. business. I don't know whether one similarly needs to be running a real business to use its EIN.

@stillers
Sorry for the slow response. I have looked at several managed futures over the years, including AHLPX AQMNX AMFAX CSAAX, but not PQTAX.
AHLPX is the clear winner with better performance ( 42% vs -3% 26% and 25% with better risk metrics than my previous choices, although PQTAX is running about equal. PTQAX has only recently caught up ( last year outperformed by 5%) by a significant outpreformance in 2021
M* still has a "human" analysis of AHLPX
"Man AHL (this strategy’s subadvisor) predominantly uses a systematic momentum-based approach that aims to profit from trends in prices across various markets and provide uncorrelated returns. The approach looks for trends across a two-month timeframe, on average, which is shorter than the typical peer in the managed futures Morningstar Category. That can reduce the strategy’s drawdowns in fast-moving markets relative to peers that are slower to adjust. The strategy’s responsiveness was on display during the first quarter of 2020, for instance, when markets took a sharp turn. It returned a healthy 7.8% during the quarter, outperforming the category average return by nearly 7 percentage points."
It is hard to determine how they differ in portfolio, and I haven't delved into that much, as up-to-date data is hard to find, and they change positions frequently.
In the past I have read that the usual reasons for these funds performance is if they guess the trend in interest rates properly.
Both seem to be better diversifiers than TMRSX as the latter fund has not delivered much with a correlation to the SP500 of .61, while managed futures are both - 0.15

I agree opt out programs significantly increase participation rates above that of opt in programs. They may be the most effective way of boosting participation. However there is the danger of unintended consequences for lower income workers that tax credits or some other form of subsidy could mitigate.
From the same report, pp. 24-25:

Authorize Automatic IRAs at the Federal Level
...
Advocates of automatic IRA efforts cite that the coverage gap between workers with and without pension coverage will decrease and that increased savings will reduce the burden on future social assistance programs. In addition, some researchers found that automatic IRAs implemented early on in individuals’ careers could increase retirement income for between two-thirds and one-half of individuals in the lowest quarter of the income distribution at age 70.
Others caution that automatically enrolling lower-income individuals into savings plans may have unintended consequences. For example, increased savings could result in decreased standards of living during working years and could result in disqualification from means-tested governments programs (e.g., losing Medicaid eligibility due to mandatory withdrawals in retirement). One study found that automatic enrollment in retirement accounts may cause increases in auto loans and first lien mortgage balances. Another found that automatic enrollment may not necessarily have large impacts on household net worth over time.

Its too soon for me to be certain its different this time. But, the global central banks have been astute and activist enough in recent years to keep investors engaged and satisfied -- garden variety stock market corrections excepted. Accommodative global fiscal policies also made important contributions to this outcome during the past couple of years. Current and projected economic conditions suggest this recent trend could continue through 2022. That said, I suspect any future stock market gains through 2022 will be more modest and will be more interrupted along the way than they have thus far been in 2021.

@lynnbolin2021,
Looking forward to your next MFO article..should be interesting as always....
Curious as to your thoughts for addition in the "all-weather" approach regarding funds such as:
PVCMX Palm Valley Capital Fund. Invests generally in small cap value co's, high quality, strong balance sheets, strong free cash flow, profitable co's. Not afraid to hold cash in market bubbles (whatever that means anymore) Absolute return focused.
TANDX (Castle Tandem Fund) Invests in Large cap, growing dividend payers, that are capable of growing earning regardless of economic conditions, not afraid to hold cash if need be, does not make market call to go to cash, only if can't find the appropriate value in a stock
Trying to look forward as to what may come rather than backwards look at performance, data etc.
Very intrigued by BLNDX/REMIX as mentioned by Prof David, have initiated starter position.
If you would, please define your interpretation of what "all weather" means from your viewpoint.
Is it a marketing term, maybe overused like ESG, maybe nebulous terminology or maybe not?
Mine is of a fund that you could have significant holdings of your wealth and hold thru a 30-40% drawdown in the markets, while sleeping well and having the confidence that the fund mgmt will make the right decisions over the next few years. Also, do like funds that have a succession planning in place...no funds with the boomer aged guru with no protege learning and next in line etc.
I also define as all weather fund as a fund that could compete when compared with a 45% SPY/55 SCHO ETF backwards look performance wise...most can't, no?
Best to all, I enjoy your postings, makes me think...
Baseball Fan

I have been looking at TUHYX for high yield corporate exposure. I've been following TRP for nearly 20 years but casually monitoring their fixed income products. I had forgotten that they brought in the team for TUHYX and have 2 HY offerings. Also, looking at PYHRX and PBHAX.

David, thanks for posting your research on REMIX. I compared REMIX to FMSDX, looks good...see https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?REMIX,FMSDX&n=455&O=011000
Would love to hear Lynn Bolin's take on this fund as well. I am continuing to look for "defensive" funds that can offer decent returns, and was happy to discover REMIX here.
TIA,
Rick

Hi Rick, After reading David's article, I researched REMIX. It comes close to my minimum criteria of two years of age and $100M in assets. I compared it to other funds that I track. I placed an order to allocate 5% of one of my portfolios to REMIX, and plan to buy a little more. I like its relative smooth performance. It joins CTFAX, CRAAX, FMSDX, FSRRX, and TMSRX, among others, in my attempt to build an "All Weather" portfolio.
This portfolio is the subject of my next MFO article.
Lynn

I’m also thankful to have the write-up on REMIX. Last year I committed a hefty sum to TMSRX, thinking I’d be satisfied if it out-performed cash. What I discovered was that I was less than thrilled with performance of 0.94% YTD ... .

“I feel your pain.”
But TMSRX has averaged 6.60% annual over 3 years - if my Lipper board is to be believed. That’s ahead of most measures of inflation over that period. We’ll see how it behaves if the winds (moving equities) ever shift direction. FWIW, I balance-out TMSRX in my (33%) alternative sleeve with PRPFX and ABRZX, both of which have held their own.

@hank said,

But I’d have more money if I’d sunk 100% in PRWCX 25 years ago and followed with a “RipVanWinkle” act!

I stand at the launch pad of retirement (age 62) thinking that PRWCX, VWINX and a little Cash will provide a safe withdrawal (different than a safe withdrawal rate) in the first ten years of retirement. I am positioning about 1/3 of my portfolio in these two funds (plus 1 year of cash equivalent withdrawals). My hope is to derive both growth and income from these positions.
The remaining 2/3 will hopefully not be needed for 10 years and will be invested for growth (to help fund year 72 - year 92 ). Along the way, I hope to reallocate gains from this long term bucket back into these 2 funds (and replenish cash). I will deal with down markets by withdrawing a little less since I have other reliable monthly income. I am a fan of withdrawing fixed percentages rather than fix dollar amounts and letting the market dictate the ups and downs of the actual dollar amount (withdrawal).
A 4% withdrawal (based on the entire portfolio) from a fund like VWINX which has a MAXXDD of about 10% would mean a withdrawal haircut in a very bad year that equates to 3.6% (10% off of 4%). I can live with that as a number to plan around. I feel VWINX will work well in conjunction with cash (as an alternative withdrawal source) giving VWINX a 1 year recovery time if we have a MAXDD event. PRWCX will remain a 5 - 10 year position that will be milked or kept out to pasture depending on what the market offers. PRWCX's milk will be refrigerated into VWINX and Cash as needed.
Long time (2/3 of my portfolio) I want to invest in trends....healthcare, tech, and consumerism...trying to own the very best funds and the very best fund managers.

I’ve never seen such heightened speculation across the wide investment spectrum. There’s been spec before - but I fear the new crop of retail investors is unprepared for what may happen. Should we worry? Not a lot. But a good analogy might be driving 70-80 mph on a crowed interstate surrounded by other nearby vehicles operated by drunks or folks who aren’t watching the road. All can seem perfectly “normal” until someone begins swerving out of control and brake lights begin flashing in every direction. In the end, everyone pays for the excesses of a few.
Noteworthy among small retail investors, there’s significant leverage being employed. And there has arisen a plethora self-made internet gurus who amass large followings ready to pounce on their next recommendation - or perhaps sell some hapless stock all on the same day. As the M* piece notes, markets can remain in a state of elevated exuberance for years or even decades. But, if history is a guide, the eventual declines can last for years at a time and be brutally painful.
I can’t recall such wild swings in the value of some assets. Energy stands out to me, with crude oil futures going negative in early 2020 and than rapidly gaining about $140 per barrel to $86 about 15 months later. This leads me to believe there’s a lot of hot money chasing assets. If it’s happening to oil, it’s likely happening to other assets. Can’t even get my head around crypto. But it makes the above mentioned swings in oil meager by comparison. Jamie Dimon, head of J.P. Morgan, is no idiot. His assessment is that Bitcoin is worthless.
There’s notably less public concern today than in the late 90s before the “tech-wreck” which saw the NASDAQ drop about 50% in a matter of days, while dragging down other markets along with it. It was more than a decade before the NASDAQ got back to its 2000:high. Where is Alan Greenspan with his “irrational exuberance” warnings of the late 90s? Or Vanguard with its “Trees don’t grow to the sky” cautionary statement to its investors around than?
What to do? Anybody’s guess. None of us can predict the future. Saying that many assets are in speculative territory does not lead to any particular solution. Some of the answer resides in age, risk tolerance and individual skill-set. Some in ancillary issues like pension, home ownership, dependents, life style. A good portion of the answer, however, resides in one’s macro view of how things will evolve going forward. For example, one view is that asset prices will eventually deflate. Another view says paper currencies will be devalued (thru price inflation) making today’s asset prices reasonable. Politics (often heated) here and abroad, has also become an ingredient to be reckoned with when trying to assess the macro view. And there exists, too, a middle road on which there may be winners and losers. We tend to segregate “investments” into domestic stocks and bonds. Simplistic of course. That overlooks potentially attractive foreign markets. And there are assets like real estate, commodities, infrastructure, floating rate loans, gold and silver; as well as derivatives like puts, calls, options, futures that a skilled professional can use to advantage or to reduce overall risk in heated markets. Funds that lean on such approaches have been highlighted recently in the MFO commentary. While I own some such funds, I don’t find them particularly worthy of note.

@hank
Better keep and buy more bonds. They do have positive returns, even into the negative yield zone; as with German Bunds.
Would be nice to be so prescient and and confident as the folks who are able to see into the future of 10 years, or whatever.

The Bank of America has now joined the “dead for the long term” party. They now project that the S&P 500 will return somewhere between zero and a bit below zero annually for they next ten years. That’s perfectly in line with Research Affiliates’ projection of a negative 0.5% annual return for the broad US stock market and wildly more optimistic than GMO’s regression-driven estimate of negative 7% annual returns for the next seven years.
Brings to mind “If a tree falls in the forest ...” :)
Regards

I didn't interpret your comment that way.
Speaking from experience, sometimes doing nothing is the best option but it may be difficuilt not to tinker.
I believe Jack Bogle said: ""

Re; “Don‘t Do Something - Just Stand There!”
David has used the expression with effect in one or more of his Commentaries.
Bogle was a class act. Would like to have heard his take on today’s markets. While I tinker a lot, fortunately it’s with only 2-3% of assets - just around the edges. Enjoy it. But I’d have more money if I’d sunk 100% in PRWCX 25 years ago and followed with a “RipVanWinkle” act!

Uranium prices have jumped a lot recently, as new meme stock traders have suddenly gotten interested in trading shares of the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust, symbol SRUUF on OTCMKTS, or U-U.TO on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Relationship of Uranium and Gold.
Uranium’s Message For Gold into 2022

The message from uranium prices is that gold prices are headed higher. And I have no idea why this relationship works.
Six years ago, I uncovered an interesting leading indication relationship, wherein the movements of uranium prices tend to show up again about 7 months later in the movements of gold prices. I cannot think of any reason why this should matter for gold prices, nor why 7 months seems to be the magical lag time.

weekly_chart/uraniums_message_for_gold_into_2022

I have tried a number of different managed futures funds over the years, and find that AHLPX has the best track record. BLNDX has beaten it with about the same risk, but I assume that is because BLNDX can use equities.
M* says BLNDX started in 1/2020 and lost 8% during Covid, beating other hedged equity funds like JHQAX and GATEX, as you might suspect. AHLPX made money that month, however.
Another MFO hedging favorite CTFAX also lost 9%
Lots of different ways to hedge the downside, but it is hard to predict in advance which one will be most effective.

I rarely own Alternative funds but have again been scoping some recently. So please bear with me with this question.
AHLPX is in the same Alternatives subcategory of "Systemic Trends" as PQTAX. Not sure of their respective managed futures exposures and portfolios could be significantly different,
That said, if it were me deciding between the two, all performance metrics I usually review would point me to selecting PQTAX over AHLPX. Volatility is not as an important a metric to me as I subscribe to the axiom of a venerable, former M* who routinely reminded us, "Volatility is the price you pay for growth."
Could/would you have time to compare/contrast these two funds, especially their holdings which are a wee bit above my pay grade, and state why you would/did select AHLPX over PQTAX.
TIA and understand if not interested in responding.

I have tried a number of different managed futures funds over the years, and find that AHLPX has the best track record. BLNDX has beaten it with about the same risk, but I assume that is because BLNDX can use equities.
M* says BLNDX started in 1/2020 and lost 8% during Covid, beating other hedged equity funds like JHQAX and GATEX, as you might suspect. AHLPX made money that month, however.
Another MFO hedging favorite CTFAX also lost 9%
Lots of different ways to hedge the downside, but it is hard to predict in advance which one will be most effective.

Came across this elsewhere. Thought I’d pass it along.
Story on I Bonds
READ the conditions. The rate is guaranteed only for the first 6 months before it resets. Must keep for 1 year. 3 months penalty if redeemed in under 5 years. Taxes apply when redeemed.